CAR_Public/140911.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 181

                             Headlines


3M COMPANY: Environmental Suit by Former Employee Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: Suit by Morgan County, Ala. Residents Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: Suit by Franklin County, Ala. Resident Still on Hold
3M COMPANY: Dismissed From Litigation Over Sale of Ceradyne
ADVANCED MICRO: Faces "Hatamian" Securities Suit in Cal. Court

ALLERGAN INC: Must Face Shareholder Derivative Claims
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Employees' Overtime Class Action Can Proceed
ALTRIA GROUP: Discloses Tobacco-Related Lawsuit in United States
ALTRIA GROUP: Engle Progeny Cases v. PM USA Set for Trial
ALTRIA GROUP: Provides Updates on Progeny Appellate Issues

ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces Smoking & Health Litigations in Canada
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Face Medical Monitoring Litigations
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 14 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases in U.S.
ALTRIA GROUP: Sept. 18 Oral Argument in El-Roy "Lights" Lawsuit

ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Suits After "Good" Ruling
ALTRIA GROUP: Ohio Court Dismisses Phillips "Lights" Lawsuit
ALTRIA GROUP: 9th Cir. Won't Review Denial of Cert. in "Cabbat"
ALTRIA GROUP: 7th Cir. Won't Review Denial of Cert. in "Wyatt"
ASTEX PHARMA: Closure Order Bid in Stockholders' Case Denied

BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Frat Boys' Class Action Can't Proceed
CALIX INC: 2015 Trial in "Steinhardt" Suit Over Occam Merger
CAPITAL ONE: Sued for Increasing Fixed APR From 0% to 22.9%
CHINA CERAMICS: Faces Several Securities Suits in New York Court
CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in "Velasco" Class Action

CIGNA CORP: Appeals Order to Reform Pension Plan in "Amara" Suit
CIGNA CORP: Grant of Summary Judgment in Ingenix Suit Appealed
COCA COLA: Judge Admonishes Plaintiffs Lawyers Over Legal Fees
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement of ERISA Suit for Implementation
COOK COUNTY, IL: Some Detainees Can Join Class Action v. Sheriff

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Awards Atty. Fees in "Rodriguez" Suit
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Faces Securities Suit Over Initial Public Offering
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Tenants File Class Action Over Excessive Fees
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Claims

FORD MOTOR: "Holt" Suit Remanded to Miller County Circuit Court
FORD MOTOR: Apartheid Suit Plaintiffs Can't Pursue Redress in U.S.
GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Class Action Trial Begins
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Settles Oil Spill Claims for $1.028 Billion
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND: Judge Revives Furlough Class Action

HI HUMAN SERVICES DEP'T: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
HOME DEPOT: Harris Penn Files Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Arising From Defective Accord Vehicles
ITT CORP: Discovery Proceeds in Conn. Suit Against Travelers
JACOBY & MEYERS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Billing

KLEENCO MAINTENANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Trogdon" Case Denied
LA LAKERS: Sues Chubb Unit Over Denying TCPA Class Action Coverage
LIFELOCK INC: Plans to File Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Stock Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Seeks to Appeal Claim Certification in "Bezich"
LONGWEI PETROLEUM: Reconsideration Bid in Securities Suit Denied

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Removed "Finerman" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
MARTIN BROTHERS: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $1.9 Million
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit
MILLENIUM PHARMA: Gov't Disputes PRMA Argument in Integrilin Suit
MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL: Jan. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Clinics May Face Liability in Steroid MDL
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Reached in Heckmann Class Suit
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Seeks to Dismiss 2013 Shareholder Suit
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Theft Class Action

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hotel Reservation Suits Okayed
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Truck Driver Claims
PINNACLE WEST: Customers Appeal Dismissal of Suit to 9th Circuit
PRO OUTSOURCING: Removed "Marin" Suit to Florida District Court
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Judge Tosses Managers' Severance Class Action

REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Litigation in Early Stages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Motion for Conditional Collective Action Okayed
SLEEPMED THERAPIES: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wage, Suit Says

SLOAN VALVE: Obtains Final Approval of United Desert Case Accord
SLOAN VALVE: Court Awards Atty. Fees in United Desert Case
SOLARCITY CORP: DeMattio's Bid to Certify Class Action Denied
SOLARCITY CORP: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
SPOKEO INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Purcell" Class Action

STAAR SURGICAL: Faces "Todd" Securities Suit in Calif. Court
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Against Owner-Operator Class Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Supreme Court Nixed Petition for Certiorari
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Case Remains Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Appeal in "Montalvo" Case Nixed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appealing Certification in Drivers' Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Against Utah Minimum Wage Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: CRS to Defend Arbitration in "Cilluffo"
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Against "Calix" Minimum Wage Suit
TACTICAL CRIME: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 863: 3rd Cir. Approves Atty Fees in ERISA Cases
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Engine Defect
TYSON FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Employees' Wage Case
TYSON FOODS: Loses Appeal of Jury Verdict in "Bouaphakeo" Case
UMC NEVADA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Sanctions in "Small" Case

UNUM GROUP: Court Favors Unum Life in "Merrimon," "Mowery" Suit
UNUM GROUP: Files Motion to Junk "Don" Lawsuit in Calif. Court
VOYA FINANCIAL: ILIAC to Make $15.0 Million Payment to Class
WAL-MART: 5th Cir. Upholds Liability Judgment in "Forte" Case
WARD MANUFACTURING: Court Dismisses "Roy" Product Liability Case

YELP INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in User Review Class Action
YRC WORLDWIDE: Seeks New Approval for "Bryant" Stock Suit Accord


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Environmental Suit by Former Employee Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by a former employee of 3M Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility, remains stayed after the filing
of a bankruptcy petition by a co-defendant, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility. The Circuit Court in 2005 granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal
injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by
the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation
Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in
November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on
behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in
the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In May 2013, the Court stayed
the case for an unknown period due to the filing of a bankruptcy
petition by a co-defendant.


3M COMPANY: Suit by Morgan County, Ala. Residents Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
against 3M Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility,
remains stayed after the filing of a bankruptcy petition by a co-
defendant, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
(filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds)
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively
putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the first action, filed in the same court
in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage
on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until
the stay is lifted.


3M COMPANY: Suit by Franklin County, Ala. Resident Still on Hold
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Morgan County Circuit Court abated a case filed by a resident
of Franklin County, Alabama against 3M Company, putting it on hold
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the
first case filed there, according to the company's July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT,
Inc., Synagro South, LLC, and Biological Processors of America.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent
with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit
Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution
of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.


3M COMPANY: Dismissed From Litigation Over Sale of Ceradyne
-----------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County entered an Order
dismissing 3M Company and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation from a
lawsuit over the sale of Ceradyne, Inc., according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against Ceradyne, Inc., its directors, 3M, and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in connection
with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne. Two suits were filed
in California Superior Court for Orange County, and two were filed
in the Delaware Chancery Court. The suits alleged that the
defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their
fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by seeking to sell Ceradyne through
an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms, and/or by allegedly failing to make adequate disclosures to
Ceradyne stockholders regarding the acquisition of Ceradyne. 3M
completed its acquisition of Ceradyne in November 2012. In
November 2012, the parties reached a settlement with the
California plaintiffs for an amount that is not material to the
Company, while the Delaware plaintiffs dismissed their complaints
without prejudice. The settlement will bind all former Ceradyne
shareholders and has received preliminary approval from the
California court. A final approval hearing was held in July 2013,
and the California Court denied approval of the settlement. The
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of
approval of the settlement, which motion was denied by the
California court. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint, which motion was denied without prejudice
in January 2014. By stipulation in February 2014, plaintiffs
agreed to voluntarily dismiss claims against 3M and Cyborg
Acquisition Corporation without prejudice. In March 2014, the
Court entered its Order dismissing 3M and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation from the action without prejudice.


ADVANCED MICRO: Faces "Hatamian" Securities Suit in Cal. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is facing a lawsuit captioned
Hatamian v. AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2014.

On January 15, 2014, a class action lawsuit captioned Hatamian v.
AMD, et al., C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00226 was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims against the
Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during
the period October 27, 2011 through October 28, 2012. The
complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially
misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Company and
the individual officers regarding our 32nm technology and "Llano"
product, which statements and omissions, the plaintiffs claim,
allegedly operated to inflate artificially the price paid for the
Company's common stock during the period. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.


ALLERGAN INC: Must Face Shareholder Derivative Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that botox
manufacturer Allergan Inc. will have to face shareholder
derivative claims based on the off-label marketing of its
signature drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ruled on Sept. 2, adding the latest wrinkle to a case that has
been on-again, off-again for four years.

The facts suggest Allergan's board of directors knew of and
intentionally disregarded an illicit marketing campaign that
lasted more than a decade, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a
unanimous panel.

Reversing the district court's dismissal, Judge Reinhardt found
the showing is enough under Delaware law to demonstrate that
asking board members to pursue derivative claims in the company's
name would have been futile.

Plaintiffs claim Allergan board members authorized an aggressive
campaign between 1997 and 2010 to market Botox for off-label
conditions, such as headaches, for which the drug had not been
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and could not
legally be marketed.  The campaign triggered an FBI investigation.
Subsequent lawsuits and criminal charges led to $600 million in
settlements and fines.

"It would be surprising, to say the least," Judge Reinhardt wrote,
"if such significant, continuing, and diverse breaches of FDA
regulations in relation to a star product at Allergan passed
unnoticed by the board for so long, even as the board carefully
monitored off-label sales, repeatedly discussed and authorized a
number of the allegedly illegal programs, and built strategic
plans around off-label Botox sales."

U.S. District Judge David Carter of the Central District of
California dismissed the derivative claims in 2012 on the grounds
that plaintiffs did not first make a demand on Allergan's board,
nor did they successfully demonstrate that demand was excused.

Judge Reinhardt's opinion not only reverses the lower California
court's ruling, it also complicates a ruling handed down last year
by the Delaware Supreme Court that Allergan's lawyers at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher had heralded as a triumph.  That ruling dismissed
parallel derivative suits in Delaware as barred after the
California court's ruling.  That decision could be challenged now
that the California case has been revived.

"It's very unusual," said Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Reed
Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- a securities attorney not involved
in the Allergan case.  "It's just procedurally awkward."

Delaware plaintiffs can ask for relief based on the change of
circumstances, Mr. Kathrein said.  But with identical litigation
proceeding in California, a judge might stay the Delaware action.

Allergan is represented in the California and Delaware suits by
Gibson Dunn partner Mark Perry -- mperry@gibsondunn.com
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner Joseph Daley --
joed@rgrdlaw.com -- argued the Ninth Circuit case on behalf of
plaintiffs, and Pamela Tikellis -- PamelaTikellis@chimicles.com --
of Chimicles & Tikellis argued on behalf of plaintiffs in the
Delaware Supreme Court.

"This is a significant win for investors seeking to hold corporate
boards accountable for misconduct that hurts shareholders,"

Robbins Geller partner Aelish Baig -- aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- said
in an emailed statement.

An Allergan spokeswoman pointed out the Sept. 2 ruling merely
gives plaintiffs permission to commence their derivative suit.

"The allegations themselves have not yet been tested or proved,"
she wrote in a emailed statement, "and the defendants are
confident they will be vindicated."


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Employees' Overtime Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The R. Rex Parris Law Firm on Sept. 3 disclosed that in a stunning
defeat for Allstate Insurance Company, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled in a 16 page ruling that a class action lawsuit
involving 800 Allstate employees in California who alleged that
Allstate had a practice or unofficial policy of requiring its
claim adjusters to work unpaid off-the-clock overtime in violation
of California law may move forward.

"The potential recovery in this case is expected to be in the
hundreds of millions for wage theft by Allstate," said plaintiffs'
attorney R. Rex Parris.  "Casualty adjuster Jack Jimenez brought
the suit in 2010 on behalf of any claims adjuster working for the
insurer in the state of California since Sept. 29, 2006.  The
complaint alleges that Allstate's managers are required to stay
within an annual budget that includes overtime compensation, and
that the performance evaluations and bonuses paid to managers are
dependent on how closely they conform to the budget.  This would
mean that a manager would have a disincentive to approve and
report overtime, the class claims," added plaintiffs' attorney
Alexander R. Wheeler with the R. Rex Parris law firm.

The class action alleges that Allstate sees repeated requests for
overtime as a performance issue to be addressed with individual
workers -- including "suggestions" on how a claims adjuster can be
better trained on efficiency and alternative methods of getting
the work done that do not require overtime.  Managers would often
see workers performing off-the-clock work outside of their
scheduled shifts but not inquire if overtime was requested, the
workers say.

"The plaintiffs contend Allstate's allegedly illegal conduct has
been widespread and consistent.  The class action suit alleges
that Allstate had not paid overtime to current and former
California-based claims adjusters in violation of California Labor
Code and had not paid adjusters for missed meal breaks and that
Allstate had not timely paid wages upon termination in violation
of the California Labor Code. In addition the lawsuit alleges that
Allstate engaged in unfair competition in violation of California
Business and Professions Code," said Mr. Wheeler.

Calling Allstate's policy on off-the-clock work a "pervasive
problem," plaintiffs' attorney Alexander R. Wheeler said that
since only managers could record overtime hours, the insurer's
policy prevented overtime from being paid.  "The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals saw behind Allstate's written policies,"
Mr. Wheeler said.  "The facts uncovered an unofficial policy to
violate the written policy."  A decade ago, the R. Rex Parris Law
Firm represented a class of Allstate claims adjusters, which led
to the insurer's 2005 reclassification of the adjusters from
salaried employees exempt from the 40-hour workweek and resulting
overtime rules, to hourly, nonexempt workers.

The Allstate Corporation is the largest publicly held personal
lines property and casualty insurer in America.  The company is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol
ALL.  As of year-end 2013, Allstate had $123.5 billion in total
assets.  In 2014 Allstate was number 92 on the Fortune 500 list of
largest companies in America.

Case Information

Jack Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Company - CV 10-8486 AHM (FFMx)

                About The R. Rex Parris Law Firm

For over 25 years, R. Rex Parris -- http://www.rrexparris.com--
has devoted his practice to protecting the rights of injured
people and aggrieved workers.  Rex and his dedicated team provide
thorough, high-quality representation with integrity and
compassion.  From motor vehicle crashes to class actions and
defective products, these lawyers fight aggressively against
corporate defense attorneys and insurance companies to ensure
their clients get the compensation they deserve.


ALTRIA GROUP: Discloses Tobacco-Related Lawsuit in United States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed at its July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014, a list of the number of certain
tobacco-related cases pending in the United States against Philip
Morris USA Inc. and, in some instances, Altria Group as of July
18, 2014, July 22, 2013 and July 23, 2012.

Type of Case      Number of Cases Number of Cases Number of Cases
                  Pending as of    Pending as of   Pending as of
                  July 18, 2014    July 22, 2013    July 23, 2012
Individual Smoking
and Health Cases(1)      67             73               78

Smoking and Health
Class Actions and
Aggregated Claims
Litigation (2)            5              6               7

Health Care Cost
Recovery Actions(3)       1              1               1

"Lights/Ultra Lights"
Class Actions            14             15              16

(1) Does not include 2,572 cases brought by flight attendants
seeking compensatory damages for personal injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS"). The
flight attendants allege that they are members of an ETS smoking
and health class action in Florida, which was settled in 1997
(Broin). The terms of the court-approved settlement in that case
allow class members to file individual lawsuits seeking
compensatory damages, but prohibit them from seeking punitive
damages. Also, does not include individual smoking and health
cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in Florida state and
federal courts following the decertification of the Engle case.

