CAR_Public/140910.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 180

                             Headlines


7-ELEVEN INC: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
ABBVIE INC: Defendant in Niaspan Antitrust Litigation
ABBVIE INC: Court Dismisses RICO Claims in Sidney Hillman Suit
ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs' AndroGel Claims in Discovery
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Upheld Class Cert in Overtime Case

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION: Recognized Gains From Class Action
ATLANTIC POWER: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Shareholder Class Suits
ATLANTIC POWER: March 2015 Hearing in Ontario Class Action
ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015
AUDIENCE INC: Faces IPO Class Action in California Superior Court

AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Actions Over QLT Merger
AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: 37 Actions Filed Over TRT Products
BANK OF AMERICA: Antitrust MDL Over Credit Default Swaps Advances
BAYER AG: Siskinds LLP Launches Class Action Over Pesticides
BCB BANCORP: Final Resolution Pursued in "Kube" Class Action

BCB BANCORP: Sued Insurer for Indemnification in "Kube" Action
BOULDER BRANDS: Settled "Fat Free Milk" Suits for $0.3 Million
BOULDER BRANDS: Sued Over Butter & Canola Oil Blend Products
BOUYGUES CIVIL: Removed "Bermudez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Due

CARLYLE GROUP: Oral Arguments Held on Class Cert Bid
CARLYLE GROUP: Appeals Court Affirmed Dismissal of Complaints
CELERA CORP: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $25 Million
DYNEGY INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Stockholder Suit
DYNEGY INC: Oral Arguments Not Yet Set in Supreme Court Appeal

EB & JB CORP: Moved "Abreu" Suit to Southern District of Florida
ENERGY TRANSFER: MOU Reached in Suits Over PVR Merger
ENERGY TRANSFER: Suit Filed Over Acquisition of Eagle Rock Assets
ENSIGN GROUP: Settlement Costs Projected to be $6.5 Million
EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooke et al. Class Suits

EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Weelden et al Class Suits
FAIRWAY GROUP: Amended Securities Class Action Filed
FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit
FOSTER WHEELER: Faces Class Actions Over AMEC Plc Acquisition
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action

GDF SUEZ: Fire Inquiry Raises Serious Questions Over Conduct
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Get C$1.9MM Fees in Class Action
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Faces Class Suit in Western District of Arkansas
GOLD RESOURCE: Dismissal of Securities Litigation on Appeal
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settled Suit Over Financial Statements

JFK MEDICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Suit Over Exborbitant PIP Fees
KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action Over Primedia Sale
KKR & CO: Class Actions in Georgia State Courts Remain Stayed
KKR & CO: P/E Firms Inked Definitive Agreement to Settle Claims
KKR & CO: Chancery Court Heard Oral Arguments on Dismissal Bid

KODIAK OIL: "Booth" Suit Removed to Colorado District Court
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: 62 Cases Pending Over Coal Tar Pitch Exposure
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Nov. 21 Deadline to Complete Class Discovery
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Consolidated Class Action in Preliminary Stage
LHC GROUP: Approval of Class Action Settlement Pending

LINN ENERGY: Settlement Fund Distribution Seen Later This Year
LINN ENERGY: SDNY Court Dismissed Combined Actions in July
LINN ENERGY: Briefing and Hearing on Class Cert. Not Yet Set
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Sued Over Excessive "Water-Tapping Fees"
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wins Initial Approval of $60-Mil. Settlement

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Duration of Scholarships
NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in Bais Yaakov Action
NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Zaw" Action
NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Keating" Action
NINE WEST: Disciplined Ex-Worker on Spurious Charges, Suit Says

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
OSCAR O. REY: Removed "Pastrana" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Granted
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Class Action Remains Stayed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed ADR-Related Complaint

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Sought in Sterling Heights Case
QUORUM HEALTH: Trial Begins in Malpractice Case v. Schlicht
REACHLOCAL INC: Former Client Files Class Action in Calif.
ROBERT MCDONNELL: Convicted of Conspiracy and Public Corruption
STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Case Dismissal

TENNESSEE: Class Certified in Suit Over TennCare Delays
TRAVELLOOGA LLC: Removed "Wright" Suit to Florida District Court
UNI-PIXEL INC: To Defend Against Texas Class Action
UNI-PIXEL INC: Reported Decrease in Legal Expense
UNILEVER US: Judge Trims Deceptive Labeling Class Action

UNITED EGG: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Sale of Eggs & Egg Products
US BANK: Sued for Duping Homebuyers by Giving High-Interest Loans
US BANK: Unlawfully Charges Forced Placed Insurance, Suit Claims
WARNER MUSIC: Suits Over Digital Music Downloads in Discovery
WARNER MUSIC: Jan. 2015 Final Hearing on Royalties Suit Accord

YELP INC: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Revive User Reviews Class Action

* Surgical "Black Box" May Spur Wave of Malpractice Concerns


                            *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Refused to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Garcia v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Armando's Service Station,
Incorporated, Sarah Brito, and Hassan Rahal, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23241-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 3, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay the
Plaintiff wages at a rate of time and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for each of the overtime hours she worked during the
relevant time period.

7-Eleven, Inc., is a sui juris Texas for-profit business with
multiple places of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, that
conducts its for-profit business in Florida.  Armandos Service
Station, Incorporated, is a sui juris Florida for-profit business
with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.  Sarah Brito is the owner and operator of Armandos.
Hassan Rahal is the owner and operator of a 7-Eleven convenience
store.  The Defendants sell produce, foodstuffs, beverages, goods,
supplies and products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABBVIE INC: Defendant in Niaspan Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
AbbVie 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 lawsuits have been filed against
AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent
litigation settlement involving Niaspan(R) entered into between
Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott
Laboratories in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a
generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and
state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment
laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees. In September 2013, all of these
pending putative class action lawsuits were centralized for
consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as In re Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.
AbbVie develops and markets advanced therapies that address some
of the world's most complex and serious diseases. AbbVie products
are used to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including
rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; HIV;
endometriosis; thyroid disease; Parkinson's disease; and
complications associated with chronic kidney disease and cystic
fibrosis, among other health conditions such as low testosterone.
AbbVie also has a pipeline of promising new medicines, including
more than 20 compounds or indications in Phase II or Phase III
development across such important medical specialties as
immunology, virology/liver disease, oncology, renal disease,
neurological diseases and women's health.


ABBVIE INC: Court Dismisses RICO Claims in Sidney Hillman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie 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 putative class action lawsuit,
Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc.,
et al., was filed in August 2013 against AbbVie in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by
three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of federal
RICO statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust
enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses
of Depakote from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages
and/or equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

On May 12, 2014, the court granted AbbVie's motion to dismiss the
federal RICO claims. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction
over the remaining state law claims and dismissed them on that
basis. AbbVie's motion for reconsideration asking the court to
exercise jurisdiction and dismiss the state law claims on the
merits is pending.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.
AbbVie develops and markets advanced therapies that address some
of the world's most complex and serious diseases. AbbVie products
are used to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including
rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; HIV;
endometriosis; thyroid disease; Parkinson's disease; and
complications associated with chronic kidney disease and cystic
fibrosis, among other health conditions such as low testosterone.
AbbVie also has a pipeline of promising new medicines, including
more than 20 compounds or indications in Phase II or Phase III
development across such important medical specialties as
immunology, virology/liver disease, oncology, renal disease,
neurological diseases and women's health.


ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs' AndroGel Claims in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie 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 several pending lawsuits filed
against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as
AbbVie Products LLC) and others were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under the Multi District Litigation Rules as
In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases,
brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving
AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement
agreement and related agreements with three generic companies
violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek
monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. MDL
2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) seven
purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. , filed in May 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs'
claims, the FTC's appeal led to its claim regarding the patent
litigation settlement being reinstated.  In February 2014, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded
the private plaintiffs' claims regarding the patent litigation
settlement, which are proceeding with the FTC's in discovery in
the district court.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.
AbbVie develops and markets advanced therapies that address some
of the world's most complex and serious diseases. AbbVie products
are used to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including
rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; HIV;
endometriosis; thyroid disease; Parkinson's disease; and
complications associated with chronic kidney disease and cystic
fibrosis, among other health conditions such as low testosterone.
AbbVie also has a pipeline of promising new medicines, including
more than 20 compounds or indications in Phase II or Phase III
development across such important medical specialties as
immunology, virology/liver disease, oncology, renal disease,
neurological diseases and women's health.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Upheld Class Cert in Overtime Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit refused on September 3, 2014, to decertify a class
of workers who say that Allstate Insurance required California
claim adjustors to work unpaid overtime, reports Elizabeth
Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Allstate shifted all of its California-based claims adjusters from
salaried positions to hourly status in 2005.  Instead of having
the adjusters keep time records, however, Allstate empowers the
manager of each of the 13 local offices "to file a timekeeping
'exception' or 'deviation' from the default expectation of 8 hours
per day and 40 hours per week," lead plaintiff Jack Jimenez
claimed.

Each office has a non-negotiable compensation budget, however, so
the amount of overtime a manager may approve is allegedly
functionally limited.  Jimenez wanted to represent a class
alleging that Allstate did not pay overtime to current and former
California-based claims adjusters, did not pay adjusters for
missed meal breaks, and did not timely pay wages upon termination.
He also alleged that Allstate committed acts of unfair
competition.

U.S. District Court Judge John Kronstadt certified the class with
respect to the unpaid overtime, timely payment and unfair
competition claims.  He found that the question of whether
Allstate had an "unofficial policy" of denying overtime while
requiring overtime work was common among potential class members,
and that the issue predominated over any individualized matters,
such as damages a particular class member might be able to prove.

Affirming on September 3, 2014, a three-judge panel with the 9th
Circuit said the three common questions identified have the
capacity to drive the resolution of the litigation.

"First, the District Court found that the plaintiffs' arguments
had raised the common question of whether the class had worked
unpaid overtime as a result of 'defendant's unofficial policy of
discouraging reporting of such overtime, defendant's failure to
reduce class members' workload after the reclassification, and
defendant's policy of treating their pay as salaries for which
overtime was an 'exception," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the
court in Pasadena.

Resolving whether Allstate knew that the class was working unpaid
overtime could also show whether Allstate is liable, and the third
common question is whether "defendants stood idly by."

"The District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that these three common questions contained the 'glue' necessary
to say that 'examination of all the class members' claim for
relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question[s]'
raised by the plaintiffs' complaint," Gould wrote.

Relying on statistical-sampling testimony to show classwide
liability also does not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Duke, which entitles employers
"to individualized determination of each employee's eligibility
for backpay," the panel found.

Since that decision, "circuit courts including this one have
consistently held that statistical sampling and representative
testimony are acceptable ways to determine liability so long as
the use of these techniques is not expanded into the realm of
damages," Gould wrote.

In this case, "the District Court was careful to preserve
Allstate's opportunity to raise any individualized defense it
might have at the damages phase of the proceedings," he added.
"It rejected the plaintiffs' motion to use representative
testimony and sampling at the damages phase, and bifurcated the
proceedings.  This split preserved both Allstate's due process
right to present individualized defenses to damages claims and the
plaintiffs' ability to pursue class certification on liability
issues based on the common questions of whether Allstate's
practices or informal policies violated California labor law."

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Alexander R. Wheeler
          R. Rex Parris
          Kitty Szeto
          Jacob L. Karczewski
          John M. Bickford
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 465-4046
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: awheeler@rrexparris.com
                  kszeto@rrexparris.com
                  jacoblee333@yahoo.com
                  jbickford@rrexparris.com

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          James M. Harris, Esq.
          Andrew M. Paley, Esq.
          Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq.
          John R. Giovannone, Esq.
          Kiran Aftab Seldon, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          One Century Plaza, Suite 3500
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmharris@seyfarth.com
                  apaley@seyfarth.com
                  sskibbe@seyfarth.com
                  jgiovannone@seyfarth.com
                  kseldon@seyfarth.com

Amici Curiae The Consumer Attorneys of California, California
Employment Lawyers Association, and The Impact Fund are
represented by:

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          KREINDLER & KREINDLER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-6469
          E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          ARBOGAST BOWEN LLP
          11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2309
          E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com

The appellate case is Jack Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellee v. Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 12-56112, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Jack
Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 2:10-cv-08486-JAK-
FFM, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION: Recognized Gains From Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen 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 numerous class
action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand
pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by
itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay
or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  The Company
has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class actions, but
has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those
purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical
manufacturers).  None of the class actions have gone to trial, but
some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds
from the settlement funds.

During the three and nine months ended June 30, 2014, the Company
recognized gains of $2.5 million and $24.4 million, respectively,
relating to the class action lawsuits.  During the three and nine
months ended June 30, 2013, the Company recognized gains of $6.0
million and $21.7 million, respectively, relating to the class
action lawsuits.  These gains, which are net of attorney fees and
estimated payments due to other parties, were recorded as
reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's consolidated
statements of operations.

The Company is one of the largest global pharmaceutical sourcing
and distribution services companies, helping both healthcare
providers and pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturers improve
patient access to products and enhance patient care.


ATLANTIC POWER: Seeks Dismissal of U.S. Shareholder Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 March 8, 14, 15 and
25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported securities fraud class
action complaints were filed by alleged investors in Atlantic
Power common shares in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (the "District Court") against Atlantic
Power and Barry E. Welch, our President and Chief Executive
Officer and a Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions,
and, in addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch,
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, former
interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, current Chief
Financial Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed
Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the
"Proposed Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions").

The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named
plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23,
2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and
August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District
Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic
Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint.

On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to
consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel
confirmed.

On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed
oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June
6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in
support of their respective motions.

On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to
address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions,
entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed
two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental
submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions,
and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court
granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were
filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates.

In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed an application and proposed order, which sought an extension
of the schedule contained in the joint motion. The application and
proposed order requested that: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before May 30, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before July 29, 2014, (iii)
Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or
before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 13, 2014.

Proposed Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by
Lead Plaintiff.

On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and
proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule,
and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants
jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the
following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014,
(iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any,
on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 20, 2014.

On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested
schedule.

On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints.

Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common
share dividend, which artificially inflated the price of Atlantic
Power's common shares during the class period. The Amended
Complaint continues to assert claims under Section 10(b) and,
against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. It also asserts a
claim for unjust enrichment against the Individual Defendants.

In accordance with the schedule, Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss the consolidated U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not
yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions.
Because the U.S. Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic Power
is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this litigation.  Atlantic Power
intends to defend vigorously against the actions.

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.


ATLANTIC POWER: March 2015 Hearing in Ontario Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 March 19, 2013,
April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices of action relating
to Canadian securities class action claims against the Proposed
Defendants were also issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power
common shares, and in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic
Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in the Province of Ontario.  On April 17, May 22, and June
7, 2013 statements of claim relating to the notices of action were
filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province
of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry.

As in the U.S. Action, this claim names the Company, Barry E.
Welch and Terrence Ronan as Defendants. The Plaintiffs seeks leave
to commence an action for statutory misrepresentation under the
Ontario Securities Act and asserts common law claims for
misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs' allegations focus on among
other things, claims the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in Atlantic Power's press
releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with
analysts and investors, regarding the sustainability of Atlantic
Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price
of Atlantic Power's common shares. The Plaintiffs seek to certify
the statutory and common law claims under the Class Proceedings
Act for security holders who purchased and held securities through
a proposed class period of November 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million.

The Defendants are preparing materials to contest leave and
certification.

A schedule for the Plaintiffs' motions and the action is set that
contemplates a hearing on leave and certification during the week
of March 30, 2015.

The plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated their alleged
statutory damages at $197.4 million.

Because the Canadian Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic
Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from this litigation. Atlantic Power
intends to defend vigorously against each of the actions.

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.


ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 April 8, 2013, a
similar claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common
shares seeking to initiate a class action against the Proposed
Defendants was filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the
Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

The proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30, 2015
to follow the action in Ontario.

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.


AUDIENCE INC: Faces IPO Class Action in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audience 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 shareholder
filed on September 13, 2012, a class action complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County
against the Company, the members of its board of directors, two of
its executive officers and the underwriters of its IPO. An amended
complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purports to be
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors
and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended
complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by
filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
court overruled that demurrer.  On March 27, 2013, defendants
filed a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other
grounds. The Court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously contest the action.
However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense and it cannot currently estimate a range
of any possible losses the Company may experience in connection
with this case. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to
estimate the effects of this complaint on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

Audience Inc. is a provider of intelligent voice and audio
solutions that improve voice quality and the user experience in
mobile devices.


AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Actions Over QLT Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Auxilium 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 July 21, 2014,
James Novak, an alleged shareholder of Auxilium, filed suit in the
Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, against
Auxilium's Board of Directors, seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger between Auxilium and QLT Inc. on the grounds that the Board
of Directors of Auxilium breached their fiduciary duties by
approving a proposed transaction with QLT that purportedly does
not reflect the true value of Auxilium. The complaint also names
as defendants Auxilium, QLT, Holdco and Merger Sub for allegedly
aiding and abetting the Board of Directors' purported breach of
fiduciary duty.

On July 25, 2014, Raymon Hall, an alleged shareholder of Auxilium,
filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking to enjoin the
proposed merger with QLT on the grounds that the Board of
Directors of Auxilium breached their fiduciary duties by approving
a proposed transaction that purportedly does not reflect the true
value of Auxilium. Plaintiff has also brought suit against QLT,
Holdco and Merger Sub for allegedly aiding and abetting the
Auxilium directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty.

On July 28, 2014, James Wernicke, an alleged shareholder of
Auxilium, filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas against the
Auxilium Board of Directors, seeking to enjoin the proposed merger
between Auxilium and QLT on the grounds that the Auxilium Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed
transaction with QLT that purportedly does not reflect the true
value of the Auxilium. The complaint also names as defendants
Auxilium and QLT for allegedly aiding and abetting the Auxilium
Board of Directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty.

Auxilium and QLT intend to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.


AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: 37 Actions Filed Over TRT Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Auxilium 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 as of July 31,
2014, Auxilium was involved in 37 individual civil actions related
to its testosterone therapy replacement ("TRT") products, Testim
and TESTOPEL, wherein the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
bodily injury and, in some cases, wrongful death, based on
theories of strict liability, fraud and inadequacy of the product
warning labels. The first complaint was served on Auxilium on
February 27, 2014, shortly after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") announced that it had commenced a safety
investigation into TRT products. These lawsuits have been filed in
certain federal and state courts.

In several of the complaints filed against Auxilium, Auxilium is
named as a co-defendant with certain of its competitors who also
sell TRT products such as AbbVie Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Endo
International Plc and Pfizer Inc. and, in one complaint, with its
former co-promotion partner, GlaxoSmithKline LLC.  In four of the
lawsuits in which Auxilium is a co-defendant, DPT Laboratories,
Inc. ("DPT") and Contract Pharmaceuticals Limited Canada ("CPL"),
both contract manufacturers of Testim, have also been named as co-
defendants.

Pursuant to the terms of Auxilium's respective manufacturing
agreements with DPT and CPL, Auxilium has acknowledged a duty to
indemnify and defend DPT and CPL in these matters. Auxilium has
timely notified the carriers of those of its insurance policies
with coverage it believes is applicable to the liability of the
litigation related to its TRT products. Auxilium's primary insurer
has acknowledged that it has a duty to defend and indemnify
Auxilium with respect to the allegations made in plaintiffs'
complaints as originally filed with the relevant courts; it has,
however, reserved its rights to deny coverage on the basis of
certain allegations in the relevant complaints related to
dishonest, fraudulent, malicious or intentionally wrongful acts.

Additionally, similar lawsuits have been filed against other
manufacturers of TRT products. In some of these lawsuits, certain
parties have moved to request consolidation of various of the
existing lawsuits into a multi-district litigation or MDL.

On June 6, 2014, a Transfer Order was issued by the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation which created an
industry-wide MDL in the Northern District of Illinois with Judge
Kennelly presiding and captioned as In re: Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation ("TRT MDL"). The
Transfer Order further ordered that certain lawsuits be
transferred to the TRT MDL, upon consent of the transferring
court, for coordination or consolidation of pre-trial proceedings.

Based upon the number of similar complaints served on other
manufacturers of TRT products, Auxilium believes it is reasonable
to expect that Auxilium will be named as a defendant and/or co-
defendant in additional complaints.

The TRT-related complaints against Auxilium have only been filed
recently by the respective plaintiffs. None of the complaints
alleges specific damage amounts. Auxilium is investigating the
underlying causes of actions upon which the complaints are based.
Auxilium filed a Motion to Dismiss in the first-filed case, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Subsequently, the plaintiff in that case voluntarily withdrew his
lawsuit. Auxilium filed similar motions in other matters and are
in the process of preparing responses to the additional suits.

Auxilium intends to vigorously defend against the civil actions.
These pending matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through
discovery and/or development of important factual information and
legal issues to enable Auxilium to determine a loss, if any, is
probable. Auxilium is unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of loss for the legal proceedings described above.
Litigation is unpredictable and, while it is not possible to
accurately predict or determine the eventual outcomes of these
items, an adverse determination in one or more of these items
currently pending could have a material adverse effect on
Auxilium's consolidated results of operations, financial position
or cash flows. Auxilium has incurred and expects to continue to
incur significant legal fees in the defense of these actions,
which legal fees Auxilium currently expenses as incurred.


BANK OF AMERICA: Antitrust MDL Over Credit Default Swaps Advances
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve of the world's biggest banks must face antitrust claims
that they colluded to prevent an enterprise that would have
brought transparency and competition to the credit default swap
market, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling entered on September 4, 2014.

Los Angeles retirement fund led more than 10 plaintiffs in a class
action accusing about a dozen major banks, the International Swaps
and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and its data-service provider
Markit of antitrust violations.

The banks include Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas,
Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC,
JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS.

Filed in July 2013, the lawsuit landed in Federal Court weeks
after the European Commission found that the banks colluded to bar
exchanges from the risky credit default swap business.

In 2008, nonparties Citadel LLC and CME Group created a joint
venture known as the Credit Market Derivatives Exchange (CMDE), a
credit default swap clearinghouse and exchange designed to promote
transparency and competition.

Through secret meetings, email exchanges and telephones, the banks
conspired to shut it down before it hit the market, and they got
Markit and the ISDA to withhold licensing information, according
to the lawsuit.  The banks refused to deal with CMDE or similar
enterprises in favor of the one clearinghouse it could control:
ICE Clear Credit, the plaintiffs say.

In 2010, The New York Times blew the lid on the secret meetings,
and the Department of Justice investigated. The European
Commission's probe was announced the next year.  The banks, Markit
and ISDA tried to dismiss the lawsuit as untimely, unsupported and
lacking standing.

But U.S. District Judge Denise Cote allowed the claims to proceed,
in a 49-page opinion.

The defendants denied that they were in cahoots, calling the
behavior described in the complaint as the "independent, self-
interested conduct in reaction to the global financial crisis."

A skeptical Cote wrote: "The financial crisis hardly explains the
alleged secret meetings and coordinated actions. Nor does it
explain why ISDA and Markit simultaneously reversed course."

The class action "plausibly alleges an antitrust conspiracy in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act," Cote concluded.

Cote dismissed a claim under Section 2 of the act, which prohibits
attempting to form a monopoly.  "Here, the complaint does not
allege that the aim of defendants' conspiracy was to form a single
entity to possess monopoly power," she wrote.

The judge also limited damage claims to those after autumn 2008,
when the anticompetitive behavior is alleged to have occurred.
Claims for violations of the Clayton Act and Dodd-Frank and a
count of unjust enrichment were also allowed to proceed.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Markit did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          Justin T. Reinheimer, Esq.
          Nick T. Landsman-Roos, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  justinreinheimer@quinnemanuel.com
                  nicklandsmanroos@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          George S. Trevor, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  gtrevor@pswlaw.com
                  asheanin@pswlaw.com

Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America N.A.
are represented by:

          Robert F. Wise, Jr., Esq.
          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          Jeremy T. Adler, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 701-5800
          E-mail: robert.wise@davispolk.com
                  arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  jeremy.adler@davispolk.com

Defendant Barclays Bank PLC is represented by:

          Todd S. Fishman, Esq.
          Michael S. Feldberg, Esq.
          M. Elaine Johnston, Esq.
          ALLEN & OVERY LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 756-1130
          E-mail: todd.fishman@allenovery.com
                  michael.feldberg@allenovery.com
                  elaine.johnston@allenovery.com

Defendant BNP Paribas is represented by:

          David Esseks, Esq.
          Brian de Haan, Esq.
          ALLEN & OVERY LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 756-1130
          E-mail: david.esseks@allenovery.com
                  brian.dehaan@allenovery.com

               - and -

          John Terzaken, Esq.
          Molly Kelley, Esq.
          ALLEN & OVERY LLP
          1101 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 683-3877
          E-mail: john.terzaken@allenovery.com
                  molly.kelley@allenovery.com

Defendants Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Global
Markets Inc. are represented by:

          Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq.
          Eamon P. Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: bnagin@sidley.com
                  ejoyce@sidley.com

               - and -

          David F. Graham, Esq.
          David C. Giardina, Esq.
          Jennifer E. Novoselsky, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 S Dearborn St.
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com
                  dgiardina@sidley.com
                  jnovoselsky@sidley.com

Defendant Credit Suisse AG is represented by:

          J. Robert Robertson, Esq.
          Benjamin Holt, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com
                  benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank AG is represented by:

          David P. Wales, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 879-5451
          E-mail: dpwales@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Tracy V. Schaffer, Esq.
          Eric P. Stephens, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          222 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 326-3427
          E-mail: tschaffer@jonesday.com
                  epstephens@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Paula W. Render, Esq.
          Alex P. Middleton, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 269-4095
          E-mail: prender@jonesday.com
                  apmiddleton@jonesday.com

Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co. is represented by:

          Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq.
          Bradley P. Smith, Esq.
          Mark S. Geiger, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com
                  smithbr@sullcrom.com
                  geigerm@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Robert Y. Sperling, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: rsperling@winston.com

               - and -

          Seth Farber, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-4193
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: sfarber@winston.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth P. Papez, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 282-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 282-5100
          E-mail: epapez@winston.com

Defendants HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. are represented
by:

          Richard A. Spehr, Esq.
          Michael O. Ware, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1675 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
          E-mail: rspehr@mayerbrown.com
                  mware@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Marovitz, Esq.
          Britt M. Miller, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
          E-mail: amarovitz@mayerbrown.com
                  bmiller@mayerbrown.com

Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are
represented by:

          Peter E. Greene, Esq.
          Peter S. Julian, Esq.
          Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: peter.greene@skadden.com
                  peter.julian@skadden.com
                  boris.bershteyn@skadden.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 407-0508
          E-mail: patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com

Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is represented by:

          Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
          Daniel Slifkin, Esq.
          Michael A. Paskin, Esq.
          Vanessa A. Lavely, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
          E-mail: echesler@cravath.com
                  dslifkin@cravath.com
                  mpaskin@cravath.com
                  vlavely@cravath.com

Defendants UBS AG and UBS Securities LLC are represented by:

          David C. Bohan, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP
          525 W. Monroe St.
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 902-5200
          Facsimile: (312) 902-1061
          E-mail: david.bohan@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Calder, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 940-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 940-8776
          E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com

Defendants Royal Bank of Scotland PL and Royal Bank of Scotland
N.V. are represented by:

          Charles F. Rule, Esq.
          Joseph J. Bial, Esq.
          Amy W. Ray, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          700 6th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 862-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 862-2400
          E-mail: rick.rule@cwt.com
                  joseph.bial@cwt.com
                  amy.ray@cwt.com

Defendant International Swaps and Derivatives Association is
represented by:

          Matthew J. Reilly, Esq.
          Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1155 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 636-5500
          Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
          E-mail: matt.reilly@stblaw.com
                  aellis@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: mgarvey@stblaw.com

Defendant Markit Group Ltd. and Markit Group Holdings Limited are
represented by:

          Colin R. Kass, Esq.
          Scott M. Abeles, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 416-6800
          Facsimile: (202) 416-6899
          E-mail: ckass@proskauer.com
                  sabeles@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Alan R. Kusinitz, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          Eighth Avenue & 41st Street
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: akusinitz@proskauer.com

The consolidated case is captioned In Re Credit Default Swaps
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13md2476 (DLC), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


BAYER AG: Siskinds LLP Launches Class Action Over Pesticides
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds LLP on Sept. 3 disclosed that it has
launched a class action regarding neonicotinoid pesticides,
specifically those containing imidacloprid, clothianidin and
thiomethoxam, designed, developed, marketed and produced by Bayer
and Syngenta.  The action seeks in excess of $400 million in
damages.

"Without a vibrant and healthy bee population, so many of the
foods we enjoy will simply no longer grow.  We cannot afford to
take the bees' important work for granted, nor can we ignore
threats to their survival as a species."

Neonicotinoid pesticides are applied to corn, soybean and canola
seeds, among others, planted in Canada.  The pesticides are
designed to travel throughout the plant and attack the nervous
systems of insects that come into contact with the roots, stems,
leaves, flowers, fruit, pollen and nectar of the plant.

This class action relates to the impact of these pesticides on the
bee population and, consequently, on beekeepers who produce honey,
provide pollination services and raise Queen Bees essential to the
continued production of fruits and vegetables.

The Statement of Claim alleges, among other things, that the
defendants were negligent in their design, manufacture, sale and
distribution of neonicotinoids.  The Statement of Claim alleges
that as a result of neonicotinoid use:

  -- queens, breeding stock and colonies were damaged or died;
  -- beeswax, honeycombs and hives were contaminated;
  -- honey production decreased; and
  -- beekeepers lost profits, and incurred unrecoverable costs.