(2) Includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 346 were
actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single
proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States
Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this case.
Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive damages
are permissible were tried in the first phase. Trial in the first
phase of this case began in April 2013. In May 2013, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the claims for design
defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and
concealment and declined to find that the defendants' conduct
warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes should have included use
instructions for the period 1964 - 1969. The second phase, if any,
will consist of individual trials to determine liability and
compensatory damages on that claim only. In August 2013, the trial
court denied all post-trial motions. The trial court entered final
judgment in October 2013 and, in November 2013, plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals.


ALTRIA GROUP: Engle Progeny Cases v. PM USA Set for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
As of July 18, 2014, 23 Engle progeny cases and no individual
smoking and health cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. are set
for trial in 2014, according to the company's July 22, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are also
scheduled for trial in 2014. Trial dates are subject to change.

                      Trial Results

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this
ruling is scheduled for September 9, 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 14 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered on April 29, 2014.
PM USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 29, 2014 order.

As of July 18, 2014, 59 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision. Twenty-nine verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs and 30 verdicts were returned in favor of
PM USA. In one case, not reflected in these numbers, the plaintiff
obtained a favorable verdict, but the trial court vacated the
verdict and ordered a new trial, which is not yet scheduled.


ALTRIA GROUP: Provides Updates on Progeny Appellate Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. provides updates of the Engle lawsuits in its
July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into an
interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the outcome of
the judicial review, was to be paid to the court and the court was
to determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In May 2003, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the
trial court and instructed the trial court to order the
decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida
Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid approximately $3
million, representing its share of compensatory damages and
interest, to the two individual plaintiffs identified in the
Florida Supreme Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors
that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006
ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings
entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed
above (relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and
added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the
representations of fact made by defendants. In January 2007, the
Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion.
Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District
Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors
that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been
addressed either by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal or
by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal denied defendants' motion. In May 2007,
defendants' motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the
completion of appellate review was denied by the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal. In May 2007, defendants filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In
October 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants'
petition. In November 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied
defendants' petition for rehearing from the denial of their
petition for writ of certiorari.

In February 2008, the trial court decertified the class, except
for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and formally
vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the Florida Supreme
Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court ruled that certain
defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing with respect to
allocation of the funds escrowed under the May 2001 bond
stipulation and would receive no credit at that time from the $500
million paid by PM USA against any future punitive damages awards
in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice.

                  Engle Progeny Appellate Issues

Three Florida federal district courts (in the Merlob, B. Brown and
Burr cases) ruled in 2008 that the findings in the first phase of
the Engle proceedings cannot be used to satisfy elements of
plaintiffs' claims, and two of those rulings (B. Brown and Burr)
were certified by the trial court for interlocutory review. The
certification in both cases was granted by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the appeals were
consolidated. The appeal in Burr was dismissed for lack of
prosecution, and the case was ultimately dismissed on statute of
limitations grounds.

In July 2010, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in B. Brown that, as a
matter of Florida law, plaintiffs do not have an unlimited right
to use the findings from the original Engle trial to meet their
burden of establishing the elements of their claims at trial. The
Eleventh Circuit did not reach the issue of whether the use of the
Engle findings violates defendants' due process rights. Rather,
the court held that plaintiffs may only use the findings to
establish those specific facts, if any, that they demonstrate with
a reasonable degree of certainty were actually decided by the
original Engle jury. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the
district court to determine what specific factual findings the
Engle jury actually made.

After the remand of B. Brown, several state appellate rulings
superseded the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on Florida state law.
These cases include Martin, a case against R.J. Reynolds in
Escambia County, and J. Brown, a case against R.J. Reynolds in
Broward County. In December 2011, petitions for writ of certiorari
were filed with the United States Supreme Court by R.J. Reynolds
in Campbell, Martin, Gray and Hall and by PM USA and Liggett Group
in Campbell. The United States Supreme Court denied defendants'
certiorari petitions in March 2012.

In Douglas, in March 2012, the Florida Second District Court of
Appeal issued a decision affirming the judgment of the trial court
in favor of the plaintiff and upholding the use of the Engle jury
findings with respect to strict liability claims but certified to
the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether granting res
judicata effect to the Engle jury findings violates defendants'
federal due process rights. In March 2013, the Florida Supreme
Court affirmed the final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff,
upholding the use of the Engle jury findings with respect to
strict liability and negligence claims. PM USA filed its petition
for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in
August 2013, which the court denied in October 2013.

Meanwhile, in the Waggoner case, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) ruled in December 2011
that application of the Engle findings to establish the wrongful
conduct elements of plaintiffs' claims consistent with Martin or
J. Brown did not violate defendants' due process rights.  PM USA
and the other defendants sought appellate review of the due
process ruling. In February 2012, the district court denied the
motion for interlocutory appeal, but did apply the ruling to all
active pending federal Engle progeny cases. As a result, R.J.
Reynolds appealed the rulings in the Walker and Duke cases to the
Eleventh Circuit, which, in September 2013, rejected the due
process defense and affirmed the underlying judgments. In October
2013, R.J. Reynolds filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en
banc. Thereafter, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its decision and
substituted a new opinion. In November 2013, the Eleventh Circuit
denied R.J. Reynolds' initial petition for rehearing. R.J.
Reynolds filed a petition for rehearing en banc or panel rehearing
of the substituted decision, which was denied in January 2014. In
March 2014, R.J. Reynolds filed petitions for writ of certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court in the Walker and Duke cases,
as well as in J. Brown. Defendants filed petitions for writ of
certiorari in eight other Engle progeny cases that were tried in
Florida state courts, including one case, Barbanell, in which PM
USA is the defendant. In these eight petitions, defendants
asserted questions similar to those in Walker, Duke and J. Brown.
On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari in all 11 cases.

In Soffer, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds, the First
District Court of Appeal held that Engle progeny plaintiffs can
recover punitive damages only on their intentional tort claims. In
February 2014, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction
over plaintiff's appeal from the First District Court of Appeal's
holding.

In Ciccone, an Engle progeny case against R.J. Reynolds, the
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Engle progeny
plaintiffs could establish class membership by showing that they
developed symptoms during the Engle class period that could, in
hindsight, be attributed to their smoking-related disease. The
court certified a conflict with Castleman, a Florida First
District Court of Appeal decision, which held that manifestation
requires Engle progeny plaintiffs to have been aware during the
class period that they had a disease caused by smoking in order to
establish class membership. The Florida Supreme Court accepted
jurisdiction in the Ciccone case on June 13, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces Smoking & Health Litigations in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 18, 2014, Philip Morris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.
are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers,
in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces, according
to Altria's July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of July 18, 2014, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Face Medical Monitoring Litigations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported medical monitoring class actions remains pending
against Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Altria Group, Inc.'s
July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Two purported medical monitoring class
actions are pending against PM USA. These two cases were brought
in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York) and Massachusetts
(Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's
respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the
Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been
diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a
physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases
seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of
action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing
members of the purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in
order to identify and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these
cases do not seek punitive damages. The future defense of these
cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and
practice. Two other cases (California (Xavier) and Florida
(Gargano)) were dismissed in 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims. In January 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared
plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light of the
dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In May 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' traditional negligence, strict liability
and breach-of-warranty claims on the grounds of statute of
limitations and the widespread knowledge regarding the risks of
cigarette smoking, but certified to the New York State Court of
Appeals the following questions: (1) whether New York would
recognize an independent claim for medical monitoring, (2) if so,
what would be the elements of such a claim, and (3) what would be
the statute of limitations applicable to such a claim and when
would it be triggered. In May 2013, the New York Court of Appeals
accepted the certified questions and, in December 2013, answered
the first question ruling that New York law does not allow for an
independent cause of action for medical monitoring. In April 2014,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the entire case, including the so-
called independent claim for medical monitoring and issued its
mandate on May 5, 2014.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review
of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in
September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year
medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190
million. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for
summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the
district court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In October
2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which
motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district
court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who
satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013,
and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident
as of February 26, 2013. In January 2014, plaintiffs renewed their
previously filed motions for summary judgment and to strike
affirmative defenses. A trial date has not been set.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. is facing purported class actions and suits by
private attorneys asserting claims under the Medicare as Secondary
Payer ("MSP") provisions of the Social Security Act, according to
Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Individuals and associations have also sued in purported class
actions or as private attorneys general under the Medicare as
Secondary Payer ("MSP") provisions of the Social Security Act to
recover from defendants Medicare expenditures allegedly incurred
for the treatment of smoking-related diseases. Cases were brought
in New York (2), Florida (2) and Massachusetts (1). All were
dismissed by federal courts.

In addition to the cases brought in the United States, health care
cost recovery actions have also been brought against tobacco
industry participants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., in
Israel (dismissed), the Marshall Islands (dismissed) and Canada
(9), and other entities have stated that they are considering
filing such actions.

In September 2005, in the first of several health care cost
recovery cases filed in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled
that legislation passed in British Columbia permitting the lawsuit
is constitutional, and, as a result, the case, which had
previously been dismissed by the trial court, was permitted to
proceed. PM USA's and other defendants' challenge to the British
Columbia court's exercise of jurisdiction was rejected by the
Court of Appeals of British Columbia and, in April 2007, the
Supreme Court of Canada denied review of that decision. In
December 2009, the Court of Appeals of British Columbia ruled that
certain defendants can proceed against the Federal Government of
Canada as third parties on the theory that the Federal Government
of Canada negligently misrepresented to defendants the efficacy of
a low tar tobacco variety that the Federal Government of Canada
developed and licensed to defendants. In May 2010, the Supreme
Court of Canada granted leave to the Federal Government of Canada
to appeal this decision and leave to defendants to cross-appeal
the Court of Appeals' decision to dismiss claims against the
Federal Government of Canada based on other theories of liability.
In July 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the third-
party claims against the Federal Government of Canada.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Canadian Provinces of British
Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador,
Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island
have brought health care reimbursement claims against cigarette
manufacturers. PM USA is named as a defendant in the British
Columbia and Quebec cases, while both Altria Group, Inc. and PM
USA are named as defendants in the New Brunswick, Ontario,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Prince Edward Island cases. The Province of Nova Scotia and the
territory of Nunavut have enacted similar legislation or are in
the process of enacting similar legislation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 14 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of July 18, 2014, a total of 14 "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights"
cases are pending in the United States against Philip Morris USA
Inc. and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its
subsidiaries, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of
July 18, 2014, a total of 14 such cases are pending in the United
States. Two of these cases are pending in U.S. federal courts.

The other cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. In
addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending against PM
USA in Israel (El-Roy).

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case. In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the
FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors
that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law,
the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate
merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a
class action or other state law issues. The case was returned to
the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other federal
cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding. In June 2011,
the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice
after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, concluding the litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Sept. 18 Oral Argument in El-Roy "Lights" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument for a purported "Lights" lawsuit pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc. at the Israel Supreme Court (El-Roy) is
scheduled for September 18, 2014, according to Altria Group,
Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In El-Roy, hearings on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
were held in November and December 2008, and an additional hearing
on class certification was held in November 2011. In November
2012, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and ordered the plaintiffs to pay defendants
approximately $100,000 in attorney fees. Plaintiffs in that case
have noticed an appeal. Oral argument at the Israel Supreme Court
is scheduled for September 18, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on "Lights" Suits After "Good" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Since December 2008, 26 purported "Lights" class actions were
served upon Philip Morris USA Inc. and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc., according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through July 18, 2014, 26 purported "Lights" class
actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases, Altria
Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either
were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM
USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL
proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded
the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back
to the federal district courts in which the suits originated. In
Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Ohio Court Dismisses Phillips "Lights" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
dismissed the Phillips "Lights" case, concluding the litigation,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

In Phillips, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, defendants filed in June 2012 a motion
for partial judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' class action
consumer sales practices claims and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on plaintiffs' state deceptive trade practices claims.
In March 2013, the court granted defendants' motions, dismissing
with prejudice the associated claims. In April 2013, defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the class
component of plaintiffs' claims for fraud and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in August 2013,
which the court heard in October 2013. In November 2013, the
district court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed Altria
Group, Inc. without prejudice, leaving PM USA as the sole
defendant in the case. In February 2014, the district court denied
class certification and denied as moot defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings on the class component of plaintiffs'
claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. Trial on the plaintiff's
individual claim was set for June 8, 2015. PM USA made an offer of
judgment to resolve the case for $6,000, which plaintiff accepted.
As a result, on July 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio dismissed the case, concluding the
litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: 9th Cir. Won't Review Denial of Cert. in "Cabbat"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration and reconsideration en banc of a
denial of class certification to the Cabbat "Lights" lawsuit,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

In Cabbat, a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Hawaii, plaintiffs amended their complaint in July 2012, adding a
claim for unjust enrichment and dropping their claims for breach
of express and implied warranty. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in April 2013. In January 2014, the trial
court denied the class certification motion and vacated the
February 2014 trial date. Plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for appellate review of the class
certification decision, which was denied in April 2014. On June 4,
2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration and reconsideration en
banc.


ALTRIA GROUP: 7th Cir. Won't Review Denial of Cert. in "Wyatt"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to
reconsider a denial of class certification to the Wyatt "Lights"
lawsuit, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In Wyatt, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in January 2013, which the court denied in August
2013. Also in August 2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which the
court denied in September 2013. In October 2013, plaintiffs filed
a motion in the district court seeking reconsideration of the
denial of class certification, which the district court denied on
May 28, 2014.


ASTEX PHARMA: Closure Order Bid in Stockholders' Case Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In re Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 8917-VCL, the parties have asked the court
to enter a Stipulated Order Withdrawing Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Request for the Court to Retain Jurisdiction to Determine the
Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Closing the Case
(the Proposed Closure Order).

Because the parties have failed to provide notice to the remaining
members as required under Advanced Mammography, the Court of
Chancery of Delaware denied the request that the Court enter the
Closure Order.  The parties were ordered to submit a revised order
contemplating notice to the class. In preparing the revised order,
the parties were ordered to consider whether adequate notice can
be accomplished by means other than an individualized mailing,
such as through a public filing in a Form 8K or similar document.

A copy of the Chancery Court's August 25, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/kUE2EZfrom Leagle.com.

Seth D. Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Edward B. Micheletti --
edward.micheletti@skadden.com -- Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl-legal.com
-- Jenness E. Parker -- jenness.parker@skadden.com -- Gina M.
Serra -- gms@rl-legal.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
LLP Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. One Rodney Square 2 Righter Parkway,
Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19803; Ryan M. Ernst
-- rernst@oeblegal.com -- James R. Banko O'Kelly --
sokelly@oeblegal.com --  Ernst & Bielli, LLC Farqui & Farqui, LLP
901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19807 Collin J. Seitz, Jr. --
cseitz@seitzross.com -- Bradley R. Aronstam --
baronstam@seitzross.com -- Eric D. Selden -- eselden@seitzross.com
-- Seitz, Ross, Aronstam & Moritz, LLP 100 S. West Street, Suite
400 Wilmington, DE 19801.


BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Frat Boys' Class Action Can't Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Item reports that the federal lawsuit over a 2012 search
of a Bucknell University fraternity house and residence hall will
not become a class action with at least 60 students because of the
tardiness of the plaintiffs' lawyer.