Paula Lombardi, a partner at Siskinds LLP, remarked on the
critical importance of the honeybee to the food chain: "Without a
vibrant and healthy bee population, so many of the foods we enjoy
will simply no longer grow. We cannot afford to take the bees'
important work for granted, nor can we ignore threats to their
survival as a species."

All beekeepers, including those individuals and companies in the
business of honey production, queen bee rearing and/or pollination
services between 2006 and the present season, are encouraged to
contact either Paula Lombardi at Siskinds LLP at 519-660-7878 or
paula.lombardi@siskinds.com or Nicole Young at Siskinds LLP at 1-
877-672-2121 ext. 2380 or nicole.young@siskinds.com or to visit
our website at www.siskinds.com

                       About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm with offices in Toronto
and London, and affiliate offices in Montreal and Quebec City.
Siskinds LLP has earned worldwide recognition for its work in
plaintiff-side class actions litigation.


BCB BANCORP: Final Resolution Pursued in "Kube" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, 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 the Company, as the
successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its own corporate
capacity, is a named defendant in a shareholder class action
lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division,
General Equity.

On May 9, 2012, the Company obtained partial summary judgment,
dismissing three of the five Counts of the Complaint. On May 9,
2012, plaintiff's counsel was awarded interim legal fees of
approximately $350,000. The Company's obligation to pay that
amount has been stayed.

By Order, dated December 10, 2013, the court denied the
plaintiff's initial motion for class certification. The plaintiff
thereafter filed a motion seeking certification for a
substantially reduced class. That motion was granted on February
6, 2014.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking the
dismissal of the remaining two Counts of the Complaint. That
motion was denied, without prejudice, on February 19, 2014.

The parties have conferenced in an effort to resolve this case.  A
final resolution is being pursued.

The Company is vigorously defending its interests in this
litigation.


BCB BANCORP: Sued Insurer for Indemnification in "Kube" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, 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 the Company has brought
a lawsuit against Progressive Insurance Company ("Progressive"),
the Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance carrier for
Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its merger with the Company
on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American Insurance Company
("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance
carrier for  the Company at the time of the merger.  The lawsuit
seeks, among other claims, indemnification, payment of and/or
contribution toward the award of interim attorney's fees to the
plaintiff class's counsel, and reimbursement of the attorney's
fees and defense costs incurred by the Company in defending the
Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., case.   This lawsuit is
pending. Progressive has made a motion for summary judgment
seeking the dismissal of the Company's lawsuit against it. That
motion was returnable on August 18, 2014. The Company will
vigorously oppose that motion.


BOULDER BRANDS: Settled "Fat Free Milk" Suits for $0.3 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, 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 putative class action
lawsuit relating to the labeling of Smart Balance(R) Fat Free Milk
products was filed on February 21, 2013, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the
label and marketing was misleading because, although the labels
says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g of fat from the
Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products.

"After our motion to dismiss was partially granted by the court,
it answered the remaining allegations of the complaint, denying
the substantive allegations. On July 8, 2014, without any
admission of liability, we reached a settlement whereby we agreed
to pay the two plaintiffs and their counsel $0.3 million in full
and final settlement. The case was formally dismissed with
prejudice on July 15, 2014," the Company said.

Boulder Brands' product portfolio consists of a wide variety of
food products marketed under the Udi's(R),  Glutino(R), Gluten-
Free Pantry(R), Earth Balance(R), Level Life(TM), EVOL and Smart
Balance(R) brands.


BOULDER BRANDS: Sued Over Butter & Canola Oil Blend Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, 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 putative class action
lawsuit was filed on July 28, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California claiming that the labeling and
marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products
is false, misleading and deceptive (the "California Case"). The
plaintiffs have moved to file a second amended complaint and to
substitute a new class plaintiff.

"We are opposing both motions. A substantially similar class
action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart
Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August
9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. In light of its
similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New
York stayed all activity in the case pending a decision in the
California Case on class certification. We believe the allegations
contained in both of these complaints are without merit and we
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations,"
the Company said.

Boulder Brands' product portfolio consists of a wide variety of
food products marketed under the Udi's(R),  Glutino(R), Gluten-
Free Pantry(R), Earth Balance(R), Level Life(TM), EVOL and Smart
Balance(R) brands.


BOUYGUES CIVIL: Removed "Bermudez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bermudez, et al. v. Bouygues Civil
Works Florida, Inc., Case No. 14-20795-CA 01, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-23248-RNS to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges a cause of action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan Potter Norton, Esq.
          ALLEN NORTON & BLUE
          121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-7801
          Facsimile: (305) 442-1578
          E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Due
---------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, 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 securities class
action complaint was filed on July 13, 2012, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California by Donald K. Franke
naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe
as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results,
specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford
University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 6, 2012.

A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations
against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The
Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012.

Finally, on July 26, 2012, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein
against the same defendants based upon the same general set of
allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified
monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to
Ashford University's quality of education, the WASC Senior College
and University Commission accreditation process, and the Company's
financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for
alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford University's
persistence rates.

The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the October 31,
2013 deadline and therefore the case is now proceeding to
discovery.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be filed
with the Court by August 6, 2014.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.

Bridgepoint Education provides postsecondary education services.
Its academic institutions are Ashford University(R) and University
of the RockiesSM.


CARLYLE GROUP: Oral Arguments Held on Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------
On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging
"club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC). The complaint alleges,
among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms,
including The Carlyle Group L.P., violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act by forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose
of bidding collectively in company buyout transactions in certain
going private transactions, which the plaintiffs allege
constitutes a "conspiracy in restraint of trade."

Count One of the complaint alleges an overarching conspiracy
relating to certain large buyout transactions. Count Two of the
complaint alleges a conspiracy with regard to the buyout of
Healthcare Corporation of America.  The plaintiffs seek damages as
provided for in Section 4 of the Clayton Act and an injunction
against such conduct in restraint of trade in the future.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on both counts. On March
13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ruled that plaintiffs could proceed on Count One
solely on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to refrain from
"jumping" announced proprietary (i.e., non-auction) deals. The
Court stated that it would entertain further summary judgment
motions by individual defendants as to their participation in the
more narrowly defined alleged conspiracy. The Court also denied
summary judgment as to Count Two.

On April 16, 2013, Carlyle filed a consolidated motion, renewing
its motion for summary judgment on Count One, and moving for
reconsideration on Count Two. On April 22, 2013, Carlyle joined a
motion seeking reconsideration on Count Two filed on behalf of all
Count Two defendants.

On June 20, 2013, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration
on Count Two filed by the Count Two defendants. On July 18, 2013,
the Court denied Carlyle's individual summary judgment motion
regarding its participation in the conspiracy alleged in Count
One.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class on October 21, 2013.

The Court has scheduled oral arguments on class certification for
September 4, 2014, The Carlyle Group L.P. 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 case management order calls for a jury trial to commence in
November 2014, but this could be delayed in the event an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the class
certification issue should become necessary.

"We understand that all of Carlyle's co-defendants have entered
into settlement agreements with plaintiffs since the filing of the
class certification," Carlyle said.

Carlyle believes that reasonable litigation and settlement costs
that are not covered by applicable insurance are indemnifiable by
one or more of Carlyle's investment funds.


CARLYLE GROUP: Appeals Court Affirmed Dismissal of Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, August 24, 2011 and September 1, 2011,
respectively, three putative shareholder class actions were filed
against The Carlyle Group L.P., certain of its affiliates and
former directors of Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited ("CCC")
alleging that the fund offering materials and various public
disclosures were materially misleading or omitted material
information.

Two of the shareholder class actions (Phelps v. Stomber, et al.
and Glaubach v. Carlyle Capital Corporation Limited, et al.) were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. Phelps v. Stomber, et al. was also filed in the Supreme
Court of New York, New York County and was subsequently removed to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The two original D.C. cases were consolidated into one case under
the caption of Phelps v. Stomber and the Phelps named plaintiffs
were designated "lead plaintiffs" by the Court. The New York case
was transferred to the D.C. federal court and the plaintiffs
requested that it be consolidated with the other two D.C. actions.
The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages sustained as a
result of the alleged misrepresentations, costs and expenses, as
well as reasonable attorney's fees.

On August 13, 2012, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia dismissed both the D.C. and New York
shareholder class actions. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend
their complaint and/or for amendment of the Court's decision, but
the trial court denied that motion on June 4, 2013.

The plaintiffs' previously filed notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was then
automatically reinstated and oral arguments on this appeal were
held on February 19, 2014.

On May 20, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision
affirming the District Court's rulings in full, dismissing
plaintiffs' complaints and denying plaintiffs an opportunity to
amend, The Carlyle Group L.P. 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.


CELERA CORP: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that
Celera Corp. and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP agreed on Aug. 30 to
pay nearly $25 million to settle a shareholder class action in
California federal court claiming Celera made overly optimistic
revenue forecasts and covered up billing problems.

Lead plaintiff Washtenaw County Employee Retirement System asked
U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila to preliminarily approve the
$24.75 million settlement, saying the deal would end all
litigation between the certified class and the medical diagnostics
company over its and its officers' alleged financial misstatements
when buying or selling stock.  Consisting of an unspecified number
of shareholders who bought Celera stock from April 24, 2008,
through July 22, 2009, the class was harmed because Celera
concealed that a significant portion of accounts receivable for
its lab services subsidiary was uncollectable, according to
Washtenaw.

All in all, Celera will pay $23 million, and PwC will pay $1.75
million to end the case, which Washtenaw said represents about 17
percent of the plaintiffs' $143 million in estimated damages.
That amount is much larger than the median recovery in securities
litigation, according to the retirement system.

"Although lead plaintiff and its counsel believe that the class'
claims have substantial merit, they recognize the significant risk
and expense necessary to prosecute the class' claims against
defendants through trial, and subsequent appeals, as well as the
inherent difficulties complex litigation like this entails," the
motion for preliminary approval said.  "While lead plaintiff
believes that they would present sufficient evidence to establish
the class' claims, lead plaintiff and its counsel are aware that
defendants would present counterevidence and other substantial
obstacles to obtaining a favorable judgment at trial."

In June 2010, Washtenaw sued Celera and several of its officers,
including CEO Kathy Ordonez, Chief Financial Officer Ugo DeBlasi
and former CFO Joel Jung.  The complaint was consolidated with
several other similar cases later that year.

The plaintiffs accused Celera of covering up problems with the
billing practices of its lab services division, which accounted
for more than 60 percent of Celera's revenue.

In early 2008, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, whose
insureds were responsible for some 10 percent of Celera's total
revenue, began remitting payment for Celera tests to its insureds
rather than directly reimbursing Celera, and the patients often
didn't forward the payments, leading to a mounting increase in
Celera's unpaid receivables, the plaintiffs contended.

Later that year, Celera retained consultancy Deloitte & Touche LLP
to help collect payments owed and in January 2009 began billing
patients directly, according to the plaintiffs.  Patients upset
over Celera's billing practices began complaining to their
doctors, leading many of the physicians to stop ordering Celera
tests and resulting in a significant sales drop, the plaintiffs
asserted.

After these billing problems and incorrect revenue statements were
revealed, the company's stock price allegedly dropped by more than
half.  In the meantime, company officers had received substantial
bonuses for purportedly hitting revenue targets.

An amended version of the complaint, filed in October 2013,
accused auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP of issuing bad debt
estimates that falsely certified that Celera's financial
statements were fairly stated and free of material misstatement.

The defendants have claimed that the plaintiffs hadn't proven that
Celera's financial restatements caused their alleged losses or
that its actions were deliberate.  Washtenaw acknowledged on
Aug. 29 that proving loss causation is a "major roadblock" in
securities litigation, and that it's one factor that led to the
settlement agreement.

"During these negotiations, lead counsel zealously advanced lead
plaintiffs' positions and were fully prepared to continue to
litigate rather than accept a settlement that was not in the best
interests of the class," the motion said.  "Indeed, the strengths
and weaknesses of the parties' respective positions were fully
vetted during the mediation process."

Washtenaw's class was certified without objection in February
2014.

The plaintiffs are represented by Willow E. Radcliffe --
willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Aelish M. Baig and Sunny S. Sarkis --
ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP;
Michael J. VanOverbeke and Thomas C. Michaud of VanOverbeke
Michaud & Timmony PC; and Lionel Z. Glancy and Robert V. Prongay
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Celera and its officers are represented by Stephen D. Hibbard --
shibbard@shearman.com -- Mikael A. Abye --
mikael.abye@shearman.com -- and Sara A. Ricciardi of Shearman &
Sterling LLP.

PwC is represented by Timothy T. Scott, Geoffrey M. Ezgar, James
J. Capra Jr. and Satyam N. Bee of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is In re: Celera Corp. Securities Litigation, case number
5:10-cv-02604, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


DYNEGY INC: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Stockholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy 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 connection with the
prepetition restructuring and corporate reorganization of the DH
Debtor Entities and their non-debtor affiliates in 2011 (the "2011
Prepetition Restructuring"), and specifically the transfer of DMG,
a putative class action stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles
Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the
"Securities Litigation"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit challenged certain
disclosures made in connection with the transfer of DMG. As a
result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy by
Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and as
a result of the confirmation of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the
"Plan"), the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities
Litigation are permanently enjoined.

On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan
asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be
permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions
(the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative
class members.  Dynegy opposed that relief.

On October 1, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff
did not have standing to object to the Plan and did not have
authority to opt-out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any
other party-in-interest. Accordingly, the Securities Litigation
may only proceed against the non-debtor defendants with respect to
members of the putative class who individually opted out of the
Non-Debtor Releases. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on October 10, 2012.

On June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal. On July
3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed a brief on
November 4, 2013. On July 19, 2013, the defendants filed a
substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims.

On April 30, 2014, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion and dismissed the action. Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal of this decision.

Dynegy Inc. is a holding company and conducts substantially all of
its business operations through its subsidiaries.  The Company's
current business operations are focused primarily on the power
generation sector of the energy industry.


DYNEGY INC: Oral Arguments Not Yet Set in Supreme Court Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy 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 the Company, several of its
affiliates, its former joint venture affiliate and other energy
companies were named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in state
and federal court claiming damages resulting from alleged price
manipulation and false reporting of natural gas prices to various
index publications in the 2000-2002 time frame. Many of the cases
have been resolved. All of the remaining cases contain similar
claims that the Company individually, and in conjunction with
other energy companies, engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate
natural gas prices in four states by providing false information
to natural gas index publications.

In July 2011, the court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment, thereby dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which reversed the summary judgment on April 10, 2013.

On August 26, 2013, Dynegy and the other defendants filed a
request for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. On July 1, 2014,
the Supreme Court accepted review.  Oral arguments have not yet
been set.

Dynegy Inc. is a holding company and conducts substantially all of
its business operations through its subsidiaries.  The Company's
current business operations are focused primarily on the power
generation sector of the energy industry.


EB & JB CORP: Moved "Abreu" Suit to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Abreu v. EB & JB Corporation, et
al., was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23266-JAL to the proceeding.

In his complaint, Jose Luis Abreu seeks to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
          LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN, P.A.
          8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: (305) 556-3663
          Facsimile: (305) 556-3647
          E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net


ENERGY TRANSFER: MOU Reached in Suits Over PVR Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 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 five putative class
action lawsuits challenging the merger with PVR Partners, L.P.
have been filed and are currently pending. All of the cases name
PVR, PVR GP and the current directors of PVR GP, as well as
Regency Energy Partners LP and the General Partner of Regency
(collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as defendants.

Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of
PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP breached
their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR, that PVR GP, PVR and
the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP
in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, and, as to the
actions in federal court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP, and the
directors of PVR GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i)
injunctive relief, (ii) disclosure of certain additional
information concerning the transaction, (iii) in the event the
merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iv) an award of plaintiffs' costs and (v) the accounting
for damages allegedly caused by the defendants to these actions,
and, (vi) such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The styles of the pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v.
PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 9015-VCL) in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR
Partners, LP, et al. (Case No. 2013-10606) and Saul Srour v. PVR
Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 2013-011015), each pending in the
Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen
Bushansky v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-cv-06829-
HB); and Mark Hinnau v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-
cv-07496-HB), pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and
Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs
agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled
Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement
agreement, subject to customary conditions, including consummation
of the PVR Acquisition, which occurred on March 21, 2014,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification
and final approval by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware
County, Pennsylvania. If the Court approves the settlement, the
Settled Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all
defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to
the Settled Lawsuits.

The settlement will not affect any provisions of the merger
agreement or the form or amount of consideration received by PVR
unitholders in the PVR Acquisition. The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims in the aforementioned litigation and have
entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden,
risk, expense, and distraction of further litigation.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P owns equity interests in entities that
are engaged in diversified energy-related services.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Suit Filed Over Acquisition of Eagle Rock Assets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 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 three putative
class action lawsuits challenging Regency Energy Partners LP's
acquisition of the Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. midstream
assets are currently pending in federal district court in Houston,
Texas. All cases name Eagle Rock and its current directors, as
well as Regency and a subsidiary as defendants. One of the
lawsuits also names additional Eagle Rock entities as defendants.

Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of
Eagle Rock (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), both individually and
on behalf of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of
Eagle Rock. The Plaintiffs in each case seek to rescind the
transaction, claiming, among other things, that it yields
inadequate consideration, was tainted by conflict and constitutes
breaches of common law fiduciary duties or contractually imposed
duties to the shareholders. Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages
and attorneys' fees. Regency and its subsidiary are named as
"aiders and abettors" of the allegedly wrongful actions of Eagle
Rock and its board.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P owns equity interests in entities that
are engaged in diversified energy-related services.


ENSIGN GROUP: Settlement Costs Projected to be $6.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, 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 class action staffing
suit was previously filed against the Company in the State of
California, alleging, among other things, violations of certain
Health and Safety Code provisions and a violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act at certain of the Company's California
facilities.  In 2007, the Company settled this class action suit,
and the settlement was approved by the affected class and the
Court.

The Company also said, "We have been defending a second such
staffing class-action claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court;
however, a settlement was reached with class counsel and has
received Court approval. The total costs associated with the
settlement, including attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and
related costs and expenses, are projected to be approximately $6.5
million, of which, approximately $1.5 million of this amount was
recorded in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, with the
balance having been expensed in prior periods. We believe that the
settlement will not have a material ongoing adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations."

The Company said, "Other claims and suits, including class
actions, continue to be filed against us and other companies in
our industry. For example, there has been an increase in the
number of wage and hour class action claims filed in several of
the jurisdictions where we are present. Allegations typically
include claimed failures to permit or properly compensate for meal
and rest periods, or failure to pay for time worked.  If there
were a significant increase in the number of these claims or an
increase in amounts owing should plaintiffs be successful in their
prosecution of these claims, this could have a material adverse
effect to our business, financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows."

Ensign Group is a provider of skilled nursing and rehabilitative
care services through the operation of 125 facilities, ten home
health and eight hospice operations, twelve urgent care centers
and a mobile x-ray and diagnostic company as of June 30, 2014,
located in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska,
Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.


EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooke et al. Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Energy Ltd. 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 Equal shareholder
Andrew Cooke filed on December 12, 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County for the State of
Oklahoma against Equal, its directors, Petroflow Energy
Corporation and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp. (collectively,
"Petroflow"): Cooke v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ-2013-6817.
Subsequently, three additional putative class actions were also
filed by shareholders in the same state court: Olsen v. Equal
Energy, et al., CJ-2013-6873; Solak v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ-
2013-6959; and Grinberger v. Equal Energy, et al., CJ-2013-7055.

These cases alleged that in connection with the proposed
Arrangement Agreement ("Arrangement"), the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to Equal.  The complaints further
claimed that Equal and Petroflow aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints generally alleged
that the Arrangement involves an unfair price, unfair sales
process, self-dealing and unfairly preclusive deal protection
devices. The plaintiffs in the action sought injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the Arrangement, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs.

One of these four matters was voluntarily dismissed, while the
other three were consolidated into one case: In re Equal Energy
Shareholder Litigation, CJ-2013-6873.

Equal and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the state
actions on January 23, 2014. Petroflow subsequently filed a
similar motion to dismiss. Both motions are fully briefed and
remain pending.

Contemporaneous with motion to dismiss briefing, lead counsel in
both the state and federal actions and counsel for defendants
engaged in arm's-length negotiations concerning the terms and
conditions of a potential resolution of the state and federal
actions in which Equal would disclose certain additional
information to Equal's shareholders.

On June 12, 2014, Equal filed a revised Definitive Proxy with the
SEC containing, among other things, the additional disclosures
agreed to in connection with the parties' agreement. On or around
July 10, 2014, counsel for the parties reached an agreement in
principle in the federal actions providing for the binding
settlement of all claims that all shareholders might have
regarding the actions of Equal or its Board while considering or
entering into the Petroflow Arrangement Agreement, and while
making any disclosures to the marketplace.

In exchange Equal agreed to include additional disclosures in its
proxy materials, and entered into a memorandum of understanding
setting forth the material terms of the settlement. The parties
are in the process of drafting the settlement agreement, which
will then be submitted to the federal court for review during a
final approval hearing.

Equal Energy Ltd. is a Calgary, Alberta based company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, engaged in the
exploration, acquisition, development and production of petroleum
and natural gas in Oklahoma. The Company also reviews new drilling
opportunities and potential acquisitions in Oklahoma to supplement
its exploration and development activities.


EQUAL ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Weelden et al Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Energy Ltd. and its directors filed a motion to dismiss
federal actions, 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.

Equal shareholder Johan Van Weelden brought a separate lawsuit on
January 14, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for Western District
of Oklahoma against Equal, its directors and Petroflow Energy
Corporation and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp.: Van Weelden v.
Equal Energy Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-0047-C. Subsequently three
putative class actions were also filed by shareholders in the same
federal court: Montemarano et al. v. Equal Energy Ltd., et al.,
No. 14-cv-0058-C; Cooke v. Equal Energy, Ltd., et al., No. 14-CV-
0087-C; Scripture v. Equal Energy Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-0114-C.

These cases allege that disclosures relevant to the proposed
Arrangement Agreement with Petroflow violate Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, that the Equal directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Equal shareholders, and that
Equal and Petroflow aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

On May 8, 2014, Judge Cauthron of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma ordered that the cases should be
consolidated and appointed Cooke as lead plaintiff and Robbins
Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.

Equal and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the federal
actions on May 15, 2014. Petroflow subsequently filed a similar
motion to dismiss. Both motions are fully briefed and remain
pending.

Contemporaneous with motion to dismiss briefing, lead counsel in
both the state and federal actions and counsel for defendants
engaged in arm's-length negotiations concerning the terms and
conditions of a potential resolution of the state and federal
actions in which Equal would disclose certain additional
information to Equal's shareholders.

On June 12, 2014, Equal filed a revised Definitive Proxy with the
SEC containing, among other things, the additional disclosures
agreed to in connection with the parties' agreement. On or around
July 10, 2014, counsel for the parties reached an agreement in
principle in the federal actions providing for the binding
settlement of all claims that all shareholders might have
regarding the actions of Equal or its Board while considering or
entering into the Petroflow Arrangement Agreement, and while
making any disclosures to the marketplace.

In exchange Equal agreed to include additional disclosures in its
proxy materials, and entered into a memorandum of understanding
setting forth the material terms of the settlement. The parties
are in the process of drafting the settlement agreement, which
will then be submitted to the federal court for review during a
final approval hearing.

Equal Energy Ltd. is a Calgary, Alberta based company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, engaged in the
exploration, acquisition, development and production of petroleum
and natural gas in Oklahoma. The Company also reviews new drilling
opportunities and potential acquisitions in Oklahoma to supplement
its exploration and development activities.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Amended Securities Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action lawsuit filed an amended
complaint, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as
defendants and asserting claims against them for breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, Fairway Group Holdings Corp.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2014.

In February and March 2014, three purported securities class
action lawsuits alleging violation of the federal securities laws
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, certain of its directors and the
underwriters for its initial public offering. The actions were
consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group
Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950.

On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed,
adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications
regarding its business and financial results.

In April 2014, a purported stockholder derivative action was filed
against certain of the Company's directors in New York state
court, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties and gross
mismanagement based on substantially similar allegations as in the
securities class action. In June 2014, the Company and defendants
moved to dismiss the derivative complaint.

On July 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants and
asserting claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment. While the Company believes the claims are
without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits.

Fairway Market is a growth-oriented food retailer offering
customers a differentiated one-stop shopping experience "Like No
Other Market".


FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that a purported wage
and hour class action lawsuit was filed in May 2014 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and employees.  This suit alleges, among other things, that
certain of the Company's past and current employees were not
properly compensated in accordance with the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  While the Company believes that
these claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter
vigorously, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation.

Fairway Market is a growth-oriented food retailer offering
customers a differentiated one-stop shopping experience "Like No
Other Market".


FOSTER WHEELER: Faces Class Actions Over AMEC Plc Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG 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 four putative class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Foster Wheeler AG
shareholders against the Company and its Board of Directors,
seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the Company by AMEC
plc from proceeding.

The first of such lawsuits was filed on March 4, 2014. Two of the
lawsuits are pending in Texas state court and the other two
lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. AMEC is named as a co-defendant in the two
Texas state court lawsuits.

The complaints contain similar, standardized allegations.
Plaintiffs allege that the directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to plaintiff and the Company's other shareholders in pursuing
the plan to sell the Company, and that the Company aided and
abetted the defendant directors in committing such breach. In
particular, plaintiffs allege that AMEC's per share exchange offer
to acquire all of the Company's shares does not adequately
compensate the Company's shareholders for their investment and
significantly undervalues the Company's prospects as a standalone
entity, that the consideration fails to take into account the
value expected to be realized by AMEC as a result of the proposed
acquisition, that the Board permitted Company management to lead
the negotiations with AMEC when management was improperly
incentivized to pursue the proposed acquisition, and that the
Implementation Agreement improperly contains a number of deal
protection devices designed to preclude any competing bids from
emerging during the period following the announcement of the
proposed acquisition in the Company's Form 8-K filing.

A stipulation has been entered into in the Texas state court
actions consolidating the cases and permitting plaintiffs to serve
a consolidated complaint following the issuance of the Company's
Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission regarding the Implementation Agreement. A
similar stipulation has been entered into in the two actions
pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. No class has been constituted yet.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously oppose the lawsuits on behalf of itself and
on behalf of its Board.

Foster Wheeler operates through two business groups -- the Global
Engineering & Construction Group, and the Global Power Group.


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Facing Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics 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 July 30, 2014, the
Company became aware that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Galectin Therapeutics and certain officers of the Company
alleging violations of United States federal securities laws. The
Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to
vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Company is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company engaged
in drug research and development to create new therapies for
fibrotic disease and cancer.


GDF SUEZ: Fire Inquiry Raises Serious Questions Over Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Gay Alcorn, writing for The Guardian, reports that the legal firm
considering a class action against the Hazelwood coal mine
operator GDF Suez has said the inquiry into the 45-day fire
indicated the company had a case to answer.

Ronald Koo, the associate of class actions at Maurice Blackburn,
said the inquiry's report released on Sept. 2 "raises serious
questions about GDF Suez's conduct".

"Our preliminary view is that they have a case to answer," he
said.

The Hazelwood mine fire inquiry criticized GDF Suez's risk
preparation for a fire in disused parts of the open-cut brown coal
mine.  It said the risks were foreseeable and that the company had
taken a "minimal compliance" attitude towards its regulatory
obligations.  In particular, it found that the company did not
conduct a risk assessment of the worked-out areas of the mine,
despite a recommendation to do so after a fire in 2008.  It had
concentrated on the working parts of the mine, neglecting the
remediation of disused areas.  The company had characterized the
fire as a "perfect storm" of events and not foreseeable, a
suggestion rejected by the inquiry.

On February 9, ember attacks ignited fires in disused parts of the
Hazelwood mine, 150km east of Melbourne.  The fire burnt for six
weeks, blanketing the nearby town of Morwell with ash, smoke and
toxic fumes.  The inquiry estimated the cost of the fire to the
state government, the company and the community exceeded AUD100
million.

Maurice Blackburn specializes in class action lawsuits, which are
usually conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis.  In July, survivors
of Victoria's 2009 Black Saturday bushfires secured a AUD500
million payout in what was described as a the biggest class action
lawsuit in Australian history.

The firm has recently invited residents and businesses affected by
the fire to register their interest in pursuing a class action.  A
community meeting will be held in Morwell on September 14 to
discuss the inquiry's report and whether a lawsuit is feasible.

Questioned on ABC radio about whether GDF Suez would accept
liability for the fire to avoid a protracted lawsuit, its
spokesman, Jim Kouts, insisted the fire was an "unprecedented
event" and the company would not accept fault and negotiate
damages.

"We've accepted that [the report].  We've moved on, the board has
affirmed the initiatives we're taking, we're working on the
recommendations and that's our responsibility," he said.

"We were not in breach of regulation," Mr. Kouts said.  "The
impression that people have is that somehow we were ticking the
box . . . I don't agree with that. We take these responsibilities
seriously."


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Get C$1.9MM Fees in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that fees
will amount to C$1.9 million including an C$804,000 premium to
lawyers acting on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action against
General Motors Canada over cuts to employee benefits

In early August, a group of about 3,200 non-union retirees reached
a settlement with General Motors Canada Ltd. after the company cut
their benefits as part of restructuring during 2008.  GM Canada
will pay C$9 million to the retirees to pay for life insurance
claims and health benefits lost.