Mechanicsburg attorney Devon M. Jacob failed to file a class
certification by the Aug. 28 deadline, and when he asked for an
extension the following day, U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew M.
Brann denied the request.  The judge also denied Mr. Jacob's
motion he reconsider the denial. The reconsideration motion
included an apology and an explanation why he failed to meet the
Aug. 28 deadline.  Mr. Jacob wrote he has not had adequate support
staff since he formed his own law firm in November, and deadlines
for various litigations converged, causing an impossible scenario
for him.

Three former students, Kevin Wagner, Frasier Esty and Tony
Migliori, allege in their complaint the Feb. 16, 2012, search of
Kappa Sigma Fraternity house, of which they were members at the
time, and a residence hall violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

Among the items confiscated were suspected LSD tablets, marijuana,
synthetic marijuana, a 5.5-inch hunting knife, slingshot, pellet
gun designed to look like an automatic pistol, 11-inch bong, 16-
inch bong, nine pipes, digital scale, seven grinders and a lock-
picking set, the university says.

Mr. Jacob had hoped to make it a class action to include at least
60 students affected by the search.

The defendants are the university, 11 of its officials, including
President John Bravman, Montour and Union counties and two deputy
sheriffs from each.

The deputies plus two dogs assisted with what Bucknell claims was
a search conducted in accordance with the student handbook.  Some
students were disciplined by the school, but no criminal charges
were filed, Bucknell says.


CALIX INC: 2015 Trial in "Steinhardt" Suit Over Occam Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled for February 16, 2015 in Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL), which is a suit over an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization of Calix, Inc.
with Occam Networks, Inc., according to the company's July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2014.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In
response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6,
2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders
of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these
stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt
complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which
has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint
did not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011. On
January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on a motion for
sanctions brought by the defendants against certain of the lead
plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead plaintiffs Michael
Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex
Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt Plaintiffs," had
engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and dismissed the
Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice. The court
further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i) barred from
receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii) required to self-
report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose their improper
trading in any future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and
(iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5 million, to be
distributed to the remaining members of the class of former Occam
stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the motion of the
remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek Sheeler, for
class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and Sheeler as
class representatives. The certified class is a non-opt-out class
consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose shares were
converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The court granted summary
judgment in favor of those defendants who served solely as
directors of Occam with respect to all claims alleging improper
actions in connection with the Occam sale process. The ruling also
granted summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate
entity. The court left in place process-based claims against
Occam's former CEO and CFO, and also declined to grant summary
judgment on separate claims that the director and officer
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy
statement for Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained
misleading disclosures and had material omissions.
On June 12, 2014 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This motion seeks
additional documents from defendants and from Jefferies, Occam's
former advisor, and requests that the court impose severe
sanctions, up to and including a finding of liability against
defendants. Defendants reject the suggestion that any additional
documents should be produced and vigorously oppose the imposition
of any sanctions.

The trial is scheduled for February 16, 2015.


CAPITAL ONE: Sued for Increasing Fixed APR From 0% to 22.9%
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Dapice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. and Doe Defendants 1-10,
et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06961-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal., September 5,
2014) arises out of Capital One's alleged routine practice of
sending offers to individuals, who meet certain internal criteria,
wherein the Company promises individuals a fixed Annual Percentage
Rate on balance transfer checks and, then, subsequently changes
the fixed APR that it had previously disclosed, contrary to the
terms and conditions contained in the offer materials it sent to
the consumers.

Mr. Dapice is a resident of the state of California.  He entered
into a contract with Capital One on May 13, 2009, when he accepted
Capital One's offer for an extension of credit.  While he had
received other balance transfer offers, he says that he was
particularly attracted to the Company's offer as it offered a 0%
APR that would never change for the life of the transfer balance.
After six months, however, he contends that Capital One
unilaterally changed the fixed 0% APR it would charge on his
transfer balance, drastically increasing the APR to a variable
rate of 22.9%.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is a National Association
headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia, and conducts a substantial
amount of business nationwide, including in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jf@kirtlandpackard.com


CHINA CERAMICS: Faces Several Securities Suits in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Ceramics Co., Ltd. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are defendants in class action cases
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's July 31, 2014,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.

On June 6, 2014, Robert Pollock brought an action styled No. 14-
CV-04100, Robert Pollock, et al., v. China Ceramics Co., Ltd.,
Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K.
Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen
Cheng Liang and Jianwei Liu, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. In this action, the
plaintiff purports to bring a federal securities fraud class
action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities
of China Ceramics between March 30, 2012 and May 1, 2014. The
action asserts that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by making certain false and misleading
statements and omissions to the investing public regarding the
Company's business operations, management, and future prospects.
The complaint also alleges liability against the individual
defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On June 16, 2014, Roger Artinoff brought an action styled 14-CV-
04312, Roger Artinoff, et al., v. China Ceramics Co., Ltd., et
al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. On July 2, 2014, Richard Finlayson brought an action
styled 14-CV-04997, Richard Finlayson, et al., v. China Ceramics
Co., Ltd., et al., in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. These actions make allegations
against the defendants substantially similar to those made in the
Pollack action.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in "Velasco" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the case
captioned PETER VELASCO, CHRISTOPHER WHITE, JACQUELINE YOUNG, and
CHRISTOPHER LIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Defendant,
CASE NO. CV 13-08080 DDP (VBKX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs in this case assert these causes of action: (1)
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750 et seq. (brought by Plaintiffs Lightfoot and
Galvan); (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. (brought by
Plaintiffs Lightfoot and Galvan); (3) violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Section
501.201 et seq. (brought by Plaintiff Carter); (4) violation of
the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Com. Law, Section
13-101 et seq. (brought by Plaintiff Young);(5) violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93A et
seq. (brought by Plaintiff Soule); (6) violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, MO. Rev. Stat. section 407.010 et
seq. (brought by Plaintiff Dillon); (7) violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. 56:8-1 et seq. (brought by
Plaintiff Melville); and (8) violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq. (brought by
Plaintiffs Lightfoot, Young, Soule, and Melville).

The Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of persons who purchased
or leased a Class Vehicle in California, Florida, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey, and a class of persons
who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in various states with
statutory emissions warranties that require TIPM repair or
replacement within seven years/70,000 miles.

Chrysler Group filed the motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

According to Judge Pregerson's August 22, 2014 ruling, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/VxnFLSfrom Leagle.com, the
Motion is granted with respect to Count VII of the SAC (violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act) and Count VIII of the SAC
(violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), both of which are
dismissed with prejudice. Chrysler's Motion to Dismiss is denied
in all other respects.

Jacqueline Young, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley --
cdf@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes --
dsh@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Joshua G Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP, Todd M Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
-- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, David K Stein --
dks@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk --
smg@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Bradford Soule, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk,
Girard Gibbs LLP.

John Melville, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk,
Girard Gibbs LLP.

Daphne Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M Grzenczyk,
Girard Gibbs LLP.

Phillip Lightfoot, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M
Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Donald Kendrick, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlyn D Finley,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Dylan Hughes, Girard Gibbs LLP, Eric H. Gibbs,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David K Stein, Girard Gibbs LLP & Scott M
Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Marcos Galvan, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP.

Jimmy Pat Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP.

Elizabeth Dillon, Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs, Girard
Gibbs LLP.

Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant, represented by John Woodson Rogers
-- jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Stephen A D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP & Rowena G Santos -- RSantos@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP.


CIGNA CORP: Appeals Order to Reform Pension Plan in "Amara" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a lawsuit over the Cigna Pension Plan are appealing
court orders in the case referred to as "Amara cash balance
pension plan litigation," according to Cigna Corp.'s July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation
and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the Cigna Pension Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations including, among other
things, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away
period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-
conversion benefit); and that the Plan description contained
inaccurate or inadequate disclosure about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on
the disclosure claim only, and ordered payment of enhanced
benefits, requiring that class members receive pre-1998 benefits
under the pre-conversion traditional formula and post-1997 accrued
benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision on
all issues, following which the U.S. Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition to review the case.  In May 2011, the Supreme
Court held that the District Court erred in ordering enhanced
benefits under a section of ERISA that allows recovery of plan
benefits only, and directed that the District Court consider
alternate remedies under a different section of ERISA that allows
for "appropriate equitable relief."  In December 2012, the
District Court interpreted the Supreme Court's opinion and ordered
the Company to reform the Plan to pay substantially the same
benefits as had been ordered in 2008.  In addition, the District
Court denied the Company's motion to decertify the class.  Both
parties appealed, and the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in
February 2014.


CIGNA CORP: Grant of Summary Judgment in Ingenix Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit Franco v. Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company et al., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New, is appealing the grant of
summary judgment to Cigna Corp., according to the company's July
31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In April 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a number of
putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company
improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through
the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of
the Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on August 7, 2009,
asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,
the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from
1998 through the present.  Other major health insurers have been
the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims by the
health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack
of standing. In addition, the District Court dismissed the
antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the
disclosure claim under ERISA.  In January 2013 and again in April
2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs
to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs.  The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied plaintiff's request
for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling.  As a result,
the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only.  On
June 24, 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment, terminating all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment.  On July 24,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision to the Third Circuit.


COCA COLA: Judge Admonishes Plaintiffs Lawyers Over Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
California federal judge has fired a warning shot at a cadre of
plaintiffs lawyers, cautioning them not to regard their proposed
class action against The Coca Cola Company as a way to pile up
legal fees.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of
California issued the blunt admonishment to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in Engurasoff v. Coca Cola, one of six cases
preliminarily encompassed in proposed multidistrict litigation
alleging Coca Cola falsely claims its iconic product does not
contain added preservatives and artificial flavors.

In his August 21 order, Judge White denied the bulk of Coca Cola's
motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiffs' claims concerning
phosphoric acid as an ingredient were neither preempted by the
federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, nor a matter of primary
jurisdiction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Judge
White also found no credence in Coca Cola's contention that the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief.  He dismissed the
plaintiffs' claim of breach of implied warranty, but he granted
them an opportunity to amend it.

Judge White closed his order with a stern broadside against the
plaintiffs' counsel: "The court admonishes plaintiffs that, to the
extent they view this case, or the related cases, as an
opportunity to settle a class action and obtain a large sum of
attorneys' fees, the court will review any request for attorneys'
fees as part of a class action settlement with close scrutiny,"
the judge wrote.

Citing the plaintiffs' 15-page brief and "voluminous exhibits"
that went "far beyond" the legal application to the plaintiffs'
case of the Supreme Court's June 12 ruling in POM Wonderful v.
Coca Cola, White concluded with the observation that "Plaintiffs
have been expending additional, unnecessary hours."

Keith Fleischman of Fleischman Law Firm PLLC said in a statement
to law.com: "Thus far, this has been a very hard fought
litigation.  Our sole intention in responding to the defendants'
supplemental briefing was to ensure a comprehensive response to
all their arguments.  Nonetheless, we are mindful of and, of
course, will fully comply with the court's guidance contained in
its order substantially denying defendants' motion to dismiss."

Aside from Mr. Fleischman, the plaintiffs are represented by
Bradley Silverman, of Fleischman Law Firm; Ben Pierce Gore, of
Pratt & Associates; and Robert Plotz.

Coca Cola's counsel are Tammy Webb and Ina Chung, of Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP; and Travis Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com -- Steven Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Jane Metcalf, and Sarah Zgliniec --
sezgliniec@pbwt.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb And Tyler LLP.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement of ERISA Suit for Implementation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement process for In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA
Litigation is now ready for implementation after the Southern
District of New York finally approved a settlement of the case,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the "Plan") do not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed
against the Plan and the Company in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically,
Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement
Income Plan, et al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum
distributions, age discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum
accrual requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of
benefits to Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman,
claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA
Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated action alleges
improper calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to
satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim
for age discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation
of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In October 2013,
the parties executed a settlement agreement under which the Plan
would pay approximately $40 after application of certain offsets
to resolve the litigation. The settlement agreement is subject to
court approval. On December 16, 2013, a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement, class certification and
appointment of class counsel was approved and on July 8, 2014,
final approval was granted by the court. The settlement will be
implemented following the expiration of a 30-day appeals period,
assuming no appeals are filed. The Company and the Plan intend to
contest this action vigorously should the settlement not be
finalized.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Some Detainees Can Join Class Action v. Sheriff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Coffey, writing for NBC 5 Investigates , reports that
potentially thousands of male inmates who while being detained at
the Cook County Jail were found not guilty, acquitted, or had
their charges dismissed between April 27, 2010 and the present may
be eligible to take part in a class action lawsuit against the
Cook County Sheriff's Office.

Brian Otero alleges that following his acquittal on a burglary
charge in 2011, and despite the fact that he had no other pending
charges or warrants against him, Cook County Sheriff's officers
placed him in handcuffs and detained him in a number of different
holding cells and within the general prison population while his
discharge was being processed.

Mr. Otero said while he was detained after the acquittal, other
inmates punched him in the face and body after they learned he
would be leaving jail.  He said he was finally released nine hours
after his not guilty verdict.

"It doesn't matter if I have a criminal background or if I'm a
convicted felon," Mr. Otero told NBC 5 Investigates last year.
"I'm a human being and I should be treated like a human being."
Otero later sued the Cook County Sheriff's Office.  In court
papers, Mr. Otero argued the Sheriff's Office does not segregate
or otherwise treat the acquitted male detainees differently from
the other inmates.

United States District Judge Amy J. St. Eve has since granted
Mr. Otero's motion for class certification.  According to the
court order filed Sept. 2, a class action is "the superior
procedure for litigating these clams because the Court can
determine the legality of the alleged practice and procedure in
one proceeding."

A spokesperson for the Sheriff's Office told NBC 5 Investigates in
an earlier interview that the office acknowledged the
"complicated" discharging system and that discharging people
efficiently continues to be a priority.  According to Sheriff's
Office deposition, it takes six to 12 people to look at a judge's
order to determine if someone will be discharged.  Then a warrant
background check is performed.

Sheriff's personnel manually review about 30,000 pieces of paper a
week regarding detainees to and from court.  Sheriff Tom Dart has
called it an "antiquated" paper system that has yielded numerous
clerical errors that could have been avoided with a digitized
system. The Sheriff's Office previously said it is prioritizing
efforts to get people out sooner, but not at the risk of public
safety.

Female detainees who are found not guilty are segregated from
other inmates and are given the option to either remain in the
receiving room or return to their jail cell while they are
processed out, according to court documents related to the class
action.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Awards Atty. Fees in "Rodriguez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
YDALIA RODRIGUEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 02-10605, ADVERSARY NO. 08-01004, (S.D.
Tex.) is a class action lawsuit initiated on February 26, 2008, by
Ydalia Rodriguez, Maria and David Herrera and Lucy and Alfonso
Moreno. Plaintiffs are former chapter 13 debtors with mortgage
contracts serviced by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (now BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP).  The suit was precipitated by Countrywide's
attempt to foreclose on the Plaintiffs' homes after Plaintiffs
cured their pre-petition mortgage arrearages and successfully
emerged from bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs were represented by three law firms: Armstrong Kellett
Bartholow P.C.; The Stone Law Firm, P.C. and Klein Kavanagh
Costello, LLP. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a joint Fee Application
and Motion for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Reimbursement of
Expenses on July 10, 2013.  The Stone Law Firm and Klein Kavanagh
and Costello have settled with Countrywide regarding their fee
applications.