GENMO is a group of non-unionized salaried employees and
executives who retired between Jan 1, 1995 and Oct. 20, 2011.  In
May 2010, they filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors
of Canada.  Leading the action in O'Neill v. General Motors of
Canada was Joseph O'Neill, who worked at GMCL for more than 40
years.  Several years into his retirement, GM reduced his health
care benefits and cut his life insurance benefit from just under
$100,000 to $20,000. O'Neill commenced the class action on behalf
of the salaried and executive retirees.  Mr. O'Neill passed away
in 2012 and Lynn McCullough replaced Mr. O'Neill as the
representative plaintiff.

In the summary judgment decision released in July 2013 Justice
Edward Belobaba found for the class members on most of the issues.
GMCL appealed the decision and the plaintiff cross-appealed on the
issues on which he was not successful.  Shortly after the parties
served their appeal factums, they began to explore the possibility
of resolving the action in its entirety.

They agreed to adjourn the appeal for three months to see if the
matter could be settled. The parties obtained actuarial valuations
of the class members' claims, tried mediation without success and
then, just days before the appeals were to be heard, reached
agreement.

The proposed settlement establishes a C$9-million fund for past
life and health claims to cover the period up to Aug. 31, 2014,
and restores most of the class members' health and life insurance
benefits effective Sept. 1, 2014.

In his Aug. 27 comments in the settlement approval, Justice
Belobaba praised the settlement and approved a premium of $804,746
proposed in the legal fees for class counsel.

"This was a very big win and it deserved a good fee for class
counsel," says Kirk Baert, a partner with Koskie Minsky LLP,
adding that "overall it's a positive decision for class counsel."

"The judge said the fees were very, very reasonable for the work
undertaken, the risk taken and the success achieved.  Also, his
view was that he tends to give a large amount of weight to the
agreement signed at the outset. This has not been the practice to
date as many judges have used hindsight to assess the risk."

Of the C$3 million allocated to fees by the defendant,
C$1,033,334.06 was remitted to the Class Proceedings Fund; and
C$903,200.06 went to GENMO (the organization made up primarily of
class members who had funded the litigation) to reimburse them for
their legal fees.  The balance (over and above the premium) was
for disbursements incurred after settlement, and costs of
administering the settlement, which Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
and Sotos LLP will be handling.  With the premium of C$804,746 the
total in legal fees paid to class counsel will be about C$1.9
million.

"I find that this is completely reasonable," Justice Belobaba said
in his remarks.  "Given that the actuarial value of the overall
settlement is in the range of C$130 million, a payment to class
counsel of legal fees in the amount of C$1.9 million is only about
1.5 percent of the overall recovery -- well under the 10 or 20 per
cent that, in my view, would have been readily approved had the
retainer been on a contingency basis."

Class counsel initially agreed to work on a straight hourly basis.
The retainer agreement with GENMO provided that class counsel
would render monthly accounts and be paid on the basis of their
hourly rates and incurred disbursements.  Class counsel advised
they have been paid just over $903,000 on the basis of this
retainer.

The initial retainer agreement was formally revised in July 2014.
GENMO agreed to pay a "premium" if the result achieved justified
such a premium and if the payment of the premium did not come from
the members of the class.

Justice Belobaba noted: "I pause here to note that normally I
would view payment of 'premium' requests with suspicion.  I take
initial retainer agreements seriously and, as a general rule,
would only approve an additional premium if I was satisfied that
the premium was agreed to not just by the representative plaintiff
but by a significant majority of class members, and that the
premium would not come from funds that belong to the class.  Here,
I am satisfied on both points.  The premium was agreed to by
GENMO, an organization that funded the litigation and de facto
represented the class; and the premium would not come from class
members but was included in a separate payment from GMCL."


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Faces Class Suit in Western District of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylan Stuart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-05275-
TLB (W.D. Ark., September 4, 2014) seeks relief under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          EVERETT, WALES & COMSTOCK
          1944 East Joyce Blvd.
          P.O. Box 8370
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 443-0292
          Facsimile: (479) 443-0564
          E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com


GOLD RESOURCE: Dismissal of Securities Litigation on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gold Resource 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 securities class
action lawsuit subsequently captioned In re Gold Resource Corp.
Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832 was filed on October 25,
2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors as defendants.  The complaint alleged violations of
federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers
and directors. On July 15, 2013, the federal district court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with
prejudice.  The plaintiff has appealed the District Court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

Gold Resource is a mining company which pursues gold and silver
projects that are expected to have low operating costs and high
returns on capital.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settled Suit Over Financial Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, 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 putative class
action complaint was filed on July 20, 2012, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company
following its announced intention to restate its financial
statements for the fiscal years ended December 28, 2009, January
3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the related interim periods.

The Company said, "The complaint lodged against us, certain of our
current directors and officers and the underwriters in the initial
public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related to the
Company's disclosures in its registration statement and prospectus
for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential agreement
in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to submission
and approval by the court."

Ignite Restaurant Group owned and operated three full service,
casual dining restaurant brands under the names Joe's Crab Shack
("Joe's"), Brick House Tavern + Tap ("Brick House") and Romano's
Macaroni Grill ("Macaroni Grill").


JFK MEDICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Suit Over Exborbitant PIP Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Sept. 3 disclosed that
charging that JFK Medical Center and parent company HCA, Inc., are
in violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act, two
Florida women recently filed a class action lawsuit in Florida
state court challenging they and others like them were billed
exorbitant and unreasonable fees for emergency radiological
services covered in part by their Florida Personal Injury
Protection (PIP) insurance.  The lawsuit was filed by Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Under Florida's No Fault Car Insurance Law, drivers are required
to have $10,000 in PIP insurance, which has a 20 percent out-of-
pocket deductible.  The complaint, filed in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit Hillsborough County, charges JFK Medical Center,
of Atlantis, Fla., and other Florida HCA facilities with billing
PIP patients' rates for radiological services that are 20 to 65
times higher than the rates charged for similar services to non-
PIP patients.

"Patients who show up at the emergency room following a motor
vehicle accident not only have to pay their 20 percent deductible,
but then are billed far, far more for their tests, which clearly
violates the PIP law that requires 'customary and reasonable'
pricing," said plaintiffs' lead attorney Theodore J. Leopold of
Cohen Milstein's Florida office.

The lawsuit was brought by Marisela Herrera and Luz Sanchez, both
of whom were PIP-covered patients who were treated through JFK
Medical Center's emergency department after their automobile
accidents in April 2013 and May 2013, respectively.  Ms. Herrera
and Ms. Sanchez each received a CT of the brain for $6,404, a CT
scan of the spine for $5,900, and a thoracic spine X-ray for
$2,222. Herrera also received a lumbar spine X-ray for $3,359.

According to the South Florida Medicare rate -- a standard used
for customary and reasonable medical service rates -- the brain CT
scan provided is $163.96; the cervical spine CT scan, $213.14; and
the thoracic spine x-ray, with three views, $38.

The complaint charges that because of the exorbitant rates, both
Ms. Herrera's and Ms. Sanchez's $10,000 PIP coverage were
prematurely exhausted and both were billed thousands of dollars by
JFK Medical Center for radiological services not paid for by their
PIP insurers.

The complaint also charges breach of contract since both women
entered into a "Condition of Admission" contract that provides
that patients must pay their accounts at the rates stated in the
hospital's price list.  Neither woman was provided a price list at
the time of medical treatment.

In addition to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- the plaintiffs are represented by
Boldt Law Firm, of Hollywood, Fla. -- http://www.boldtlawfirm.com
-- and Gonzalez & Cartwright, P.A., of Lake Worth, Fla.
http://www.gonzalezcartwright.com

For more information about the lawsuit, visit Herrera and Sanchez
et al v. JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership and HCA, Inc.,
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/350/hca


KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action Over Primedia Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. 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 23, 2011, KKR &
Co. L.P., certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of
Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at
that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as
defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other
things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that
the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed.

The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations
concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia's
preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations
concerning Primedia's redemption of certain shares of Primedia's
preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR
affiliates.

With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging
the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied
a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the
Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class
actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.

On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action. The
operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary
damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly
alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering
into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value
of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to
dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members,
KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other
defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the
grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. On December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted
the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

Discovery is ongoing.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


KKR & CO: Class Actions in Georgia State Courts Remain Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. 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 May 2011, two
shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger were
filed in Georgia state courts, asserting similar allegations and
seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware
shareholder class actions above. Both Georgia actions have been
stayed in favor of the Delaware action.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


KKR & CO: P/E Firms Inked Definitive Agreement to Settle Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2007, KKR & Co. L.P., along with 15 other private
equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a
purported class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders
in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since
2003. In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity
firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a
purported consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit
alleges that from mid 2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws
by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of
private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The amended
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions.

The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.

On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in
part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery
as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.

On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth
amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning
the additional eight transactions and the original nine
transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight
purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary
damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original
nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two
of the original nine challenged transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is completed.

On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion.

On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third
stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions
identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but
denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint.

On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of
discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like
their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended
complaint.

On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain previously
released claims against certain defendants.

On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving
KKR.  However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged
overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants'
announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a
smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim.

KKR filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013,
which the court denied on July 18, 2013.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 21, 2013.
Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24,
2014, KKR & Co. L.P. 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 court has not yet decided plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On July 28, 2014, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to
settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which is
subject to approval by the court. The amount to be paid by KKR
pursuant to the settlement is not expected to have a material
effect on KKR's financial results.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


KKR & CO: Chancery Court Heard Oral Arguments on Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. 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 from December 19, 2013
to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits have
been filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of
Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of
KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in
connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to
which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction
was completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court have been consolidated
but an operative complaint has not been filed or designated.

The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which
was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed on
May 6, 2014.

Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed, and the
remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.

On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014.

On July 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery heard oral
arguments on defendants' motion to dismiss.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


KODIAK OIL: "Booth" Suit Removed to Colorado District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants 1007695 B.C. Ltd. and Whiting Petroleum Corporation
removed the class action lawsuit styled The Booth Family Trust v.
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et al., Case No. 2014CV32947, was removed
from the Denver District Court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado (Denver).  The Colorado District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02457 to the proceeding.

Defendants Whiting Petroleum Corporation and 1007695 B.C. Ltd. are
represented by:

          Samuel Sage Bacon, Esq.
          Keith D. Tooley, Esq.
          WELBORN SULLIVAN MECK & TOOLEY, P.C.
          1125 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 830-2500
          Facsimile: (303) 832-2366
          E-mail: sbacon@wsmtlaw.com
                  ktooley@wsmtlaw.com


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: 62 Cases Pending Over Coal Tar Pitch Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings 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 Koppers Inc., along
with other defendants, is currently a defendant in lawsuits filed
in three states in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered a
variety of illnesses (including cancer) as a result of exposure to
coal tar pitch sold by the defendants. There are approximately 113
plaintiffs in 62 cases pending as of June 30, 2014 as compared to
111 plaintiffs in 61 cases pending as of December 31, 2013. As of
June 30, 2014, there are a total of 58 cases pending in state
court in Pennsylvania, three in Arkansas, and one case pending in
state court in Tennessee.

The plaintiffs in all 62 pending cases seek to recover
compensatory damages, while plaintiffs in 57 cases also seek to
recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 58 cases filed in
Pennsylvania state court seek unspecified damages in excess of the
court's minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiffs in the
Arkansas state court cases each seek compensatory damages in
excess of $50,000 in addition to punitive damages. The plaintiffs
in the Tennessee state court case each seek damages of $15.0
million. The other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to
case and include companies such as Beazer East, Inc., United
States Steel Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., Vertellus
Specialties Inc., Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon Company, Inc.,
Exxon Mobil Corporation, SGL Carbon Corporation and Alcoa, Inc.
Discovery is proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been
set in any of these cases.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Nov. 21 Deadline to Complete Class Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.

In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs define the putative
class as consisting of all persons who are present record owners
of residential real properties located in an area within a two-
mile radius of the former Gainesville wood treating plant.
Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and contaminants from the
Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two
mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in
value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class
properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the
chemicals at issue. The second amended complaint seeks damages for
diminution in property values, the establishment of a medical
monitoring fund and punitive damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court
dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground
that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013.

Koppers Holdings 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 May 2014, the Court
entered an amended scheduling order for class certification, which
sets a deadline of November 21, 2014 for completion of class
discovery. Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order
of the court.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Consolidated Class Action in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. 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 Frank J. Fosbre, Jr.
filed on May 24, 2010, a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "U.S.
District Court"), against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P.
Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual
defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information,
or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases,
investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007
through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other
relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the
defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on
November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12,
2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process has been suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

Discovery in the matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period. On February 3, 2014, the judge agreed to
the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on the issue of
expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a
decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc.

This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LHC GROUP: Approval of Class Action Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, 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 putative shareholder
securities class action was filed on June 13, 2012, against the
Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
styled City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-01609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed
on behalf of LHC shareholders who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011.
Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false and
misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is a control person under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the
same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint.
In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act.

The Company believes these claims are without merit.

On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013.

On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement. On June 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed
an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, which is presently pending.

If approved, as part of the settlement, the Company's insurance
carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount.

LHC Group, Inc. provides quality cost-effective post-acute health
care services to patients.


LINN ENERGY: Settlement Fund Distribution Seen Later This Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy LLC 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 prior to the Company's
acquisition of Berry Petroleum Company, Berry became, and
continues to be, a defendant in a certain statewide royalty class
action case, in which the parties have entered into a settlement
agreement to settle past claims for approximately $2.4 million.
Subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the court,
Berry and the Company anticipate distribution of settlement funds
to begin late in the third quarter or early fourth quarter of
2014.

LINN Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company.


LINN ENERGY: SDNY Court Dismissed Combined Actions in July
----------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy LLC 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 the summer of 2013,
several class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas and the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") against
LINN Energy, LinnCo LLC, certain of their officers and directors
and the various underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering
(these cases were subsequently consolidated in the SDNY (the
"Combined Actions")). These cases collectively asserted claims
based on allegations that LINN Energy made false or misleading
statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow
available for distribution to unitholders, and LINN Energy's
energy production in its Exchange Act filings and additional
claims based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in
the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's initial
public offering.

In November 2013, LINN Energy and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Combined Actions. On July 8, 2014, the Court
dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice concluding that
the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any material misstatement or
omission by LINN Energy or LinnCo.

LINN Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company.


LINN ENERGY: Briefing and Hearing on Class Cert. Not Yet Set
------------------------------------------------------------
LINN Energy LLC 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 Company has been
named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims
from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and
royalty valuations. With respect to a certain statewide class
action case, the parties in this case are currently engaged in
settlement negotiations and based on the current status of those
negotiations, the Company estimates a range of possible loss of $1
million to $4.5 million for which an appropriate reserve has been
established. For a certain statewide class action royalty payment
dispute where a reserve has not yet been established, the Company
has denied that it has any liability on the claims and has raised
arguments and defenses that, if accepted by the court, will result
in no loss to the Company.

Based on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to reverse
class certification orders in two unrelated certification cases,
the court has permitted additional limited discovery prior to the
briefing and hearing on class certification.  Briefing and the
hearing on class certification have not yet been set by the court.
As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any.

LINN Energy is an independent oil and natural gas company.


MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Sued Over Excessive "Water-Tapping Fees"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
Pennsylvania developers have hit Manheim Township and its
municipal authority with a class action in state court, alleging
that the Lancaster County municipality imposed excessive "water-
tapping fees" for connections to its municipal water system.

In the lawsuit filed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
in Aug. 22, five developers said the township and the municipal
authority had violated the state's Pennsylvania Municipality
Authorities Act, which prohibits the collection of water-tapping
fees by any entity other than the one that owns the corresponding
distribution facilities.

"Pennsylvania law allows the authority to charge tapping fees to
property owners who connect to the water distribution system only
if the authority owns the water distribution system," the
complaint said.

According to the builders, while the facilities were previously
owned by the township, they passed them to the city of Lancaster
under two agreements from the 1980s that served to expand water
distribution in the township.

When Manheim sought to expand its water system in the early 1980s,
its water lines were owned and operated by the city of Lancaster.
But since the city was unwilling to bear the cost of expanding the
lines but was willing to supply and sell water to township
residents connected to the expanded system, the township and the
city reached agreements in which the township would pay for the
expansion, and the city would provide water, according to the
complaint.  The new system would also be leased to the city.

According to the complaint, under the lease agreements, the
township would pay for the expansion with the tapping fees, and
once the cost of the expansion was recovered, the lease would come
to an end, and the ownership of the system would be transferred to
the city.

The builders say that both agreements came to an end in 2004,
resulting in the transfer of the ownership of the distribution
system from the township to the city.  However, they, along with
the other members of the proposed class, continue to pay the
tapping fees, in violation of the act, along with the state and
federal constitutions, according to the complaint.

The developers also say that the fees violate the state
constitution because rather than being used to pay for specific
improvements, they serve as a general tax that was imposed by
nonelected officials.  Along the same lines, they say the fees
violate their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The builders seek to represent a class of all individuals who have
paid tapping fees in the last two years.  They say that the issue
over the fees came to light in a separate, still-ongoing lawsuit
launched by a single developer against the township and the
authority in 2011.

The builders are represented by Edward S. Robson --
erobson@robsonlaw.com -- of Robson & Robson LLC and Bart D. Cohen
of the Law Office of Bart D. Cohen.

The case is Your Towne Builders Inc. et al. v. Manheim Township et
al, case number 14-07663, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Wins Initial Approval of $60-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has preliminarily approved a $60 million settlement with the
NCAA over the use of student-athletes' likenesses in video games.

The settlement, which U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved
on September 3, 2014, will apply to all NCAA Division I football
and men's basketball players belonging to teams that appeared in
an NCAA branded video game from May 4, 2003, through Sept. 3,
2014, and whose image or jersey number appears in the game.

Attorneys for the players estimate that more than 100,000 college
players have potential claims.

Lead plaintiff Sam Keller, a former quarterback for Nebraska and
Arizona State, sued the NCAA and Electronic Arts in 2009, claiming
the video game company and the governing body for college
athletics conspired to make money off of student-athletes'
identities.  EA has stopped making NCAA video games since the
lawsuit's filing.

The class reached a $40 million settlement with EA in June,
marking the first time student athletes would get paid for their
likenesses in video games.  Wilken preliminarily approved that
settlement as well on September 3.

Wilken scheduled a fairness hearing for final court approval of
both agreements for May 15, 2015.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                  leonard@hbsslaw.com

The case is Samuel Michael Keller, et al., v. Electronic Arts,
Inc.; National Collegiate Athletics Association; and Collegiate
Licensing Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Duration of Scholarships
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that already
flooded with litigation, the NCAA faces another antitrust lawsuit
that in part tries to use the Ed O'Bannon ruling to challenge the
number and duration of scholarships for Division I football
players.

Former Colorado State kicker Durrell Chamorro filed a class-action
suit last week in Indianapolis federal court seeking damages for
Division I football players who were impacted by the since-
abandoned rule banning multiyear scholarships.  In 2012, the NCAA
passed a rule allowing schools to offer multiyear scholarships to
all athletes for the first time since 1973.  Some schools are
taking advantage of the option.

Also, the lawsuit challenges the yearly cap on football
scholarships by school.  The NCAA permits Football Bowl
Subdivision schools to offer 85 football scholarships and Football
Championship Subdivision schools to provide 63.

The class attempts to represent all current and former Division I
football players whose scholarship was reduced or not renewed for
reasons other than what's allowed in the NCAA bylaws.  One of
Mr. Chamorro's attorneys is Steve Berman, who is trying to
consolidate the Chamorro lawsuit with a similar one he brought in
Indiana two years ago.  The difference is now there's a plaintiff
affiliated with an FBS conference as opposed to only an FCS
plaintiff.

Mr. Berman filed a motion to consolidate the Chamorro case in
Indiana with the active John Rock lawsuit.  Mr. Rock was a former
Gardner-Webb quarterback whose 2012 lawsuit alleged the NCAA's ban
of multiyear scholarships and limits on scholarship numbers were
illegal.

In August 2013, a federal judge in Indiana ruled against the
NCAA's motion to dismiss the Rock case, which is now nearing the
class-certification process.  U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-
Stinson wrote that the standard of proof would be high for Rock at
trial and whether he "can gather enough evidence to prove that the
relevant market he pleads is correct is a question for another
day."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue has approved a joint request by
the NCAA and Rock's lawyers to reset a due date for the
plaintiffs' statement of special damages and settlement demand
until Nov. 24.  A status conference was scheduled for Sept. 3.

Mr. Berman's latest lawsuit cites seven times a California federal
judge's Aug. 8 ruling from the O'Bannon case, which found the NCAA
violates antitrust law by prohibiting players from being paid for
use of their names, images and likenesses.  The O'Bannon
references are largely an attempt to show that a relevant market
exists that has been harmed under antitrust law.  For instance,
Berman cites the O'Bannon judge's ruling that "FBS football . . .
[is] the only supplier of the unique bundles of goods and
services" provided to recruits.

'Thousands' of football players were harmed

The Chamorro lawsuit alleges the NCAA's old ban on multiyear
scholarships injured "thousands" of athletes by causing them to
pay "millions" more in tuition when their scholarships were
reduced or not renewed.  Players who are non-renewed either pay
tuition out of pocket, uproot themselves by transferring to
another school for a scholarship, uproot themselves to a new
school while having to pay for tuition, or drop out of school, the
suit says.

The complaint argues that the NCAA cannot use amateurism or
competitive balance as procompetitive justifications for limiting
the number of football scholarships.  If competitive balance is
determined to be a legitimate justification, Chamorro's lawsuit
offered five less-restrictive alternatives:

* The NCAA could require revenue sharing among schools.

* The NCAA could replace its current roster restrictions with new
ones that actually increase competitive balance.

* The NCAA could impose limits on facility spending, instead of
permitting major schools to spend "tens of millions of dollars on
facilities that lesser schools cannot hope to imitate."

* The NCAA could impose limits on recruiting budgets.

* The NCAA could impose restrictions on alumni donations to the
athletics department.

In 2012, the NCAA barely passed a rule giving schools the option
to provide multiyear scholarships.  The arrangement was nearly
scrapped when 62.12 percent of the 330 schools voting opposed the
legislation -- just shy of the 62.5 percent needed to overturn the
new rule.

Mr. Chamorros's lawsuit notes that Indiana, USC, Purdue, Fresno
State, Michigan State, North Carolina State, North Carolina, Ohio
State and Iowa have recently chosen to award multiyear
scholarships. "This expanding list of schools demonstrates the
market forces that will eventually force all Division I schools to
offer multiyear scholarships to football players," the suit
states.

The complaint cites comments several years ago from some schools
that opposed making multiyear scholarships an option.  For
instance, Indiana State wrote that multiyear scholarships would
create "nightmares" because a new coach and school "may be 'stuck'
with a student-athlete they no longer want . . . or the new coach
may have a completely different style of offense/defense that the
student athlete no longer fits into."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Chamorro had his scholarship non-
renewed in 2007 despite maintaining a 3.5 grade-point average and
following all NCAA and university rules. Before Chamorro signed
with Colorado State in 2005, Colorado State special teams coach
Dave Arnold had told the kicker his scholarship would be for five
years and that players "with four or five year scholarships had it
better than coaches whose were reviewed every year," the lawsuit
says.

While Chamorro was in college, Colorado State coach Sonny Lubick
had warned that "he could take his scholarship if he did not
become the starter," the lawsuit states.  According to a 2011 USA
Today article, Mr. Lubick told the Associated Press that
Mr. Chamorro was put on notice after his first year and was told,
"You've got to be better.  We'll give you one more year."

Mr. Lubick informed Mr. Chamorro's parents in January 2007 their
son could compete for the starting position but his scholarship
would not be renewed since it would go to a new player, according
to the lawsuit.  At a university appeals hearing, Mr. Lubick said
the NCAA's scholarship cap prevented him from renewing
Mr. Chamorro's scholarship and providing aid to some other
players, according to the suit.

Mr. Chamorro's appeal was denied and he left Colorado State
because he could not afford the cost of out-of-state tuition, the
lawsuit states.  He graduated from another school in 2010 with
"substantial debt," according to the suit.

The lawsuit cites a passage from an NCAA Presidential Taskforce
document that in part says, "Under the current structure of
athletics scholarships, athletes may be legitimately concerned
that their continued access to education depends on sports
success.  This can create a conflict of incentives that may lead
to an emphasis on athletics at the cost of academics."

The NCAA could have some legal precedent on its side.  Four years
ago, Mr. Berman brought a case against the NCAA by former Rice
football player Joseph Agnew, who lost his scholarship as a senior
and alleged the one-year limit amounted to price-fixing.  In 2012,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled against
Mr. Agnew after the NCAA successfully argued that the lawsuit
could not establish a harmed antitrust market for losing an
athletic scholarship.


NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in Bais Yaakov Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet Inc. 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 complaint against Peterson's Nelnet,
LLC ("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was
filed on January 4, 2011, in the U.S. Federal District Court for
the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court").  The
case is Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC.

The complaint alleges that Peterson's sent six advertising faxes
to the named plaintiff in 2008-2009 that were not the result of
express invitation or permission granted by the plaintiff and did
not include certain opt out language. The complaint also alleges
that such faxes violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes. The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent
putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the
TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty
damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful
violations. The complaint seeks to establish a class action.

On September 13, 2013, the named plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, and on October 7, 2013, Peterson's filed a
motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the New Jersey
District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a
class.

On January 23, 2014, Peterson's and the named plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle whereby Peterson's would, without admitting
any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit,
including potential class action claims, for payment of an
immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is
subject to finalization and court approval.

Nelnet is an education services company focused primarily on
providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: asset management
and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment
services (education planning). These products and services help
students and families plan, prepare, and pay for their education
and make the administrative and financial processes more efficient
for schools and financial organizations. In addition, the Company
earns net interest income on a portfolio of federally insured
student loans.


NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Zaw" Action
---------------------------------------------------
Nelnet Inc. 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 Third Amended Complaint was served on
January 18, 2013, on Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than
Zaw against Nelnet (erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as
Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Contra Costa County. The case has since been
moved to the U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District
of California (the "California District Court").

The lawsuit was originally instituted on December 30, 2010, and
alleges that Nelnet violated the California Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in its interactions with the plaintiff, a California
resident. The plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint added additional
allegations claiming that Nelnet violated Section 632 of the
California Penal Code by allegedly recording one or more telephone
calls to the plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent, and sought
$5,000 in statutory damages per alleged violation. The Third
Amended Complaint further alleged that Nelnet improperly recorded
telephone calls to other California residents without such
persons' consent, and sought to establish a class action with
respect to the California Section 632 claim.

As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the California
District Court has not established, recognized, or certified a
class.

On October 16, 2013, Nelnet and the named plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle whereby Nelnet would, without admitting any
wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit,
including potential class action claims, for payment of an
immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is
subject to finalization and court approval.

Nelnet is an education services company focused primarily on
providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: asset management
and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment
services (education planning). These products and services help
students and families plan, prepare, and pay for their education
and make the administrative and financial processes more efficient
for schools and financial organizations. In addition, the Company
earns net interest income on a portfolio of federally insured
student loans.


NELNET INC: Class Not Yet Certified in "Keating" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet Inc. 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 an Amended Complaint was served on
August 6, 2012, on Peterson's, CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary
of Nelnet, and on Nelnet (collectively, the "Keating Defendants"),
in connection with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the U.S. Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio
District Court").

The lawsuit was originally instituted on August 24, 2011, and
alleges that the Keating Defendants sent an advertising text
message to the named plaintiff in June 2011 using an automatic
telephone dialing system, and without the plaintiff's express
consent. The complaint also alleges that this text message
violated the TCPA, purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500,
trebled for a willful violation. The complaint further alleges
that the Keating Defendants sent putative class members similar
text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system, without
such purported class members' consent. The complaint seeks to
establish a class action.

On August 29, 2013, the Keating Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On May 12, 2014, the Ohio District Court granted
the Keating Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing
the case. On June 12, 2014, the named plaintiff filed a Notice of
Intent to Appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the Ohio District
Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. The
Keating Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously in this lawsuit.

Nelnet is an education services company focused primarily on
providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: asset management
and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment
services (education planning). These products and services help
students and families plan, prepare, and pay for their education
and make the administrative and financial processes more efficient
for schools and financial organizations. In addition, the Company
earns net interest income on a portfolio of federally insured
student loans.


NINE WEST: Disciplined Ex-Worker on Spurious Charges, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jermaine Gilyard v. Nine West Group Inc., Jag Footwear Accessories
and Retail Corp., and John Does "1-10," Case No. 1:14-cv-07096
(S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was
subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of race,
racial discrimination, was disciplined several times on spurious
charges, and was finally fired on September 5, 2013, in
retaliation for his attempts to rectify his hostile working
conditions.

Mr. Gilyard is an African-American male.