In a memorandum opinion dated August 22, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/pvkWxhfrom Leagle.com, Bankruptcy Judge
Marvin Isgur held that:

* The Kellett Law Firm requested a total of $1,160,602.00 in fees.
  The Court disallows $212,148.50 for issues on which Plaintiffs
  did not prevail; travel; lumped and/or vague entries; and
  duplicative interoffice communications, for a total of
  $948,453.50. The Court deducts 20% from $948,453.50 for
  counsel's general inefficiency in handling the litigation, for a
  total of $758,762.80 in legal fees. The Kellett Law Firm
  requested $56,177.31 in expenses. The Court grants expenses in
  proportion to fees for a total of $36,726.85 in expenses. The
  Kellett Law Firm is awarded a total of $795.489.65.

* Armstrong Kellett Bartholow requested a total of $762,173.75 in
  fees.  $282,960.00 of this amount was fees for defense of the
  fee application. The primary case fees were $479,213.75. The
  Court disallows $14,650.00 for issues on which Plaintiffs did
  not prevail; travel; lumped and/or vague entries; and
  duplicative interoffice communications, for a total of
  $464,563.75. The Court deducts 20% from $464,563.75 for
  counsel's general inefficiency in handling the litigation, for
  a total of $371,651.00. The Court disallows $228,600.40 of the
  $282,960.00 requested for defense of the fee application, for a
  total of $54,359.60 for defense of the fee application. The
  total fee award to Armstrong Kellett Bartholow is $426,010.60.
  Armstrong Kellett Bartholow requested $22,326.97 in expenses.
  The Court grants expenses in proportion to fees for a total of
  $12,479.47 in expenses. Armstrong Kellett Bartholow is awarded a
  total of $438,490.07.


ENZYMOTEC LTD: Faces Securities Suit Over Initial Public Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amram Aharoni, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Enzymotec Ltd., Ariel Katz, Oren Bryan, Jacob (Yaacov)
Bachar, Nir Belzer, Yoav Doppelt, Steve Dubin, Dov Pekelman, Yossi
Peled, Michal Silverberg, Joseph Tenne, Imanuel Wasserman, Yossi
Ohana, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Jefferies LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., Wedbush Securities Inc.,
and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05556-FSH-MAH
(D.N.J., September 5, 2014) is a federal securities class action
brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Enzymotec securities pursuant or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on September
27, 2013.

Enzymotec is an Israel corporation headquartered in Migdal
Ha'Emeq, Israel.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  Enzymotec is a global supplier of
specialty lipid-based products and solutions.  The Company
develops, manufactures and markets innovative bio-active lipid
ingredients used in the production of various nutritional products

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Jefferies LLC,
Canaccord Genuity Inc., Wedbush Securities Inc., and Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, served as underwriters to Enzymotec in connection
with the Offering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  DEcklund@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jacob Sabo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACOB SABO
          # 3 Daniel Frisch St., 24th Floor
          Tel-Aviv, Israel 64731
          Telephone: 03-7161555
          E-mail: sabolaw@inter.net.il


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Barton-McCorkle, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No.
0:14-cv-03368-PAM-FLN (D. Minn., September 5, 2014) seeks relief
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Tenants File Class Action Over Excessive Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
three East Palo Alto apartment tenants filed a class action
lawsuit on Sept. 3 against their landlord, Equity Residential, for
allegedly charging unlawful and excessive fees to renters who are
late with payments.

The tenants are represented by Community Legal Services in East
Palo Alto and the Oakland-based law firm of Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian and Ho, which has a history of filing public interest
class action suits.

The 16-page complaint, filed in Alameda County Superior Court,
names as defendants Equity Residential, ERP Operating Limited
Partnership, and Equity Residential Properties Management Corp.

Equity Residential owns or manages more than 25,000 rental units
in California and is one of the nation's largest landlords,
according to the suit.  It also owns most apartments in East Palo
Alto.

The company declined a request for comment on the suit.

The three plaintiffs have each lived in one of the Woodland Park
Apartments owned by Equity Residential for at least six years.

Across the state, Equity Residential's policies and practices for
late rental payments are the same.  It charges a flat-rate fee of
at least $50 when the rent is paid one or more days after any
stated grace period, according to the suit.

The fee "violates California law because it is excessive and bears
no relation to any actual damages incurred by Defendants when rent
is paid late," the suit states.

In addition, Equity Residential employees don't always inform
tenants when they have accrued late fees and then impose monthly
late fees on outstanding balances, the suit alleges.

"As a result, tenants are often unaware that they have accrued a
balance with Defendants and are not afforded the opportunity to
pay that balance in a timely manner," the suit states.
"Defendants then continue to charge tenants additional fees for
their late payment of that accrued balance of which the tenant is
unaware."

That's what plaintiff Javanni Munguia-Brown says happened to her.
The 36-year-old preschool worker with three children has lived in
an Equity Residential apartment since 2008.  Ms. Munguia-Brown's
lease states that her rent is due on the first of the month and
that a $100 fee will be imposed if her rent is paid after a four-
day grace period, the suit says.  Instead of $100, however, she
has had to pay $50 whenever the rent is late, the suit notes.

In March 2014, an Equity Residential employee told her that even
though her rent was on time she would be charged a late fee
because she had an overdue balance of more than $400 that included
$200 in prior late fees, according to the suit. That was the first
time she had been told.

"I didn't get any paperwork," Ms. Munguia-Brown said during an
interview Wednesday at the Community Legal Services office.  "I
said, 'How do you expect people to catch up if you don't tell
them?'"

Ms. Munguia-Brown said she doesn't expect a "free pass" when she
doesn't pay her rent on time, but the current late charge is
"ridiculous."

Equity Residential is profiting from low-income tenants struggling
to pay their rent by imposing "predatory late fees," said
Community Legal Services Directing Attorney Jason Tarricone.

Plaintiffs Norma Rodriguez and Angelina Magana also have paid
hundreds of dollars in accumulated late fees through similar
circumstances, the suit states.

"For over 100 years, the California Supreme Court and legislature
have made clear that late fee penalties charged by landlords are
usually unlawful because landlords are only entitled to simple
interest of a few cents a day plus actual damages, if any,"
Megan Ryan -- mryan@gbdhlegal.com -- an attorney at Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, said in a written statement.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamile H. Ghorab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., d/b/a
First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-05105
(E.D. Pa., September 5, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor
          100 S. Broad St
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: "Holt" Suit Remanded to Miller County Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan O. Hickey, in a memorandum opinion and order
dated August 22, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/3x36dvfrom Leagle.com, remanded the case captioned
KEVIN HOLT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL NO.
4:14-CV-4030, (W.D. Ark.), to the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas, for further proceedings.

Ford removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas on February 12, 2014, asserting that
this Court had federal jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA. Mr. Holt
then filed a motion to remand arguing that Ford's removal is
untimely.

Mr. Holt's class action complaint alleges that Ford "distributed,
sold, leased, serviced, and/or warranted to or for citizens of
Arkansas hundreds, if not thousands, of model year 2005 to 2011
Ford Focus vehicles" and those vehicles have suspension defects
that cause "uneven and/or premature tire wear and handling
concerns." Holt seeks to represent a class consisting of "any
owner or lessee of a model year 2005 to 2011 Ford Focus model
vehicle registered in Arkansas, who is a citizen of Arkansas."

Kevin Holt, Plaintiff, represented by James C. Wyly --
jwyly@wylyrommel.com -- Wyly - Rommel, PLLC, John William Arnold
-- jarnold@bcklaw.com -- Bailey Crowe Kugler L.L.P. & Sean F.
Rommel -- srommel@wylyrommel.com -- Wyly - Rommel, PLLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Edwin L. Lowther,
Jr. -- elowther@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP & Gary
D. Marts, Jr. -- gmarts@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings.


FORD MOTOR: Apartheid Suit Plaintiffs Can't Pursue Redress in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that it's
the end of the line for plaintiffs who tried to hold IBM and Ford
liable for allegedly assisting in the atrocities of the apartheid
regime in South Africa.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin held on Aug. 28 that the
plaintiffs can no longer pursue redress in U.S. courts from the
companies accused of helping the repressive regime because of
recent interpretations of the Alien Tort Statute by the U.S.
Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

The Alien Tort Statute allows U.S. courts to entertain "any civil
action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the
law of nations or a treaty of the United States."  Ford and IBM
were accused of aiding and abetting apartheid policies of
discrimination and violence through the provision of military
vehicles and computers, respectively.

"That these plaintiffs are left without relief in an American
court is regrettable," Judge Scheindlin said in In Re South
African Apartheid Litigation, 02 MDL 1499, litigation that
included the cases Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 03 Civ. 4524 and
Ntsebeza v. Ford Motor Co., 02 Civ. 4712. But the judge said she
was "bound to follow" recent case law "no matter what my personal
view of the law may be."

Five years ago, Judge Scheindlin had ruled that Alien Tort Statute
actions against Ford, IBM and other companies could proceed (NYLJ,
April 9, 2009).  The defendant companies went to the Second
Circuit seeking a writ of mandamus and the dismissal of the cases.

While that appeal was pending, a divided Second Circuit in 2010
issued a decision in another Alien Tort Statute case, Kiobel v.
Dutch Petroleum Co., finding the statute did not give U.S. courts
jurisdiction over claims against corporations for violating
international law (NYLJ, Sept. 20, 2010).

The circuit's decision in the Ford and IBM cases before
Judge Scheindlin was stayed while the case headed to the Supreme
Court.

In April 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Kiobel II.  While it
affirmed the circuit's dismissal in Kiobel I, the Supreme Court
did not address the issue of corporate liability under the Alien
Tort Statute.  Instead, it applied the presumption against the
extraterritorial application of U.S. laws in the Alien Tort
Statute context, saying it barred actions "for violations of the
law of nations occurring outside of the United States."

On remand, the Second Circuit directed a supplemental briefing on
Kiobel's impact, and then, in August 2013, remanded to Judge
Scheindlin. It went on to deny rehearing and rehearing en banc in
November 2013.

In December 2013, Judge Scheindlin dismissed the claims against
all but the IBM and Ford defendants.  She quoted the Supreme Court
in Kiobel II, saying "plaintiffs have failed to show that they
could plausibly plead the[ir] actions . . . touch and concern the
United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption
against the extraterritorial application" of the Alien Tort
Statute.  But she also ordered the Ford and IBM parties to fully
brief the question of whether the Supreme Court left the door ajar
on whether corporations could be held liable for Alien Tort
Statute violations post-Kiobel II.

Then, in April, Judge Scheindlin ruled that the Supreme Court had
implicitly overruled the Second Circuit's rejection of corporate
liability when it premised Kiobel on extraterritoriality, and she
concluded that actions under the Alien Tort Statute could be
brought against corporations.  The judge let the plaintiffs in
Balintulo and Ntsebeza replead with additional allegations (NYLJ,
April 21, 2014).

But with those new allegations before her, Judge Scheindlin on
Aug. 28 said the pleadings did not measure up to Kiobel II, which
she said "drastically limits the viability of Alien Tort Statute
cases based on conduct occurring abroad."

The Second Circuit interpretation of the Supreme Court's Kiobel
decision, she said, led the circuit to find in Balintulo that
corporate citizenship was irrelevant where "all the relevant
conduct occurred abroad," and that defendants cannot be held
vicariously liable for conduct that occurred within South Africa
by their South African subsidiaries.

This, Judge Scheindlin said on Aug. 28, left the plaintiffs
without recourse.

"Despite plaintiffs' tenacious efforts to revive this litigation,
the bar set by the Supreme Court in Kiobel II, and raised by the
Second Circuit in Balintulo, is too high to overcome," she said.

"Defendants argue, and plaintiffs cannot plausibly deny, that
while the newly proposed allegations are substantially more
detailed and specific, the theories of the American corporations'
liability are 'essentially the same as those in plaintiffs'
existing complaints.'"

"Even if accepted as true, the 'relevant conduct' alleged in the
plaintiffs' proposed amended complaints all occurred abroad," she
said.  "Thus, under the law of the Supreme Court and the Second
Circuit, the claims do not touch and concern the territory of the
United States 'with sufficient force to displace the presumption
against extraterritorial application' and would not survive a
motion to dismiss."

Bruce Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice in Roseland
New Jersey, one of the lead attorneys representing plaintiffs in
Ntsebeza, could not be reached for comment, nor could Michael
Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- of Hausfeld LLP in
Washington, D.C, one of the lead attorneys in Baluntulo.

Jonathan Hacker -- jhacker@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers
represented Ford.

Keith Hummel -- khummel@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine & Moore
represented IBM.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canadian Class Action Trial Begins
--------------------------------------------------
Sotos LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that trial was slated to begin on
September 9, 2014 in a class action lawsuit on behalf of 182
former Canadian GM auto dealers terminated at the time of GM
Canada's 2009 government-funded auto bailout.

The suit names General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), a
subsidiary of General Motors Company and Cassels Brock & Blackwell
LLP, a major Canadian law firm.

The lawsuit, seeking $750 million in damages, alleges:

GM breached provincial franchise laws through a high-pressure,
fast-paced campaign to eliminate the dealerships at minimal cost
under the threat of a GMCL bankruptcy filing in Canada in May
2009.

Cassels was retained by the Canadian GM dealers to act for them in
an expected restructuring but was in a conflict of interest
because it also acted for the Government of Canada on the GM auto
bailout.

GMCL gave insufficient time and misleading information to the
dealers when it presented the termination package.  GMCL
threatened to seek formal insolvency protection if any of the
dealers rejected the offer.

With only six days to respond to the offer, dealers turned to
Cassels.  But Cassels, without having disclosed its conflict of
interest to the dealers, took a passive role and left the dealers
with no viable alternatives. Without effective representation and
with no remaining time to organize a collective response, the vast
majority of dealers signed back the termination offer as presented
by GMCL and wound down their businesses.

GMCL did not file for bankruptcy protection, unlike its parent
company which made a formal Chapter 11 filing in the United
States.

In a 68-page decision certifying the case as a class action in
2011, the Honourable Justice G.R. Strathy (now Chief Justice of
Ontario) described the tumultuous events that took place over six
days in May 2009 while GMCL sought to eliminate the dealers.

The class includes dealers in every Canadian province.  Former
owner/operators of dealerships in Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston
will testify on behalf of the plaintiff class.

The trial in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada
Limited and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP begins September 9, 2014
at 10 AM at 330 University Ave. Toronto, Courtroom 5-1.

The certification decision is available at: http://is.gd/USegxF

The court filed statement of claim is available at:
http://is.gd/NQ1HN5

The dealers are jointly represented by the Toronto law firms
WeirFoulds LLP -- http://www.weirfoulds.com-- and Sotos LLP --
http://www.sotosllp.com

With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
-- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest automakers,
traces its roots back to 1908.


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Settles Oil Spill Claims for $1.028 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Halliburton Energy Services Inc. has agreed to pay more than
$1 billion to settle civil claims for damages caused by the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

The agreement, announced on Sept. 2, resolves the "substantial
majority" of the spill lawsuits filed against Halliburton, which
denied any wrongdoing, according to Houston-based parent
Halliburton Co.

"Halliburton stepped up to the plate and agreed to provide a fair
measure of compensation to people and businesses harmed in the
wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy," co-lead plaintiffs'
attorneys Stephen Herman, a partner at Herman Herman & Katz in New
Orleans, and James Roy -- jimr@wrightroy.com -- senior partner at
Domengeaux Wright Roy & Edwards in Lafayette, La., said in a joint
prepared statement.