Nine West Group Inc. is a Delaware domestic for-profit
corporation.  Jag Footwear Accessories and Retail Corporation is a
Pennsylvania domestic for-profit corporation.  The Corporate
Defendants conduct business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Romano, Esq.
          ROMANO & ASSOCIATES
          220 Old Country Road
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-8880


OKLAHOMA CITY, OK: Removed "Coker" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Coker v. Oklahoma City, Case No.
CJ-2014-2424, was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
(Oklahoma City).  The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:14-cv-00933-F to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard C. Smith, Esq.
          Tina A. Hughes, Esq.
          MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR'S OFFICE-OKC
          200 N Walker Ave., Suite 400
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 297-2451
          Facsimile: (405) 297-3851
          E-mail: rick.smith@okc.gov
                  tina.hughes@okc.gov


OSCAR O. REY: Removed "Pastrana" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Yoshuan Pastrana v. Oscar O.
Rey, CPA, PA, et al., Case No. 14-020584CA01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23257-CMA to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, 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: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Lewis Elkins, Esq.
          BRYANT, MILLER, OLIVE P.A.
          1 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 455-2653
          Facsimile: (305) 374-0895
          E-mail: melkins@bmolaw.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 from July 2010 to
December 2010, four purported nationwide class actions were filed
challenging the use of retained asset accounts to settle death
benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract
owned by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that
covers the lives of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for
Multi-District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance Company of
America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation. The consolidated complaint
alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts that earn
interest and are available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in
whole or in part, at any time, to settle death benefit claims is
in violation of federal law, and asserts claims of breach of
contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits,
equitable relief and pre and post-judgment interest.

In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In August 2012,
the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion without
prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment motions on the
issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury. In October
2012, the parties filed motions for summary judgment.

In November 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order stating
that the named plaintiffs: (1) did not suffer a cognizable legal
injury; (2) are not entitled to any damages based on allegations
of delay in payment of benefits; and (3) are not entitled to
disgorgement of profits as a remedy. The Court ordered further
briefing on whether nominal damages should be awarded and whether
any equitable relief should be granted.

In February 2014, the parties filed briefs on the issues addressed
in the Court's order.

In August 2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement of this matter as a class action settlement.
If final approval is obtained from the Court, the anticipated
class action settlement will be within the amount reserved for
this matter.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 Huffman v. The
Prudential Insurance Company, a purported nationwide class action
brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance
contracts owned by ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plans
was filed in September 2010 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of
retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to
settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking
injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In
February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In
April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome of a
case involving another insurer that is before the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed ADR-Related Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 from November 2002 to
March 2005, eleven separate complaints were filed against the
Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli & Brown in New Jersey
state court and in the New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County as
Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. The complaints
allege that an alternative dispute resolution agreement entered
into among Prudential Insurance, over 235 claimants who are
current and former Prudential Insurance employees, and Leeds
Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing the claimants) was
illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired with Leeds Morelli
& Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of contract, and
violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to the law firm
with the purpose of limiting Prudential's liability to the
claimants.

In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases
for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen
County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that
resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235
plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within
existing reserves for this matter.

In December 2013, the Company participated in court-ordered
mediation that resulted in a December 2013 settlement involving 40
of the remaining 42 plaintiffs with litigation against the
Company, including plaintiffs who had not yet appealed the
dismissal of their claims. The amounts paid to the 40 plaintiffs
were within existing reserves for this matter.

In July 2014, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment
motion dismissing with prejudice the complaint of one of the two
remaining plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Sought in Sterling Heights Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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, City of Sterling Heights General Employees'
Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., was filed
in August 2012 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging violations of federal securities
law. The complaint names as defendants the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal
Accounting Officer and certain members of the Company's Board of
Directors. The complaint alleges that knowingly false and
misleading statements were made regarding the Company's current
and future financial condition based on, among other things, the
alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits
that should either have been paid to policyholders or their
beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the
extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law
violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment
of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an undetermined amount
of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add three additional
putative institutional investors as lead plaintiffs: National
Shopmen Pension Fund, The Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 &
172 Pension & Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension
Fund. In June 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

In February 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.

In July 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class
comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's
Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011.


QUORUM HEALTH: Trial Begins in Malpractice Case v. Schlicht
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Heild, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that years
after Dr. Christian Schlicht left New Mexico, and the Gerald
Champion Regional Medical Center filed bankruptcy under the weight
of the ensuing medical malpractice claims involving him, a trial
began on Sept. 1 in Albuquerque that could determine whether
corporate negligence was to blame.

Just how did Dr. Schlicht get hired at an Alamogordo hospital in
2006, where he performed alleged experimental back surgery on
dozens of patients who have since suffered life-altering
complications?

And who allowed him to continue working there for two years
despite red-flag warnings of his actions?

Attorneys for 71 plaintiffs contend the national hospital
administration company, Quorum Health Resources, which provided
top executives to run Gerald Champion, was negligent in hiring and
supervising Dr. Schlicht and by allowing him to perform a non-FDA-
approved spine procedure using bone cement.

"These surgeries can never be done anywhere safely in the world,"
Albuquerque attorney Lisa Curtis said in opening arguments on
Sept. 1.  "This is absolute human experimentation."

Ms. Curtis alleged Quorum allowed the practice "for financial
gain.  There can be no other explanation."

The plaintiffs contend Quorum also permitted Dr. Schlicht to
perform other complicated surgeries that he was neither qualified
nor trained to perform.  His last botched surgery in New Mexico
occurred just before he quit his job at the hospital, the
plaintiffs contend.  He performed an elaborate spine surgery
involving rods, screws and plates at the nonprofit Gerald Champion
hospital with no surgical assistant.

Quorum attorneys deny the claims, contending the hospital's board
of directors, who were selected from the southern New Mexico
community served by the hospital, were ultimately responsible for
all hospital liability.

Attorney John Klecan, who represents Quorum, told U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz that it was the hospital's medical staff
that by law is to supervise the actions of its physicians -- not
hospital administrators.

He also said top Quorum-hired managers weren't aware of the
experimental procedure being used at the hospital, where
Dr. Schlicht worked at a base annual salary of $450,000.

"The hole in their case is they can't show anybody knew that
procedure was being done," Mr. Klecan said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Greig Coates argued that hospital officials
were alerted to the problems by another physician assigned to
monitor him and by Molina Healthcare, which for a time wouldn't
pay for surgeries Judge Schlicht performed.

Mr. Coates said the board was never told of the red flags.

"They were not and should not be held responsible," Mr. Coates
said of board members.

Ms. Curtis said Dr. Schlicht was never fired or removed by
hospital officials because of the experimental surgeries.  She
said he resigned only after learning his spine procedures weren't
making enough money for the hospital and that he wasn't going to
be awarded bonuses.

Other settlements

In 2012, the plaintiffs entered a partial settlement of about $33
million with several parties.

That amount included $13.5 million from Quorum and another
insurance company, $7.5 million from Gerald Champion hospital and
$11.5 million from another physician who teamed up with
Dr. Schlicht to perform some of the bone cement procedures.

Even though Gerald Champion emerged from bankruptcy protection
after the settlement, the case remained pending in Bankruptcy
Court in New Mexico because of other legal action involving Quorum
in Tennessee.

Quorum, a subsidiary of Community Health Systems, filed suit
against two insurance companies for refusing to cover the claims
by the New Mexico plaintiffs.  That case is still pending.


REACHLOCAL INC: Former Client Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
ReachLocal 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 lawsuit, purporting
to be a class action, was filed on May 2, 2014, by one of the
Company's former clients in the United States District Court in
Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation
of California's unfair competition law. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. While the case
is at an early stage, the Company believes that the case is
substantively and procedurally without merit.

ReachLocal's mission is to help local small- to medium-sized
businesses (SMBs) around the world acquire, transact with, and
retain customers online.


ROBERT MCDONNELL: Convicted of Conspiracy and Public Corruption
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury on September 4, 2014, convicted former Virginia Gov. Bob
McDonnell and his wife Maureen of multiple counts of conspiracy
and public corruption related to their endorsement of nutritional
supplements that could supposedly treat Alzheimer's and multiple
sclerosis.

Federal prosecutors had accused the couple of accepting about
$165,000 in loans and luxury gifts from Jonnie Williams Sr., the
CEO of pharmaceutical company Star Scientific.

Jurors found the former governor guilty of 11 federal charges, and
convicted his wife of nine.  The couple faces sentencing on Jan.
6, 2015. USA Today reported that family members wept as the
verdicts were read.  The jury reportedly spent 18 hours over three
days after beginning deliberations on September 1, 2014.

According to the 14-count indictment, McDonnell used Williams'
private jet while campaigning for governor.  After he was elected
on Nov. 3, 2009, his wife allegedly asked Williams to help pay for
a dress for her husband's upcoming inauguration and grew angry
when a senior staffer expressed concerns about the idea.

Over the next few years, Williams loaned the couple his Ferrari
and jet, and took Maureen on a $19,000 shopping spree, according
to the indictment.  The McDonnells also accepted a Rolex watch
engraved "71st Governor of Virginia," golf clubs, designer
clothing and iPhones, among other gifts, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors also accused the McDonnells of accepting tens of
thousands of dollars from Williams to pay for the weddings of
their two daughters.  In July 2011, Williams allowed the family to
stay at his multimillion-dollar vacation home on Smith Mountain
Lake, according to the indictment.

McDonnell traded such gifts for his promotion of Star Scientific's
products, including the dietary supplement Anatabloc.

An ongoing federal class action in Chicago accuses Star Scientific
of pushing Anatabloc with false claims that it can treat
Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis.

Williams reportedly received immunity to testify against the
McDonnells.

The McDonnells had separate legal defense teams and "tried to
portray their marriage as so broken that they could not have
conspired to take bribes as federal prosecutors charged," USA
Today reported.

Though McDonnell fought the charges, he reportedly repaid Williams
more than $120,000, with interest, last year and apologized for
bringing "embarrassment" to the state of Virginia.


STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Stereotaxis 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 securities
class action was filed on October 7, 2011, against the Company and
two of the Company's past executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Kevin Pound, a
purported shareholder of the Company. On December 29, 2011, the
court granted an unopposed motion appointing Local 522 Pension
Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the action and granting Lead Plaintiff
leave to file an Amended Complaint, which Lead Plaintiff filed on
March 19, 2012.

The Amended Complaint alleged that, during the period from
February 28, 2011 through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition and future business
prospects, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint
sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other
relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

On May 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. On July 24, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed its response to
the motion to dismiss, and on August 30, 2012, the Company filed
its reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss.

On March 18, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of
appeal prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014.

Stereotaxis Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the Epoch
Solution, which is an advanced remote robotic navigation system
for use in a hospital's interventional surgical suite, or
"interventional lab", that the Company believes revolutionizes the
treatment of arrhythmias and coronary artery disease by enabling
enhanced safety, efficiency and efficacy for catheter-based, or
interventional, procedures. The Epoch Solution is comprised of the
Niobe ES Robotic Magnetic Navigation System ("Niobe ES system"),
Odyssey Information Management Solution ("Odyssey Solution"), and
the Vdrive Robotic Navigation System ("Vdrive system").


TENNESSEE: Class Certified in Suit Over TennCare Delays
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit
related to alleged delays in Tennessee's Medicaid program.

Eleven plaintiffs sued state officials for what they say are
inexcusable delays associated with TennCare's application and
hearing process.

In addition to granting class certification, U.S. District Judge
Todd Campbell also issued a preliminary injunction on Sept. 2,
2014, concluding that the plaintiffs have shown a strong
likelihood of success in the lawsuit.

Tennessee cannot use the Obama Administration's healthcare
reforms, popularly known as "Obamacare" or the "federal exchange"
as an excuse for the delays, Campbell held.

"If a state decides to participate in the Medicaid program, it is
required to ensure that applications are adjudicated reasonably
promptly and that hearings on delayed adjudications are held
reasonably promptly," he wrote.  "Despite the state's argument to
the contrary, this principal is longstanding and was not altered
by the Affordable Care Act."

The Tennessee district court certified the class in the lawsuit as
all people who applied for TennCare on or after Oct. 1, 2013, who
have not received a decision in 45 days, or 90 days for disability
applicants, and who have not been given a "fair hearing" after
those time periods.

"The court finds that, given the large number of persons applying
for Medicaid in Tennessee, the geographic scope of the potential
class, and the likely inability of the economically-disadvantaged
potential class members to bring individual lawsuits, the element
of numerosity is met in this case," Campbell wrote.  "The alleged
problem is systematic and operational, so it potentially affects
all Medicaid applicants."

The plaintiff class is represented by attorneys from the Tennessee
Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National
Health Law Program.

The case is Melissa Wilson v. Darin Gordon, et al., Case No. 3-14-
1492, in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division.


TRAVELLOOGA LLC: Removed "Wright" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wright, et al. v. Travellooga
LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-14-016014 21, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-62024-WJZ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleges that they were not paid at the proper
overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, 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: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua Michael Entin, Esq.
          ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A.
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1970
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-7201
          Facsimile: (954) 764-2443
          Telephone: joshentin@comcast.net


UNI-PIXEL INC: To Defend Against Texas Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, 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 two purported class
action complaints were filed in June 2013 in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York and the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the
Company and its CEO, CFO, and Chairman. The Southern District of
New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July
2, 2013.

The Company said, "The surviving complaint alleges that we and our
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements
concerning our licensing agreements and product development.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock during the period from December
7, 2012 to May 31, 2013."

"We will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.  The Company has
directors' and officers' and corporate liability insurance to
cover risks associated with securities claims filed against the
Company or its directors and officers and has notified its
insurers of these actions.  Based on the very early stage of the
litigation, it is not possible to estimate the amount or range of
possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or a
settlement of this matter."

Uni-Pixel makes transparent conductive films and flexible
electronic films based on its proprietary Copperhead(TM)
manufacturing process for high volume, roll to roll printing of
flexible thin-film conductor patterns.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Reported Decrease in Legal Expense
-------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, 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 legal expense decreased
by approximately $633,000 to $551,000 for the six months ended
June 30, 2014 compared to $1,184,000 for the six months ended June
30, 2013 primarily due to a decrease in legal fees incurred
related to the UK Action, the Texas Action, the class action
lawsuit and patent related legal work.

Uni-Pixel makes transparent conductive films and flexible
electronic films based on its proprietary Copperhead(TM)
manufacturing process for high volume, roll to roll printing of
flexible thin-film conductor patterns.


UNILEVER US: Judge Trims Deceptive Labeling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge has trimmed a putative class action brought by a
consumer who claims Unilever United States Inc., PepsiCo. Inc. and
a Pepsi and Lipton Tea partnership misbranded their products
through deceptive labeling practices, tossing all claims against
products that the plaintiff did not purchase.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. DaVila on Aug. 28 partially granted
the defendants' separate motions to dismiss, which called for an
end to the suit brought in 2012. Named plaintiff Amy Maxwell
alleges that a number of the defendants' products, including
Lipton Sweet Tea and Lipton Brisk Lemon Tea, are "misbranded" and
cannot be legally manufactured, advertised, distributed or sold.

The judge said last week that the court isn't able to identify
which of the plaintiff's eight purchased products are
substantially similar to the 83 nonpurchased items in the suit.