The settlement came before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier could
rule following two phases of trial over who is to blame for the
spill, which killed 11 workers and caused nearly 5 million gallons
of oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico.  Both phases, which
wrapped up last year, focused on the scope of the spill and
apportionment of liability against BP PLC and its subcontractors,
including Halliburton, which cemented the Deepwater Horizon rig.

Joseph Rice, lead settlement negotiator for the plaintiffs, said
there has been speculation that Judge Barbier's rulings were
coming soon.  "This comes ahead of that because that's the time of
uncertainty and the time you normally reach a settlement," said
Rice, co-founder of Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant, S.C.

A third phase of trial, scheduled to begin next year, will
determine the assessment of nearly $20 billion in possible civil
fines.

In 2012, Judge Barbier ruled that BP must indemnify Halliburton
for most of the compensatory damages associated with the spill,
based on contractual provisions, but left open the possibility of
punitive damages.

The $1.028 billion settlement, which Halliburton plans to pay in
three installments during the next two years, includes
administrative costs and up to $99.95 million in attorney fees,
according to court papers.  The deal is subject to Judge Barbier's
approval.  Halliburton has the right to rescind the agreement
should too many people opt out, according to court papers.

The settlement resolves economic damages claims by individuals and
businesses already being compensated through a settlement with BP.
It also resolves the punitive damages claims by individuals and
businesses -- primarily commercial and subsistence fishermen,
charter boat operators and property owners -- and local
governments that suffered physical damages due to oil
contamination.

The deal excludes claims by the states of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas against Halliburton.

BP, which still faces lawsuits by the states and the U.S. Justice
Department, settled economic damages claims in 2012 for what it
estimates to be $9.2 billion.  But the company has since
challenged terms of the deal, appealing court decisions to the
U.S. Supreme Court.


HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND: Judge Revives Furlough Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on Sept. 3 kept alive a putative class action by salaried,
exempt employees of Hamilton Sundstrand who allege the company,
now UTC Aerospace Systems, wrongfully imposed furloughs, saying
there wasn't enough evidence presented about the company's
financial circumstances to decide whether the furloughs were
legal.

During a hearing in Los Angeles, defense attorney Jon D. Meer of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP argued that an employer can prospectively reduce
employees' salaries to accommodate business needs, as determined
by the employer.

"I don't believe there's a need to submit additional evidence to
show that the need was business-related because there's no other
reason why an employer would reduce salary or institute a furlough
program," Mr. Meer said.

Judge Mary H. Strobel's decision allows some 680 putative class
members to move forward with their case seeking overtime payments
for hours worked in 2009-11.

Plaintiff Cynthia Alvarez, who had worked for the company as a
contract administrator, senior associate project engineer and
senior associate contract specialist, filed suit in 2011 alleging
the company furloughed her and other exempt, salaried workers,
deducting from their wages on an hourly basis during the mandatory
absences.  She argued the company treated the employees as hourly,
and thus, because they were not paid "on a salary basis" under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, they are entitled to payment they did
not receive for overtime hours and missed meal and rest breaks.

Ms. Alvarez contended that "partial-week furloughs of exempt
employees presents a legal problem for employers like HSC because
of the salary requirements for exempt employees under both federal
and California law," according to her motion for class
certification.  "Implementing this cost-cutting measure for
salaried exempt employees causes the loss of the salaried
employees' exempt status."

In 2012, Hamilton Sundstrand combined with Goodrich to create UTC
Aerospace Systems.

On Sept. 3, plaintiff attorney R. Craig Clark took issue with the
defendant's argument that furloughs were allowed merely because
they were business-related, suggesting that "if a business owner
wants to buy a Lamborghini, he can and reduce salaries to do it"
under that logic.

Mr. Clark pointed to an opinion letter from the California
Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement that he contends shows a company must present evidence
that it is facing significant financial troubles in order to
reduce work hours and salaries for salaried workers.

Mr. Meer retorted that business owners should be able to make
their own economic decisions, independent of any dire economic
situations.

"There doesn't have to be any level of severity in an employer's
balance sheet before reducing pay," he said.  "What system does
Mr. Clark want to replace capitalism with?"

The plaintiffs are represented by R. Craig Clark of Clark &
Treglio.

The defendant is represented by Jon D. Meer and Jonathan L. Brophy
of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Cynthia Alvarez et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,
case number BC473093, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


HI HUMAN SERVICES DEP'T: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii Disability Rights Center, in a representative capacity on
behalf of its clients and all others similarly situated, and J.
E., through his parent Suzanne Egan, for themselves and on behalf
of a class of those similarly situated guardian ad litem Suzanne
Egan v. Patricia McManaman, in her official capacity as Director
of the State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Case No.
1:14-cv-00399-BMK-NONE (D. Haw., September 5, 2014) alleges
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristin L. Holland, Esq.
          Maile Osika, Esq.
          Paul Alston, Esq.
          ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
          1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-1800
          Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
          E-mail: KHolland@ahfi.com
                  maos@ahfi.com
                  palston@ahfi.com

               - and -

          Louis Erteschik, Esq.
          Matthew C. Bassett, Esq.
          HAWAII DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
          1132 Bishop Street, Suite 2102
          Honolulu, HI 96813-3701
          Telephone: (808) 876-0529
          Facsimile: (808) 876-1489
          E-mail: louis@hawaiidisabilityrights.org
                  mattbassettesq@gmail.com


HOME DEPOT: Harris Penn Files Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Penn Lowry LLP disclosed that several Home Depot customers
filed a class action lawsuit on Sept. 4 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, alleging that Home Depot failed to meet its legal
obligation to protect their credit card and personal information
and failed to timely warn them that such information had been
stolen or that the security and privacy of such information had
been compromised.

The complaint alleges that in late April or early May, 2014,
computer hackers gained access to Home Depot's point of sale data
network and stole the personal and financial information of
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Home Depot's customers.
However, Home Depot did not tell its customers about this security
breach.  Instead, the breach was only recently brought to light by
a computer security blogger Brian Krebs in his September 2, 2014
blog post at http://is.gd/3EG0yB

On behalf of themselves and all class members, Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and damages suffered by class members as a
result of Home Depot's actions, including for Home Depot's alleged
violation of 38 States' data breach statutes.

Harris Penn Lowry LLP -- http://www.hpllegal.com-- Founded in
2006, Harris Penn Lowry, LLP, handles large-scale litigation
throughout the United States. With offices in Atlanta and
Savannah, Ga., the firm's principles are sought-after, highly
skilled trial lawyers, having gained impressive reputations for
past trial work, including many multi-million dollar verdicts and
settlements.

Federman & Sherwood -- http://www.federmanlaw.com-- Federman &
Sherwood is a boutique litigation law firm handling securities,
business (including energy), insurance and product liability
cases.  It will handle only those cases that it believes strongly
in.  The Firm grew out of a largely defense-oriented practice to
now encompass one of the fastest growing investor and plaintiff
litigation practices in the Southwest.  Federman & Sherwood has
been selected as lead counsel for plaintiffs in both federal and
state court cases that led to recoveries of millions of dollars.

Abington Cole -- http://www.abingtonlaw.com-- Founded in 2006,
Abington Cole is a boutique law firm focusing on consumer class
actions and intellectual property related matters.


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Suit Arising From Defective Accord Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Reid, by and through her Attorney-in-Fact and Next Friend,
Amber Reynolds v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., a corporation;
Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a corporation; American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., a corporation; Honda R&D Americas, Inc., a corporation;
Honda R&D Co., Ltd, a corporation; Honda North America, Inc., a
corporation; Case No. 1:14-cv-01716-KOB (N.D. Ala., September 5,
2014) alleges that the 2001 Honda Accord was defective and
unreasonably dangerous.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Calhoun County, Alabama, tells the
Court that she suffered severe, permanent and disabling injuries
after her parked Vehicle rolled backwards down the driveway,
trapping her between the driver's side door and the body of the
Vehicle itself.  She was dragged down the driveway and across the
street before becoming dislodged from the Vehicle and came to rest
in a ditch.

Honda of America Mfg., Inc. is an Ohio Corporation with its
principal place of business in Ohio.  The Honda Defendants
designed, developed, manufactured, tested, marketed, distributed,
and sold the 2001 Honda Accord Vehicle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Monk, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2569
          Anniston, AL 36202
          Telephone: (256) 238-8668
          Facsimile: (256) 238-8368
          E-mail: monklaw@cableone.net

               - and -

          Thomas P. Willingham, Esq.
          Mary Leah Miller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS P. WILLINGHAM, P.C.
          3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 330
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 298-1011
          Facsimile: (205) 298-1012
          E-mail: tom@tpwpc.com
                  maryleah@tpwpc.com


ITT CORP: Discovery Proceeds in Conn. Suit Against Travelers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Court has now lifted the stay in a case ITT
Corporation and Goulds Pumps Inc. filed against Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company in federal court in Connecticut and discovery
is proceeding, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company is involved in coverage litigation with various
insurers seeking recovery of costs incurred in connection with
certain environmental and product liabilities. In a suit filed in
1991, ITT Corporation, et al. v. Pacific Employers Insurance
Company et al, Sup. Ct., Los Angeles County, the company is
seeking recovery of costs related to property damage losses due to
environmental issues. Discovery, procedural matters, changes in
California law, and various appeals have prolonged this case. The
Company continues to seek appropriate resolution with the various
defendants in the case.

On February 13, 2003, the company commenced an action, Cannon
Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles
County, seeking recovery of costs from the same coverage
referenced above but related to asbestos product liability losses.
During this coverage litigation, the company entered into
coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE (a/k/a Pacific
Employers Insurance Company or PEIC), Wausau and Utica Mutual
dated April 2004, September 2004, and February 2007, respectively.
These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's
legacy asbestos liabilities. In the first quarter of 2012, Goulds
Pumps resolved its claims against Fireman's Fund and Continental
Casualty. In January 2012, ITT and Goulds Pumps filed a putative
class action suit in federal court in Connecticut against
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds
Pumps Inc., v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company), (Fed Dist Ct, D. Conn., CA NO.3:12-
cv-00038-RN)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally
reinterpreting language contained in older Aetna policies so as to
avoid paying on asbestos claims. This action was stayed pending a
decision by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in the Cannon
action on interpretation of policy language. On January 29, 2014,
the Superior Court issued its opinion upholding the Goulds Pumps'
claims that it is entitled to receive reimbursement from
Traveler's for asbestos claims. The Connecticut Court has now
lifted the Stay and discovery in the case is proceeding. In 2013,
the Company finalized a settlement with its insurer PEIC that
resolves all outstanding issues between the Company and PEIC
related to the primary policies issued by PEIC during the period
from 1977 to 1985. The Company and PEIC have agreed that the
primary policies are exhausted and PEIC will make structured
payments over time to a Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) to be used
for asbestos-related costs. The excess insurers have challenged
the exhaustion of the PEIC primary policies and a trial to
determine whether the policies were properly exhausted is
scheduled for November 2014. The Company continues to engage other
defendants in settlement negotiations as appropriate.


JACOBY & MEYERS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Billing
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action filed in federal court in Newark claims
Jacoby & Meyers and an affiliated firm engaged in deceptive
billing practices by farming out some legal work to litigation
support companies owned by some of the firms' current and former
partners.

The suit alleges attorneys at Jacoby & Meyers and another firm,
Finkelstein & Partners, got a bigger bite of the plaintiffs'
personal injury settlements by using the services of Total Trial
Solutions.   That company is allegedly owned by Andrew
Finkelstein, who is a partner of both Jacoby & Meyers and
Finkelstein & Partners, and Kenneth Oliver, a former partner of
both firms.

The suit brings claims of breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract against Jacoby & Meyers, Finkelstein & Partners,
Finkelstein and Oliver.  The suit also brings an unjust enrichment
claim against Total Trial Solutions, Finkelstein and Oliver.  The
suit seeks actual and punitive damages, disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains and fees collected by the defendants as a result of their
alleged fiduciary breaches and conflicted transactions.

The named plaintiffs are Nancy Harding, who lives in Rockland
County, N.Y., and her son, Jeffrey Harding, who lives in Mahwah,
N.J. According to the complaint, both Hardings retained
Finkelstein & Partners in connection with separate slip-and-fall
injuries and each received a settlement.  In both cases, the
clients signed retainer agreements giving Finkelstein & Partners a
one-third share of the litigation proceeds, and stating that some
services related to the case might be provided by companies owned
by Messrs. Finkelstein and Oliver.

The suit was filed on behalf of clients of Jacoby & Meyers or
Finkelstein & Partners who were billed for litigation services
provided by Total Trial Services or two other companies allegedly
owned by Messrs. Finkelstein and Oliver -- MedTrial Solutions and
CineTrial Solutions.

The Hardings did not have any dealings with Jacoby & Meyers but
that firm shares an office in Newburgh, N.Y., with Finkelstein &
Partners, and many of the attorneys listed on Jacoby & Meyers'
website are also listed on the site of Finkelstein & Partners,
according to Joseph Santoli, the Ridgewood, N.J., attorney
representing the plaintiffs.  Jacoby & Meyers is believed to make
use of Total Trial and the other companies owned by Finkelstein
and Oliver, Mr. Santoli said.

The gross settlement in Nancy Harding's case was $195,000.  After
the deduction of roughly $21,000 in disbursements allegedly
advanced by Finkelstein & Partners, the firm took a one-third
contingency fee of $57,938. Among the disbursements were $3,870 to
Total Trial Solutions, including $225 to "locate liability
expert," $2,599 to "review file/drafting," $23 for "professional
service" and $1,019 for "file/review/editing," as well as $3 for
which no explanation was given, according to the complaint.

In Jeffrey Harding's case, the gross settlement was $99,280.  From
that sum was deducted roughly $11,000 in disbursements.

Finkelstein & Partners got one-third of what was left, which came
to $29,340, the complaint alleges.

But the disbursements included $2,968 to Total Trial Solutions,
which was described as being for "future special needs," $240 for
"unspecified" expenses; $23 for "file review;" and $2,681, and
another $23, for "color printouts."

The services rendered by Total Trial Solutions "appear to be of
the type of services which are reasonably expected to be performed
by law firms as a part of the services to be provided under a
contingent retainer agreement and included as part of the
contingent percentage fee to be paid by a client to a law firm,"
the complaint says.

Retainer agreements in both Hardings' cases said the litigation
support companies "'are not a law firm, are not part of the law
firm and do not provide legal services'" but their use "'allows
for a seamless offering of services necessary for exemplary trial
work.'"  The retainer agreements also said that most of the
services provided by Total Trial, MedTrial and CineTrial may be
available for a lower cost from other vendors.  The retainer said
that "'if at any time the law firm believes another vendor will
provide comparable services for less it will notify you in order
to give you the option of using the other vendor,'" according to
the complaint.

But the plaintiffs claim in their suit that they were never given
an opportunity to ask about the cost of the services in question
or to seek quotes from other vendors.

Mr. Santoli filed a similar suit on behalf of Nancy Harding in the
Southern District of New York in June, but voluntarily withdrew
that case based on the assertion by Jacoby & Meyers that diversity
jurisdiction was defeated under a local rule due to the estimated
4,000 clients who had been billed for work by one of the three
lawyer-owned companies. He re-filed the case in New Jersey, with
Jeffrey Harding added as a plaintiff, on Aug. 28.

Messrs. Finkelstein and Oliver did not return calls about the
suit.  Andrew Finkelstein's page on social networking site
LinkedIn says he is "law firm manager of several strategically
aligned law firms," and lists four firms: Jacoby & Meyers;
Finkelstein & Partners; Fine, Olin & Anderman; and Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber.  The first three firms use the
same Newburgh, N.Y. address, while the fourth is located in White
Plains, N.Y. Oliver's LinkedIn page says he was with Jacoby &
Meyers, Fine, Olin & Anderman and Finkelstein & Partners until
December 2012, when he formed his own firm.
Michael Ambrosio, a professor at Seton Hall University School of
Law who has written extensively on professional ethics, said he is
unaware of any ethical constraint against lawyers being affiliated
with multiple law firms.

Regarding a lawyer's billing of clients for work done by a
separate litigation services firm that the lawyer owns,
Mr. Ambrosio said such an arrangement "could be legitimate but has
to be done with some disclosure to the client."  However, billing
a client separately for services that lawyers would generally
perform in the regular scope of their duties could be considered
double-billing, Mr. Ambrosio said.  What costs can legitimately be
the subject of an extra charge would be based on what is
"consistent with the custom of the legal profession," he said.

Under RPC 1.5, lawyers may not charge unreasonable fees, and the
court rules provide a detailed description of what's reasonable,
Mr. Ambrosio said.  As a fiduciary, it's the lawyer's duty to
advise against his own interests in such matters, Mr. Ambrosio
said.  "Quite clearly, it's the burden of the lawyer to justify a
fee arrangement, and doubts are resolved in favor of the client,"
he said.

But lawyers can craft contract terms that may be upheld if the
court sees them as "consistent with the concept of
reasonableness," Mr. Ambrosio said.


KLEENCO MAINTENANCE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Trogdon" Case Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the court in STEPHEN TROGDON, on behalf of himself and all
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KLEENCO MAINTENANCE
& CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:14-CV-05057, (W.D.
Ark.), are Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, and
Plaintiff's motion to strike Kleenco's motion for partial summary
judgment. The issue raised in the motions is whether the Court can
properly consider a motion for summary judgment as to claims of
putative members of the proposed collective action at this stage
in the litigation.

Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes, III denied both Kleenco's motion
for partial summary judgment and Mr. Trogdon's motion to strike in
an opinion and order dated August 21, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Hyqsdlfrom Leagle.com.

The Court ordered the parties are to file a Rule 26(f) report and
to include in that report a proposed deadline for Plaintiff to
file a motion for certification of the collective action.

Stephen Trogdon, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin L. Pawlik --
kpawlik@arkattorneys.com -- Keith, Miller, Butler, Schneider &
Pawlik, PLLC & George M. Rozzell, IV -- grozzell@arkattorneys.com
-- Keith, Miller, Butler, Schneider & Pawlik.

Kleenco Maintenance & Construction, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Carolyn B. Witherspoon -- cspoon@cgwg.com -- Cross, Gunter,
Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C. & Melissa McJunkins Duke --
mduke@cgwg.com -- Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C.


LA LAKERS: Sues Chubb Unit Over Denying TCPA Class Action Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, report that The
Los Angeles Lakers Inc. slammed Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.
subsidiary Federal Insurance Co. in a suit filed on Sept. 2 in
California court, claiming Federal acted in bad faith by denying
coverage of a proposed class action accusing the Lakers of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Lakers allege Federal improperly denied the claim on the basis
that the policy contains a specific "invasion of privacy"
exclusion, arguing that TCPA claims are distinct from allegations
of invasion of privacy and are not excluded from coverage.

In 2012, plaintiff David Emanuel filed suit in California federal
court, claiming the Lakers violated the TCPA by spamming him with
unwanted text messages.  The court found Emanuel had given consent
to receive the text message in question, and the suit was
dismissed with prejudice.  The parties reached a settlement in
January, while the case was on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

The suit had garnered attention from heavyweights in the tech
industry like Twitter Inc. and Path Inc., both of which urged the
Ninth Circuit to uphold the suit's lower court dismissal and
voiced concerns that the litigation was emblematic of increasingly
prevalent efforts by the plaintiffs bar to use TCPA actions as "an
extortionist club."

After the settlement, the Lakers claim it made repeated requests
for Federal to cover the costs associated with defending the
litigation pursuant to their policy, but Federal regularly denied
the claims on the basis of the policy's invasion of privacy
exclusion.

The Lakers claim the plaintiffs in the Emanuel case expressly did
not seek damages for any invasion of privacy, and that the crux of
the allegations in the suit focused on the economic damages from
the annoyance and nuisance of incurring telephone charges or
consuming cellular telephone time.

"Federal could have included a TCPA exclusion in the policy but
did not do so and could not properly interpret the policy, after
LAL suffered a loss, as if it contained such an exclusion," the
complaint said.  "The TCPA does not only reflect a concern over
intrusions into privacy, but also the separate recognition of, and
protection against, the economic impact associated with the
receipt of unauthorized communications."

The Lakers claim Federal denied the claims without performing a
meaningful investigation, and made a decision to intentionally
injure the Lakers, which warrants the recovery of punitive
damages.

"Federal's conduct was despicable and was done with a conscious
disregard of LAL's rights, constituting oppression, fraud and/or
malice, in that Federal engaged in a series of acts to deny the
benefits due under the policy," the complaint said.

The Lakers are represented by Kirk A. Pasich --
pasichk@dicksteinshapiro.com -- and Anamay M. Carmel --
carmela@dicksteinshapiro.com -- of Dickstein Shapiro LLP.

The case is Los Angeles Lakers Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., case
number BC556485, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.


LIFELOCK INC: Plans to File Motion to Dismiss Ariz. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the
complaint In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation by September
15, 2014, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing
herself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired
our securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014,
inclusive, or the Class Period, filed a complaint in United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against the company,
Todd Davis, and Chris Power.  The company refers to this complaint
as the Bien Complaint.  The Bien Complaint alleges that the
company and Messrs. Davis and Power, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, disseminated materially false or
misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts
during the Class Period in connection with our business and our
operational and compliance policies, including our and Mr. Davis's
compliance with the  Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for
Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief entered into in
March 2010 with the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC Order,
wherein the company settled allegations by the Federal Trade
Commission challenging certain of our advertising and marketing.
The Bien Complaint also contends that as a result of alleged
violations of governmental laws, regulations, and the FTC Order,
our financial statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.  The Bien Complaint seeks certification as a
class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs."

"On March 10, 2014, Joseph F. Scesny, representing himself and
seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our
securities during the Class Period filed a complaint in United
States District Court for the District of Arizona against the
company, Todd Davis, and Chris Power.  The company refers to this
complaint as the Scesny Complaint. The Scesny Complaint is
substantially similar to the Bien Complaint and seeks
substantially similar relief. On June 16, 2014, the court
consolidated the Scesny Complaint and the Bien Complaint into a
single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  The court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and the order of
the court dated July 2, 2014, a consolidated amended complaint is
due to be filed no later than August 15, 2014.  The company
anticipates filing a motion to dismiss that complaint by September
15, 2014."


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Seeks to Appeal Claim Certification in "Bezich"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation requested an appellate court to
permit interlocutory appeal of the certification of a breach of
contract claim contained in the suit Peter S. Bezich v. The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County
("Court"), Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73,
asserting he was charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the
applicable mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms
of the insurance contract.  Plaintiff petitioned the Court to
certify a class action, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
owned the relevant insurance product between 1999 and 2009,
alleging that:  (i) LNL breached the contract by including non-
mortality factors in cost-of-insurance rates; (ii) LNL breached
the contract when it charged administrative expenses in excess of
set amount; and (iii) LNL breached the contract by failing to
adjust cost-of-insurance rates to reflect improving mortality
expectations.  On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying
certification on all of the Plaintiff's counts and claims except
with respect to a single legal issue:  whether the contract was
breached as alleged in Count III.  However, any damages arising
from this alleged breach would have to be tried on an individual
case-by-case basis. The company continues to vigorously defend
this matter and have requested the appellate court to permit
interlocutory appeal of the certification of the single issue.


LONGWEI PETROLEUM: Reconsideration Bid in Securities Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as, In re: LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLDING
LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO. 13 CIV. 214 (RMB), (S.D.N.Y.),
District Judge Richard M. Berman denied the Auditor Defendants'
motion for reconsideration and their alternative request for
certification for interlocutory appeal.

In arriving at the decision, the Court reviewed the records of the
proceedings, including:

     (i) the Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint filed
on July 8, 2013, by lead plaintiffs Paul Love, Fabio Benedetto
Lupis, and Chris Wilson against Longwei Petroleum Investment
Holding Limited, a Colorado corporation with a principal place of
business in China, several individual defendants, including
Longwei's officers, directors, and members of its audit committee,
and its auditors (Auditor Defendants), alleging, among other
things, that Defendants "engaged in acts . . . which operated as a
fraud and deceit . . . in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5" and that "[d]espite numerous red
flags . . . Longwei's auditors . . . repeatedly issued unqualified
audit opinions for [Longwei's] record financial results";

    (ii) the Court's Opinion and Order, dated January 27, 2014,
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' August 14, 2013,
motion to dismiss the claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the principal audit partner, Russell Anderson, and
denying the motion with respect to all other claims;

   (iii) the Auditor Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the
Court's Opinion and Order, filed February 6, 2014, arguing, among
other things, that: (I) the Court's Opinion and Order "differs
significantly from the conclusions reached by other courts within
this Circuit as to the significance of the `red flags' found by
this Court;" and alternatively (2) the Court should certify for
interlocutory review "controlling questions of Jaw" which "have
generated substantial disagreement";

    (iv) Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for reconsideration,
filed February 24, 2014, contending that the Auditor Defendants
"have failed to identify an intervening change in the law, new
facts, clear error or manifest injustice," and "seek certification
of three supposedly controlling questions that the Court did not
even decide";

     (v) the oral argument held on April 14, 2014; and

    (vi) applicable legal authorities.

The Auditor Defendants' request to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of the appeal is denied as moot, Judge Berman further
ruled in his Opinion and Order dated August 22, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/iN0Aqdfrom Leagle.com.

LPH Investor Group, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Richard William
Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz
LLP, James Milligan Wilson, Jr., Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Megan Marie
Sullivan, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Stuart J. Guber, Motley Rice,
LLC.

Chris Basnett, Plaintiff, represented by Richard William Gonnello,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP,
Gregory Bradley Linkh, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg
LLP, Michael Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Donald Pritt, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph R. Seidman,
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP & Stuart J. Guber, Motley Rice, LLC.
Paul Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Richard William Gonnello,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Amber L Eck, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Charlie Muniz, Plaintiff, represented by Richard William Gonnello,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP,
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz LLP.

June Ma, Plaintiff, represented by Richard William Gonnello,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Stephen Douglas Bunch, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel Stephen Sommers, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Elizabeth Anne Aniskevich, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP,
Kenneth Mark Rehns, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.,
Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
P.L.L.C. & Steven Jeffrey Toll, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.

Khaled Mously, Movant, represented by Andrei V. Rado, Milberg LLP.
Catherine Dandy, Movant, represented by Andrei V. Rado, Milberg
LLP.

William Tylutki, Movant, represented by Mario Alba, Jr, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Volker Piasta, Movant, represented by Joseph R. Seidman, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP.

Excalibur Special Opportunities, L.P., Movant, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Greg Lagermeier, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Todd Okimoto, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Richard D Kozma, Movant, represented by Stephen Douglas Bunch,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Marcin Kolakowski, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh.
Malkit Sappal, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh.

Michael Toups, Defendant, represented by David P. Nemecek, Qian &
Nemecek LLP & Daniel L. Keller, Sedgwick LLP.

Anderson Bradshaw, PLLC, Defendant, represented by Anthony J.
Costantini, Duane Morris, LLP & Kevin Paul Potere, Duane Morris,
LLP.

Child, Van Wagoner and Associates, PLLC, Defendant, represented by
Anthony J. Costantini, Duane Morris, LLP & Kevin Paul Potere,
Duane Morris, LLP.

Russell Anderson, Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Costantini,
Duane Morris, LLP & Kevin Paul Potere, Duane Morris, LLP.

Gerald A. DeCiccio, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Keller,
Sedgwick LLP & David P. Nemecek, Qian & Nemecek LLP.

Douglas Cole, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Keller, Sedgwick
LLP & David P. Nemecek, Qian & Nemecek LLP.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Removed "Finerman" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Finerman v. Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation, et al., Case No. 2014-CA-465, was removed
from the Flagler County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01461-PGB-GJK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          Tamra Carsten Givens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  tgivens@forthepeople.com

Defendant Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation is represented
by:

          Dawn Ivy Giebler-Millner, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          450 S Orange Ave., Suite 650
          PO Box 4923
          Orlando, FL 32802-4923
          Telephone: (407) 420-1000
          Facsimile: (407) 420-5909
          E-mail: gieblerd@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          PO Box 677
          200 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7910
          Facsimile: (973) 301-8410
          E-mail: sellingerp@gtlaw.com


MARTIN BROTHERS: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $1.9 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
KWWL reports that thousands of Iowa parents who paid for lunch for
their children may be eligible for a refund in a class action
lawsuit involving Martin Brothers.

If you bought a school lunch at one of the affected schools from
January, 2000 to August, 2014 you could be eligible.

It's the result of a class action lawsuit filed against Martin
Brothers Distributing Company, Inc. and The Iowa Association for
Educational Purchasing; The suit claimed that the two worked
together to keep competition down for lunch contracts.  The suit
claimed Martin Brothers violated Iowa antitrust laws by trying to
monopolize the market.

In the settlement, Martin Brothers has agreed to pay $1.9 million.

Martin Brothers Vice president of Sales, Doug Coen, says, despite
the settlement, the company denies any wrongdoing or violation of
anti-trust laws.

Eligible parents could get up to $3.50 per student, per year --
with a maximum of $50.00 per student.

To see a list of schools involved in the settlement:
http://www.iowaschoolfoodsettlement.com/school-list.aspx

For full information about the lawsuit:
http://www.iowaschoolfoodsettlement.com/

To file a claim in the Iowa School Food Settlement:
http://is.gd/Jf13KN


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc., Securities
Litigation will be heard October 14, 2014, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers. These actions were
entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March
21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-
cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April
19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and
business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue.
The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013, inclusive.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff
and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order
consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation. On January 16, 2014,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint
which slightly adjusted the class period to April 29, 2011 to
March 19, 2013, and removed a former officer as a defendant. In
response, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint, which the lead plaintiff opposed. On May
5, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss but
granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, and the
Company then filed another motion to dismiss on July 10, 2014. The
lead plaintiffs and the Company are each expected to file
additional responses on the issues raised in the motion to dismiss
before the court rules on the matter at a hearing scheduled for
October 14, 2014.


MILLENIUM PHARMA: Gov't Disputes PRMA Argument in Integrilin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the federal government has filed a rebuttal to the
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America's argument that
drug companies face liability for engaging in truthful speech
about "off-label" uses of drugs.

According to the organization's amicus brief in United States v.
Millenium Pharmaceuticals Inc., the government and its relator
allege that the manufacturer submitted false claims to the
government for Integrilin by circulating articles reprinted from
Cardiology, the American Heart Journal and the American Journal of
Cardiology about unapproved uses.  The federal government, more
than 20 states and federal territories and relator Frank Solis
have brought claims under the False Claims Act.

Lawyers from the Department of Justice replied that the trade
association is saying the First Amendment provides "a
constitutional right to knowingly cause other parties to submit
false claims to the government, as long as a party does so by its
speech.  This radical position has never been endorsed by any
court and is not supported by any precedent."