"Plaintiff alleges that all of the 91 products are 'physically
substantially similar' and share identical labeling claims, yet
Defendants showed in their motion numerous examples where the
products had considerable differences among the labels," Judge
DaVila wrote in the 15-page order.  "Plaintiff leaves the Court
analyzing which of the 83 nonpurchased products resemble the eight
purchased products, an arduous task the Court is not inclined [to]
undertake."

The judge dismissed all of Maxwell's claims brought against
nonpurchased products, as well as a cause of action brought under
the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law.  The
court did, however, find that the claims for nutrient content,
antioxidant content, nutritional value and natural claims are
properly pled, may deceive a reasonable consumer and are
"inappropriate to resolve at the motion to dismiss stage."

Maxwell brought the suit in 2012 and filed a second amended
complaint in April.  The plaintiff said that the sale, purchase or
possession of the misbranded goods is a criminal act in California
and that she would not have purchased the products if she had
known it was misbranded.

Maxwell, who seeks to represent all people in the U.S. or
California who purchased one of the products in dispute, also
accused the companies of making illegal statements on the labels
of the items.  The statements are misleading, deceptive, unfair
and fraudulent, according to the second amended complaint.

"Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that the
Defendants' Purchased Products were misbranded under the Sherman
Law and bore food labeling claims that failed to meet the
requirements to make those food labeling claims," the complaint
says.  "Similarly, Plaintiff did not know, had no reason to know,
that Defendants' Purchased Products were false and misleading."

But Judge DaVila on Aug. 28 granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions for dismissal.  Maxwell has 15 days to further
amend the complaint, according to court documents.

"[T]he Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that the 91
products are substantially similar simply because they share an
alleged Sherman Law violation," the judge wrote.

The plaintiff is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates and J. Price Coleman of Coleman Law Firm.

PepsiCo is represented by Daniel W. Nelson --
dnelson@gibsondunn.com -- and Timothy W. Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn.

Unilever and Pepsi-Lipton Tea are represented by William L. Stern
-- wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia M. Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- and
Lisa A. Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

The case is Amy Maxwell v. Unilever United States Inc. et al.,
case number 5:12-cv-01736, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


UNITED EGG: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Sale of Eggs & Egg Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh Supermarkets, LLC v. United Egg Producers, Inc., United Egg
Association, United States Egg Marketers, Inc., Hillandale Farms
of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, L.P., Hillandale Farms East,
Inc., Hillandale Farms, Inc., Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC, Michael Foods,
Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., National Food Corporation, Cal-Maine
Foods, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Midwest Poultry Services, L.P.,
NuCal Foods, Inc., R.W. Sauder, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05074-GP
(E.D. Pa., September 4, 2014) alleges a conspiracy among the
Defendants and certain unnamed co-conspirators where they agreed
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which shell
eggs and egg products were sold in the United States, including by
controlling the aggregate supply of domestic eggs.

Marsh Supermarkets, LLC is an Indiana corporation with its
principal offices located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Marsh is
engaged in the retail grocery supermarket business and, by itself
and through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and licenses over 79
supermarkets in Indiana and Ohio.  Marsh sells shell eggs and egg
products to its retail customers.

United Egg Producers, Inc. is a Maine cooperative corporation with
its office and principal place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia.
UEP and the other Defendants are producers, marketers, or sellers
of shell and egg products and their trade groups.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard D. Marcus, Esq.
          Moira Cain-Mannix, Esq.
          Brian C. Hill, Esq.
          MARCUS & SHAPIRA LLP
          One Oxford Center, 35th Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 471-3490
          Facsimile: (412) 391-8758
          E-mail: cain-mannix@marcus-shapira.com
                  jmarcus@marcus-shapira.com
                  hill@marcus-shapira.com


US BANK: Sued for Duping Homebuyers by Giving High-Interest Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that US Bank defrauded homebuyers
by offering to modify their high-interest loans, then dragging it
out to keep collecting the high interest, sometimes causing them
to lose their homes to foreclosure, a class action claims in
Contra Costa County Court.


US BANK: Unlawfully Charges Forced Placed Insurance, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novice M. Collins, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated U.S. Bank, National Association, and
Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC555984 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., August 27, 2014) is based on the Defendants'
alleged business pattern and practice of unfairly, unlawfully and
deceptively charging the Plaintiff and every other class member
for forced placed insurance, more than what was "necessary" to
insure the class members' properties.

Ms. Collins owned real property in Bakersfield, California,
encumbered by a mortgage loan serviced by U.S. Bank (# 045-
6020316-703 1421) on a form Deed of Trust.

U.S. Bank was chartered on July 13, 1863, under the laws of the
United States and is a loan servicing company, with its principal
place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The Plaintiff is
unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Peggy Reali, Esq.
          Janine Menhennet, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  preali@markham-law.com
                  jmenhennet@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Francisco J. Aldana, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCISCO J. ALDANA
          205 West Date Street
          San Diego, CA 92101-2914
          Telephone: (619) 236-8355
          Facsimile: (619) 374-7056

               - and -

          Barron E. Ramos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BARRON E. RAMOS
          27201 Puerta Real, Suite 300
          Mission Viejo, CA 92692
          Telephone: (949) 420-4590
          Facsimile: (760) 994-4590
          E-mail: ramosesq@yahoo.om


WARNER MUSIC: Suits Over Digital Music Downloads in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served Warner Music Group Corp. with
requests for information in connection with an industry-wide
investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On
February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also
seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music.

Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January
12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District
Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January
10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for
Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in
part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the
CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide
variety of state and federal claims remain, for the class of
internet download purchasers.

Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on
August 31, 2011.  Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011
stipulation and order, the case is currently in discovery, Warner
Music Group Corp. 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.

Disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing. Plaintiffs
filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014. The Company's
reply date has not yet been set.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of
the merits of the claims, this and any related litigation could
continue to be costly, and divert the time and resources of
management. The potential outcomes of these claims that are
reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot
presently be made, the Company said.

Warner Music Group Corp. is the direct parent of WMG Holdings
Corp. ("Holdings"), which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition
Corp. ("Acquisition Corp."). Acquisition Corp. is one of the
world's major music-based content companies.


WARNER MUSIC: Jan. 2015 Final Hearing on Royalties Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. 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 five putative class
action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in Federal
Court in the Northern District of California between February 2,
2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which were brought by
various recording artists, all allege that the Company has
improperly calculated the royalties due to them for certain
digital music sales under the terms of their recording contracts.
The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on their own
behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of other
17 similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on a
previous ruling that held another recorded music company had
breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case
through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of
the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have
the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to
their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be
appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel
moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order,
the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead
class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint
on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On January 23, 2014, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As part of
the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million
(less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration
and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of
downloads and ringtones.

Plaintiffs will file their motion for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement on or before November 26, 2014. The hearing
on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for January 8,
2015.

Based on an evaluation of potential outcomes of these claims that
are reasonably possible and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss possible, the Company has recorded what it
believes is an appropriate reserve related to these cases, which
amount is not material.

Warner Music Group Corp. is the direct parent of WMG Holdings
Corp. ("Holdings"), which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition
Corp. ("Acquisition Corp."). Acquisition Corp. is one of the
world's major music-based content companies.


YELP INC: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Revive User Reviews Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, report that
the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 2 rejected attempts to revive a
proposed class action accusing Yelp Inc. of extorting advertising
money from small businesses by manipulating and fabricating
reviews, ruling Yelp was allowed to remove or rearrange positive
reviews.

The appeals panel found that the plaintiffs failed to allege Yelp
had wrongfully threatened economic loss by manipulating user
reviews.  There was no contractual or statutory right barring Yelp
from rearranging reviews, meaning even if Yelp did threaten to
repost negative reviews, it did not qualify as extortion, the
panel held.

"The business owners may deem the posting or order of user reviews
as a threat of economic harm, but it is not unlawful for Yelp to
post and sequence the reviews," the opinion said.  "As Yelp has
the right to charge for legitimate advertising services, the
threat of economic harm that Yelp leveraged is, at most, hard
bargaining."

The decision affirms U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen's 2011
ruling dismissing the suit with prejudice, finding the plaintiffs
failed to state enough facts to prove their "entirely speculative"
claims that Yelp had enlisted its employees to write negative
reviews on their businesses.  The panel agreed with Judge Chen
that there was nothing to connect general allegations of Yelp
hiring reviewers to the plaintiffs' individual negative reviews.

The plaintiffs, four California-based small businesses, claimed
that 200 Yelp employees and individuals acting on behalf of the
company had written negative reviews, citing a May 2008 New York
Times blog post in which Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman allegedly
admitted to paying users to write reviews.

The plaintiffs claimed that Yelp had controlled user reviews by
removing positive reviews of businesses that did not advertise on
Yelp and promoted the negative reviews.

The panel further found that any implicit threat to remove
positive Yelp reviews absent advertising business was not wrongful
under extortion statutes.  The business had no pre-existing right,
either through contracts or statutes, to have positive reviews
appear on their Yelp pages, according to the opinion.

"We emphasize that we are not holding that no cause of action
exists that would cover conduct such as that alleged, if
adequately pled," the opinion said.  "[But] extortion is an
exceedingly narrow concept as applied to fundamentally economic
behavior."

Aaron Schur, Yelp's senior director of litigation, praised the
ruling in a blog post on Sept. 2, writing most allegations of
extortion come from businesses or online marketers with an "axe to
grind."

"We are obviously happy that the court reached the right result,
and saw through these thin attempts by a few businesses and their
lawyers to disparage Yelp and draw attention away from their own
occasional negative review," Mr. Schur wrote.

Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon and Richard C.
Tallman sat on the panel that reached the Sept. 2 decision.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lawrence Dale Murray, John
Henning II and Robert C. Strickland of Murray & Associates.

Yelp is represented by S. Ashlie Beringer, Molly Cutler and Gail
Ellen Lees -- glees@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn and in-house
counsel Aaron Schur.

The case is Boris Y. Levitt et al. v. Yelp! Inc., case number 11-
17676, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


* Surgical "Black Box" May Spur Wave of Malpractice Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Chethan Sathya, writing for CNN, reports that researchers in
Canada are working on a surgical tracking box -- like the ones
placed in airplanes -- that records surgeons' movements and
identifies errors during an operation.

By pinpointing mistakes and telling surgeons when they're veering
"off course," a black box could prevent future slip-ups, says
Dr. Teodor Grantcharov, a minimally invasive surgeon at St
Michael's Hospital in Toronto.  Unlike the so-called black boxes
in aviation, which are used after disasters occur, the surgical
black box Grantcharov is creating will be used proactively to
prevent major patient complications.

A number of hospitals have already expressed interest in using the
device, Dr. Grantcharov says.  But the litigious medical
environment may make its implementation problematic. If the
recordings were used in court, they could open the floodgates to a
new wave of malpractice concerns, which would be counterproductive
to surgeons and patients, Dr. Grantcharov says.

"We have to ensure the black box is used as an educational tool to
help surgeons evaluate their performance and improve," he says.

A work in progress

Dr. Grantcharov's black box is a multifaceted system.  In addition
to the actual box, it includes operating room microphones and
cameras that record the surgery, the surgeon's movements and
details about team dynamics.  It will allow surgeons to hone in on
exactly what went wrong and why.

The black box will eventually assess everything from how surgeons
stitch to how delicately they handle organs and communicate with
nurses during high-stress situations.  Error-analysis software
within the black box will help surgeons identify when they are
"deviating" from the norm or using techniques linked to higher
rates of complications.

So far, Dr. Grantcharov's black box has been tested on about 40
patients undergoing laparoscopic weight-loss surgery.

"At this initial stage, we are analyzing surgeries to determine
how many errors occur and which ones actually lead to bad results
for patients," Dr. Grantcharov says.  Not every error will result
in a patient complication.

Dr. Grantcharov's initial research has shown that surgeons
recognize few of their mistakes, and, on average, make about 20
errors per surgery -- regardless of experience level.  Once
Dr. Grantcharov's team determines which errors affect patient
safety, it hopes to be able to provide this information to
surgeons in real time.  The team has also developed software that
can synthesize the recorded data into user-friendly and
interpretable information for surgeons.

The concept of using a black box in surgery isn't new.  But until
now, the technology never made it out of the laboratory because it
lacked comprehensiveness, Dr. Grantcharov says.  Earlier surgical
black boxes didn't record all the important elements of the
operating room, he says, leaving pieces of the puzzle missing.

"To truly understand what causes an error, you need to know all
the factors that may come into play."

Recording mistakes

Dr. Grantcharov was inspired to develop the surgical black box
after years of witnessing how patient complications affected
surgeons.

"The feeling of not knowing what causes a complication, whether
it's surgical technique, communication in the operating room or
the patient's condition itself, is tormenting," Dr. Grantcharov
says.

Many surgeons, however, may be uncomfortable with using a black
box in the operating room, says Dr. Teodoro Forcht Dagi with the
American College of Surgeons Perioperative Care Committee.

"If there was a legal requirement to record every operation, then
many surgeons would be resistant," Dr. Forcht Dagi says.  He says
he believes doing so would create a sense of nervousness that
would paralyze a surgeon's ability to operate and end up
ultimately harming patients.

"The black box needs to be used solely by surgeons for their own
education, in which case I think it's a great idea," Dr. Forcht
Dagi says.

Errors during surgery have generally been dealt with after the
fact, and only once a complication during the patient's recovery
occurs.  Weeks after surgery, cases with complications are
presented to a panel of experts, who weigh in on what may have
gone wrong during the operation.

Yet in many cases nothing is recorded apart from an audio
transcript of the operation, making it tough to identify what
caused each complication.  The black box would add much needed
context.

"I would rush (a black box) into service immediately," says
Richard Epstein, professor of law at New York University's School
of Law.  Since most medical lawsuits end up being "he said, she
said" arguments, not knowing exactly what happened in the
operating room just adds to the level of distrust, Epstein says.

In the United States, the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act
prevents courts from using data that doctors and hospitals use for
peer review, a self-regulation process in which experts or "peers"
evaluate one another.  The law allows doctors to assess each other
openly and identify areas for improvement without fear of
litigation.

But there are exceptions to this rule, says William McMurry,
president of the American Board of Professional Liability
Attorneys. For instance, cases where surgeries are recorded but
don't receive any peer review can be used in court.

While Mr. McMurry says that "keeping patients in the dark about
the details of their surgery is never OK," he points out that
litigation concerns should not derail use of the black box. It
will be an asset to the health care system regardless of whether
it can be used in court, he says.

"We care about better health care, and the black box will provide
surgeons with the information they need to avoid mistakes,"
Mr. McMurry says.  "It's a win-win situation."

The surgical black box will be tested in hospitals in Canada,
Denmark and parts of South America in the next few months.  Talks
are also under way with a number of American hospitals.

If doctors accept it, implementation in U.S. hospitals could
happen quickly since the surgical black box isn't considered a
medical device and doesn't require approval from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Bottom line, Dr. Grantcharova says, is that even after years of
practicing medicine, the black box "made me a safer surgeon and a
better teacher."


                              *********

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  * * *