The False Claims Act does not penalize a drugmaker's promotion of
a drug for an off-label use, but off-label promotional activity
can be evidence that it has caused false claims to be submitted
for payment, the governmental lawyers said.  "Promotional speech
may be used as evidence to prove that a manufacturer knowingly
caused the drug to be put to a certain use and billed to a
government health care program for such use, under circumstances
in which the use is not covered and the claim is not eligible for
reimbursement," the government said.

Industry counsel David Weiner, Jeffrey Handwerker and Sarah M.
Harris of Arnold & Porter in Washington wrote that the theory of
the case runs afoul of the First Amendment because of it would
create liability for truthful and nonmisleading speech about
unapproved uses of drugs.

"This court should construe the [Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] as
prohibiting, at most, only false speech," the amicus brief says.
"Or this court could hold that purported violations of the FDCA
for promoting an unapproved drug cannot be a predicate for [False
Claims Act] liability, because such FDCA violations are
independent of the FCA and cannot render a claim 'false.' "


MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL: Jan. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Gordon Ball on Sept. 4 issued a statement
regarding the Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation.

If You Operate a Business and Indirectly Purchased Skelaxin for
Resale, You Could be Affected by a Proposed Class Action
Settlement.

What is this about? Subject to Court Approval, a $2 million
Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit called In re
Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The
lawsuit claims that Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. conspired
with King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to prevent and delay generic
competition to King's brand-name drug, Skelaxin, resulting in
artificially high prices.

Mutual denies it did anything wrong. The Court has not decided who
is right or whether to approve the Settlement.

Who is a Class Member? The class includes all persons or entities
in the United States that operate a business outside Tennessee and
indirectly purchased Skelaxin for resale between November 4, 2005
and August 5, 2014.  Purchasing "indirectly" means that you
purchased Skelaxin from a wholesaler or distributor, rather than
directly from the manufacturer. Purchasing "for resale" means that
you resold the Skelaxin you purchased to consumers.

What are the benefits? Mutual has agreed to pay $2 million in
exchange for a release of claims asserted in this case.  A direct
cash distribution is not practical due to the number of Class
Members.  Instead, if approved by the Court, the Fund will pay for
attorneys' fees and expenses and be distributed on behalf of the
Class to charitable, nonprofit, or governmental organizations.
Class Counsel will identify eligible organizations and solicit
proposals.  Class Members may also nominate organizations online
at www.SkelaxinPharmacySettlement.com
Nominations by Class Members are due by October 4, 2014, and
proposals from organizations must be submitted by October 19,
2014.  Class Counsel will make a recommendation in the Plan of
Allocation, to be filed by November 3, 2014.

What are my rights? Do nothing -- if you do nothing, you will be
bound by the decisions of the Court and will not be able to sue
Mutual.  Exclude yourself -- if you exclude yourself, you cannot
object to the Settlement or Plan of Allocation, but you can pursue
a lawsuit against Mutual on your own.  The exclusion postmarked
deadline is November 18, 2014.  Object -- write a letter with your
objections to the Court, so that it is received by November 18,
2014.  Complete details of your rights and how to exclude yourself
are found on www.SkelaxinPharmacySettlement.com

The Court has scheduled a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on January 14,
2015, at the United States Courthouse, 900 Georgia Avenue,
Chattanooga, TN 37402, to determine the fairness of the
Settlement, attorneys' fees and expenses, and the Plan of
Allocation.  The motion for approval of the settlement and the
Plan of Allocation and application for attorneys' fees and
expenses will be filed by November 3, 2014 and posted on the
website below. You may appear at the Hearing, but you don't have
to.

This is only a summary.  More details are in the Proposed
Settlement Agreement.  You can get a copy of the settlement
agreement by visiting www.SkelaxinPharmacySettlement.com
You may also call the settlement administrator toll-free at 1-844-
491-5738.  You may also write to:  Skelaxin Pharmacy Settlement,
c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58219, Philadelphia, PA 19102-
8219.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menachem M. Laine, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
05215 (E.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Clinics May Face Liability in Steroid MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
claims against New Jersey and Tennessee clinics that administered
tainted epidural steroid injections linked to dozens of deaths
have survived a dismissal motion in Boston federal court.

The contaminated drugs from the now defunct New England
Compounding Center have been linked to outbreaks of fungal
meningitis and other infections that started in 2012 and have been
blamed for 751 injuries and 64 deaths.

U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel ruled on Aug. 29 on motions to
dismiss filed by a number of clinics and other parties in the
multidistrict litigation.  "Most importantly, the court ruled that
the corporate-owned clinics that imported the contaminated
medication into Tennessee can be held accountable for the harm the
tainted product caused," said Mark Chalos, a Nashville partner at
San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and a
plaintiffs' steering committee member.

Defense lawyer C.J. Gideon Jr. of Nashville's Gideon, Cooper &
Essary noted that the threshold for dismissal "is quite high" at
this stage of the case.  Mr. Gideon represents the Tennessee
clinic defendants.

Mr. Gideon emphasized that that Judge Zobel dismissed a few claims
completely: battery, civil conspiracy and vicarious liability.
Additionally, Judge Zobel dismissed some elements of additional
claims including products liability, consumer protection and
informed consent.  She also "agreed with us that the claims of
gross negligence, ordinary negligence, and duty to prevent harm
were governed by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act.  We are
pleased with this good start," Mr. Gideon said.

Judge Zobel refused to throw out Tennessee Consumer Protection Act
claims to recover money used to purchase the tainted drugs. She
kept alive failure-to-warn claims against defendants who ordered
or administered injections.  Judge Zobel ruled that the court
would evaluate lack-of-informed-consent claims under the Tennessee
Health Care Liability Act.

The court will apply that law to evaluate claims for ordinary
negligence, gross negligence and duty to prevent foreseeable harm,
Judge Zobel held.  And Judge Zobel denied a dismissal motion by
St. Thomas Health, a group of Tennessee hospitals and various
related entities, ruling that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded
vicarious liability based on an agency theory.  She held that the
plaintiffs had showed that the St. Thomas group had "at least an
apparent agency relationship" with the administering clinic St.
Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center and its doctors, nurses and
employees.  Judge Zobel dismissed claims against St. Thomas'
parent company Ascension Health and an affiliate.

Lawyers at Boston's Nutter McClennen & Fish and Norton Rose
Fulbright who represent St. Thomas and Ascension did not respond
to requests for comment.  In an email, St. Thomas spokeswoman
Rebecca Climer wrote that the company would not comment on pending
litigation.

Regarding the New Jersey claims, Judge Zobel dismissed battery,
civil conspiracy, state Consumer Fraud Act and vicarious-liability
claims.  But she allowed negligence, failure-to-warn and punitive-
damages claims to move forward.

Those defendants' lawyers at Blumberg & Wolk of Woodbury, N.J.,
did not respond to requests for comment.

Owners and insurers of New England Compounding have separately
agreed to pay $100 million into the company's bankruptcy for the
personal injury victims.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Settlement Reached in Heckmann Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. and
various directors and officers in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation
Securities Class Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT).

On March 4, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter by entering into a Stipulation of Settlement
with the plaintiffs, which will resolve all claims asserted
against the Company and the individual defendants in this case,
Nuverra Environmental Solutions 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.

Under the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, which was
subject to approval by the court, the Company agreed to a cash
payment of $13.5 million, a portion of which will come from
remaining insurance proceeds, as well as the issuance of 0.8
million shares of its common stock.  The Company agreed to provide
a floor value of $13.5 million on the equity portion of the
settlement; however, at the time of final court approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement the equity value of the settlement
consideration exceeded this amount and, as a result, the number of
shares to be issued as settlement consideration was fixed at 0.8
million. Cash payments of $6.1 million from the Company, and the
remaining $7.4 million from insurance proceeds, were deposited
into escrow in April 2014.  The Stipulation of Settlement was
approved by the court on June 26, 2014 and will become effective
(assuming no appeal is filed) on August 27, 2014.

Pursuant to the court's approval order, one-third of the 0.8
million settlement shares and one-third of the cash settlement
consideration were awarded to co-lead plaintiffs' counsel as
attorneys' fees (in addition to reimbursement of certain court-
approved expenses from the cash portion of the settlement escrow).
The remaining two-thirds of the 0.8 million settlement shares are
required to be deposited into escrow no later than thirty (30)
days following the date settlement becomes effective.

To effectively accrue for the pending settlement, the Company
recorded an expense of $4.6 million in the three months ended June
30, 2014, consisting of $3.6 million related to the increase in
market value of the 0.8 million shares and $1.0 million of
additional related legal expenses and defense costs.

Although the number of shares to be issued as part of the
settlement is fixed at 0.8 million, the Company could incur
additional non-cash charges in future periods if the market price
per share of the remaining unissued 0.6 million shares exceeds
$20.11 (the share price at June 30, 2014) upon the final
settlement effective date of August 27, 2014.

Nuverra Environmental Solutions is among the largest companies in
the United States dedicated to providing comprehensive, full-cycle
environmental solutions to customers focused on the development
and ongoing production of oil and natural gas from shale
formations.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Seeks to Dismiss 2013 Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative
class action lawsuits were commenced in Federal court against
Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors alleging that the Company and
the individual defendants made certain material misstatements
and/or omissions relating to the Company's operations and
financial condition which caused the price of its shares to fall.
By order dated October 29, 2013, the two putative class actions
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint has been filed.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in May 2014,
Nuverra Environmental Solutions 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.

In September and October 2013, three separate but substantially-
similar shareholder derivative lawsuits were commenced in Federal
court against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors alleging that members of the Company's
board of directors failed to prevent the issuance of certain
misstatements and omissions and asserting claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in February
2014.

Also in October 2013, two identical shareholder derivative
lawsuits were commenced in Arizona state court against us and
certain of the Company's current officers and directors alleging
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment.

By order dated January 28, 2014, these two actions were
consolidated, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss these
claims in June 2014.

The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously
defend themselves against the claims asserted in each of these
pending actions. While the Company continues to assess these
claims, the Company believes they are without merit.

The Company does not expect that the outcome of other claims and
legal actions not discussed above will have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Nuverra Environmental Solutions is among the largest companies in
the United States dedicated to providing comprehensive, full-cycle
environmental solutions to customers focused on the development
and ongoing production of oil and natural gas from shale
formations.


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Theft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Abcarian, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that eight
months after filing a groundbreaking, class-action wage theft
lawsuit against the Oakland Raiders, two former Raiderettes
cheerleaders have won a $1.25-million settlement from the team.
The deal was announced on Sept. 4 by attorneys for both sides, and
is subject to court approval.

In January, the two former cheerleaders alleged that the Raiders
broke a raft of state labor laws, including failing to pay minimum
wage, withholding wages for months and refusing to reimburse
cheerleaders for their business expenses.

In a sense, the Sept. 4 settlement, filed in Alameda Superior
Court, is their second major victory.  The first came in July,
when the Raiders tacitly admitted their sins and offered their new
cheerleading squad a contract that nearly tripled their pay.

Instead of earning only $125 per game in a single paycheck
delivered at the end of the season, Raiderettes will earn $9 an
hour from now on, plus overtime, for the estimated 350 hours each
cheerleader puts in each year, including rehearsals, practices and
mandatory community and charity appearances.  Their annual
compensation will rise from about $1,250 to about $3,200.

From now on, Raiderettes will also be reimbursed for business
expenses and mileage, which they had to cover themselves before.
They will also receive paychecks every two weeks, per state law,
rather than one lump sum at season's end.

And the team will no longer illegally deduct wages for minor rules
infractions like showing up a few minute late to rehearsals,
wearing the wrong color nail polish or failing to bring the
correct pom poms to practice.  Cheerleaders will also be entitled
to a 10-minute break during games.

As for the second victory, that came after a day of mediation last
month in San Francisco.  Attorneys for the Raiderettes and the
team agreed to a complex settlement formula that will cover any
cheerleader who has worked for the team since the 2010-11 season.
Cheerleaders will receive $2,500 in back pay and penalties for the
2013-14 season, plus $6,000 in back pay and penalties for each of
the three seasons before that. (Why only $2,500 for last season?
Because after the wage theft lawsuit was filed, the Raiders
mysteriously increased cheerleaders' pay to approximately minimum
wage.)

About 90 women, some of whom were angry that the case had been
filed because it embarrassed the team, will receive checks.
Lacy T., the original plaintiff, and Sarah G., who joined the case
a short time later, will receive an additional $10,000 for
bringing the lawsuit.  To protect themselves from overzealous
fans, cheerleaders traditionally do not use their last names, and
the court has not required them to do so.

"I'm so excited, honestly," said Lacy, 28, who spent only one
season as an NFL cheerleader and who was shunned by many of her
squadmates after filing the lawsuit.  "I feel a sense of
satisfaction knowing this long journey is over and will end
happily for 90 women.  I feel very proud about that.  I know we're
just cheerleaders to people, but we're low-wage workers working
for a billion-dollar industry.  It shows everyone that one little
girl who stood up and said, 'This is not right,' changed the way
the Raiders do business."

Oakland attorneys Leslie Levy and Sharon Vinick, who represented
the cheerleaders, are to receive about a third of the settlement.

"I think it's a completely appropriate settlement," said Ms. Levy.
"It says this is hard work, and not play.  It doesn't reflect the
hourly wage that they really should get paid, but it's a statement
that these teams are not above the law."

It's unclear what effect the Raiders settlement will have on other
wage-theft lawsuits by NFL cheerleaders.  Similar cases are
pending against the Cincinnatti Bengals, the Buffalo Bills, the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the New York Jets.  There is also a
second lawsuit pending against the Raiders, which, unlike the
first, included the NFL as a defendant. In a recent court
document, the NFL vigorously disputed the assertion that is
involved in the relationship between teams and cheerleaders.

"If there are any teams out there that have not changed their
policy," said Ms. Levy, "I hope they realize it's going to be far
less expensive for them to do that than to continue with the wage
theft."


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Bid to Dismiss Hotel Reservation Suits Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, 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 consumer
class action was filed on August 20, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
certain major hotel chains, and the leading online travel
companies, including Orbitz. The complaint alleged that the hotel
chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated antitrust and consumer
protection laws by entering into agreements in which OTCs agree
not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices that
are less than those found on the hotel chain websites.

Following the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012,
several dozen additional putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in federal courts across the country. These cases were
then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On May 1, 2013, counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 1, 2013, Orbitz filed a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On February 16, 2014, the District Court granted Orbitz's motion
to dismiss all of the Claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint
without prejudice.

"We cannot currently estimate a range of our potential loss if we
do not prevail in this litigation," the Company said.

Orbitz is a global online travel company that uses innovative
technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research,
plan and book a broad range of travel products and services
including hotels, flights, vacation packages, car rentals,
cruises, rail tickets, travel insurance, destination services and
event tickets.


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Truck Driver Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated current and former employees v. Penske Logistics, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-02061-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.,
September 5, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to
pay employees minimum wages for all hours worked and to authorize
and permit paid rest periods, among other failures.

Penske Logistics, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and its subsidiaries or affiliated companies, are engaged in the
ownership, management, and operation of providing local delivery
services to commercial clients, including Mission Foods, CVS
Pharmacies, and other accounts.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.  The
Defendants' trucking services are staffed by non-exempt drivers,
including the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com


PINNACLE WEST: Customers Appeal Dismissal of Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by purported costumers of Arizona Public Service Company
and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation against a dismissal of their
suit is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to the companies' July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.  On January
13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision.  The
appeal is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


PRO OUTSOURCING: Removed "Marin" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marin v. Pro Outsourcing, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-018141-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court
of the 11th 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-23297-DPG to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Fernandez Penichet, Esq.
          PENICHET LAW
          9655 South Dixie Highway, Suite 310
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 373-8809
          Facsimile: (305) 373-8809
          E-mail: ecm@penichetlaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Judge Tosses Managers' Severance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Sept. 3 again dismissed a putative class action
accusing Quest Diagnostics Inc. of systematically denying
severance benefits to eligible management employees, though the
former manager behind the suit will have a final chance to
establish standing.

At an afternoon proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, U.S. Judge
Esther Salas found that characterizations of Quest's discretionary
powers in ex-district sales manager Zoe Mance's amended complaint
worked against her ability under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act to sue Quest for not offering her a voluntary
separation agreement.

For example, the amended complaint states that "whether and to
what extent employees are eligible to receive benefits under the
VSA plan is considered and determined by Quest management as the
initial step of a formal and standardized administrative scheme."
The agreements, which could include cash payments or
reimbursements for COBRA benefits, were offered as an alternative
to involuntary termination for managerial employees who had been
placed on performance improvement plans, according to the
complaint.

"It does appear that she wasn't eligible because that's a
determination that falls with Quest," Judge Salas said.

At the hearing, Ms. Mance's attorney William Frumkin of Frumkin &
Hunter LLP said the medical testing company had discretion when it
came to firing management employees outright or placing them on a
PIP.

However, once employees were in a PIP, they were entitled to VSA
benefits, which included the chance to voluntarily resign, if
Quest remained unsatisfied with their performance and wanted a
separation, according to Mr. Frumkin.

Ms. Mance claims that she was terminated without the opportunity
to enter a VSA and that other managerial employees who met the
alleged plan's criteria were improperly denied benefits as well.

Mr. Frumkin suggested that the revised complaint reflected that
argument painting Ms. Mance as a participant in an ERISA-covered
plan, but Judge Salas disagreed.

"I don't read your complaint as saying what you're saying now,"
the judge said.

Under the dismissal without prejudice, Ms. Mance will have 30 days
to file a second amendment complaint, which the judge described as
her last shot before the district court.

"I am putting people on notice that three strikes, you're out,"
Judge Salas said.

Quest attorney Lisa Brogan of Baker & McKenzie LLP argued on
Sept. 3 that the VSAs don't amount to an ERISA plan.

"This is a tool that management uses.  It's a negotiation,"
Ms. Brogan said.  "There's no commitment to pay any benefits until
the person at the other side of the table signs that agreement."

But Mr. Frumkin contended that Quest had unwittingly established
an ERISA severance plan through its own common practice and that
an "approvals form" used by the company as part of the VSAs
embodied the administrative scheme.

"They established a precedent.  They did this on their own.  Why
do you have a form? To keep things organized," he said.

A different judge last September tossed the suit with prejudice,
though he decided in November to allow an amended complaint.

In his initial ruling, now-retired U.S. District Judge Dennis M.
Cavanaugh said Ms. Mance essentially argued that she would have
been a beneficiary of the VSA plan but was deprived of the
opportunity because she was involuntarily terminated instead of
offered voluntary termination in exchange for benefits.  But she
failed to allege any breach of fiduciary duty or malfeasance on
the part of the plan administrators who blocked her from getting
the benefits, so her complaint lacks standing, according to that
opinion.

"Thus, plaintiff must show that she would have been a beneficiary
'but for' the malfeasance of a plan fiduciary at Quest," the judge
said.  "Plaintiff has made no allegation of a breach of fiduciary
duty, and therefore her claim must be dismissed for lack of
standing."

The plaintiffs are represented by Judith L. Spanier and Jeremy
Nash -- jnash@abbeyspanier.com -- of Abbey Spanier LLP; William D.
Frumkin and Elizabeth E. Hunter of Frumkin & Hunter LLP; and Glen
D. Savits of Green Savits LLC.

Quest is represented by Lisa S. Brogan, Alexis Hawley and James P.
Baker of Baker & McKenzie LLP; and Gregory C. Parliman --
gparliman@daypitney.com -- and Theresa A. Kelly --
tkelly@daypitney.com -- of Day Pitney LLP.

The case is Mance v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. Voluntary Separation
Agreement Plan et al., case number 2:12-cv-07361, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management 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 a securities class
action lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors, executive
officers, and shareholders. The complaint alleges violations of
the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities in the September 2013 and
December 2013 secondary public offerings. The Company expects that
lead plaintiffs will be appointed and will file an amended
complaint later this year, after which the Company has two months
to respond. The Company believes that the claims against it are
without merit and intends to defend against the litigation
vigorously.

Regional Management is a diversified specialty consumer finance
company providing a broad array of loan products primarily to
customers with limited access to consumer credit from banks,
thrifts, credit card companies, and other traditional lenders.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Corbett O'Meara denied without prejudice a
motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the case captioned
ROBERT SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-15509,
(E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiff filed this action as a potential class action suit
on behalf of all other consumers who purchased Samsung
refrigerators with the allegedly defective clip, seeking $5
million in damages. The four-count complaint alleges violations of
the Michigan Consumers Protection Act in Count I, breach of
express warranty in Count II, breach of implied warranty in Count
III, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in Count IV.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action because Plaintiff
failed to notify Samsung of the alleged defect within one year of
the purchase and because the clip is not covered under the five-
year warranty, as it is not part of the "evaporator system."

Judge O'Meara denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in an opinion and order dated August 22, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/Pc6tsufrom Leagle.com.

Robert Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Ann L. Miller --
alm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, Marc L. Newman --
mln@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm & Mark S. Baumkel.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janet
L. Conigliaro -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC,
John M. Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC,
Krista L. Lenart -- klenart@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett & Michael
A. Sneyd -- msneyd@kerr-russell.com -- Kerr, Russell.

Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Janet L.
Conigliaro, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, John M. Thomas, Dykema Gossett
PLLC & Krista L. Lenart, Dykema Gossett.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Litigation in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013,
the court consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re
SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities
Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative
class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the
period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers
of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to
its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together
with the Mississippian Trust I, the "Mississippian Trusts") in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23,
2012.

The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of
its current and former officers and directors, and the
Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for
making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and
certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly
affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward.

The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the
court.

Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an
estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any,
cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories
relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants' defenses are
fully disclosed and analyzed, SandRidge Energy said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company has not established any reserves relating to the
Securities Litigation. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has
requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may
incur in connection with the Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Energy is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent region of the United States. The Company owns and
operates additional interests in west Texas. The Company also
operates businesses and infrastructure systems that are
complementary to its primary exploration and production
activities, including gas gathering and processing facilities,
marketing operations, a saltwater gathering system, an electrical
transmission system and a drilling and related oil field services
business.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Motion for Conditional Collective Action Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2013, James Hart and fifteen other named plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge
Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc.

In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and
for other similarly situated current and former employees. The
plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the
plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The
plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas
Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and
seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date.

On July 1, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial
Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the
Statute of Limitations.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.

SandRidge Energy is an oil and natural gas company with a
principal focus on exploration and production activities in the
Mid-Continent region of the United States. The Company owns and
operates additional interests in west Texas. The Company also
operates businesses and infrastructure systems that are
complementary to its primary exploration and production
activities, including gas gathering and processing facilities,
marketing operations, a saltwater gathering system, an electrical
transmission system and a drilling and related oil field services
business.


SLEEPMED THERAPIES: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wage, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Oliver v. SleepMed Therapies, Inc., Christina Stacey,
Karen Lucey, Tammy Nauman and Tom Rosenblaum, Case No. 1:14-cv-
01973 (N.D. Ohio, September 5, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff proper minimum wage rate.

SleepMed Therapies, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation.
SleepMed owns and operates the SleepMed office located in North
Olmsted, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants are officers and
employees of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
                  chris.wido@Spitzlawfirm.com


SLOAN VALVE: Obtains Final Approval of United Desert Case Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge S. James Otero granted final approval of the
settlement in the class action captioned UNITED DESERT CHARITIES,
FRED EDE, III, EMILY WILLIAMS, BRUCE PRITCHARD, and JEAN STEINER,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SLOAN VALVE COMPANY, AMERICAN STANDARD BRANDS AS
AMERICA, INC., KOHLER CO., GERBER PLUMBING FIXTURES, LLC,
MANSFIELD PLUMBING PRODUCTS, LLC, and HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.,
Defendants, CASE NO. CV12-06878 SJO (SHX), NO. 2:13-CV-02372-SJO-
SH., 2:13-CV-02499-SJO-SH, 2:13-CV-02425-SJO-SH, 2:13-CV-02428-
SJO-SH, 1:12-CV-09700, (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Otero's August 25, 2014 Order, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/00UJVUfrom Leagle.com, provides, among other
things, that Class Litigation Administration Support Services of
Lancaster, California, is finally appointed to serve as the Claims
Administrator as provided under the Settlement and Plan of
Allocation.

The Hon. William J. Cahill (Ret.) of JAMS, San Francisco,
California, is finally appointed to serve as the Special Master.
Expenses of the Special Master will be paid as provided in the
Settlement.

The Class consists of any Person who owns or owned a Flushmate
System or Flushmate Toilet installed in the United States.

United Desert Charities, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson
-- rnelson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,
David M Birka-White -- dbw@birka-white.com -- Birka-White Law
Office, Jordan Elias -- jelias@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi -- ksagafi@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Mark John Geragos --
mark@geragos.com -- Geragos and Geragos APC & Mindy M Wong --
mwong@birka-white.com -- Birka-White Law Office.

Fred Ede, III, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-White, Birka-
White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

Jean Steiner, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-White, Birka-
White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

Emily Williams, Plaintiff, represented by David M Birka-White,
Birka-White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

Bruce Pritchard, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-White, Birka-
White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

John L. Snyder, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Elias, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law
Offices, Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP
& David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law Office.

Daniel E Berube, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Lucas
Chaikin -- jchaikin@yourlawyer.com  Parker Waichman LLP, Jordan
Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law
Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John Geragos,
Geragos and Geragos APC, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office,
Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP & David
M Birka-White, Birka-White Law Office.

Jeffrey Brettler, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Elias,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John Geragos --
mark@geragos.com -- Geragos and Geragos APC, Melanie H Muhlstock -
- mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com -- Parker Waichman LLP, Mindy M Wong,
Birka-White Law Office, Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein LLP & David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law Office.

Randy Kubat, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric D Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- Holland Groves Schneller and Stolze LLC,
Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen
Law Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John
Geragos, Geragos and Geragos APC, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law
Office, Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP,
Brian F Fox -- BFox@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran and
Berman, Charles E Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin
Fishbein Sedran and Berman, David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law
Office & Randall Seth Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- Holland
Groves Schneller and Stolze LLC.

Pankaj Patel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Elias, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John Geragos, Geragos and
Geragos APC, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office, Robert J
Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP & David M Birka-
White, Birka-White Law Office.

Flushmate, Defendant, represented by Leanna M Anderson --
leanna.anderson@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Robert F Scoular --
robert.scoular@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Steven H Frankel --
steven.frankel@dentons.com -- Denton US LLP.

American Standard Brands As America Inc, Defendant, represented by
Steven H Frankel, Denton US LLP, Leanna M Anderson, Dentons US LLP
& Robert F Scoular, Dentons US LLP.

Kohler Co, Defendant, represented by Steven H Frankel, Denton US
LLP.

Gerber Plumbing Fixtures LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven H
Frankel, Denton US LLP.

Mansfield Plumbing Products Inc, Defendant, represented by Steven
H Frankel, Denton US LLP & Timothy Joseph Grant, Fredrickson
Mazeika and Grant LLP.

Home Depot USA Inc, Defendant, represented by John R Lawless, Jr
-- jlawless@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP.

Sloan Valve Company, Defendant, represented by Steven H Frankel,
Denton US LLP.


SLOAN VALVE: Court Awards Atty. Fees in United Desert Case
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge S. James Otero awarded on August 25, 2014,
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and incentive awards
to class representatives in the case captioned UNITED DESERT
CHARITIES, FRED EDE, III, EMILY WILLIAMS, BRUCE PRITCHARD, and
JEAN STEINER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SLOAN VALVE COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
CASE 2:12-CV-06878-SJO-SH, (C.D. Cal.).  The Consolidated Cases
are: Berube v. Flushmate 2:13-cv-02372-SJO-SH Brettler v.
Flushmate 2:13-cv-02499-SJO-SH Kubat, et. al. v. Flushmate 2:13-
cv-02425-SJO-SH Patel v. Flushmate 2:13-cv-02428-SJO-SH Related
Case: Dimov, et. al. v. Sloan Valve Co. 1:12-cv-09700 (N.D. Ill.).

Judge Otero's order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/QOHsZCfrom Leagle.com, held that Class Counsel's
Application for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$4,500,000, reimbursement of expenses in the amount of
$134,076.25, and incentive awards in the amount of $1,000 for each
Class representative is granted.  To the extent that the
Defendants make Settlement Payments in excess of $18 million as
provided in Section IV.A.4 of the Settlement, Class Counsel will
be awarded 25% of any additional Settlement Payments so made.
Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and
the incentive awards will be paid in accordance with the schedules
set forth in Sections VII and VIII of the Settlement.

United Desert Charities, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J
Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-
White, Birka-White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Mark John Geragos, Geragos and Geragos
APC & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

Fred Ede, III, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-White, Birka-
White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

Fred Ede, III, Plaintiff, represented by Mindy M Wong, Birka-White
Law Office.

Jean Steiner, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-White, Birka-
White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

Emily Williams, Plaintiff, represented by David M Birka-White,
Birka-White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

Bruce Pritchard, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J Nelson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, David M Birka-White, Birka-
White Law Office, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP, Kristen E Law-Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP & Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office.

John L. Snyder, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Elias, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law
Offices, Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP
& David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law Office.

Daniel E Berube, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Lucas
Chaikin, Parker Waichman LLP, Jordan Elias, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein, Mark John Geragos, Geragos and Geragos APC, Mindy M
Wong, Birka-White Law Office, Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP & David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law
Office.

Jeffrey Brettler, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Elias,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John Geragos, Geragos
and Geragos APC, Melanie H Muhlstock, Parker Waichman LLP, Mindy M
Wong, Birka-White Law Office, Robert J Nelson, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP & David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law
Office.

Randy Kubat, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eric D Holland,
Holland Groves Schneller and Stolze LLC, Jordan Elias, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John Geragos, Geragos and
Geragos APC, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office, Robert J
Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Brian F Fox,
Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Charles E Schaffer, Levin
Fishbein Sedran and Berman, David M Birka-White, Birka-White Law
Office & Randall Seth Crompton, Holland Groves Schneller and
Stolze LLC.

Pankaj Patel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Elias, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Mark John Geragos, Geragos and
Geragos APC, Mindy M Wong, Birka-White Law Office, Robert J
Nelson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP & David M Birka-
White, Birka-White Law Office.

Flushmate, Defendant, represented by Leanna M Anderson, Dentons US
LLP, Robert F Scoular, Dentons US LLP & Steven H Frankel, Denton
US LLP.

American Standard Brands As America Inc, Defendant, represented by
Steven H Frankel, Denton US LLP, Leanna M Anderson, Dentons US LLP
& Robert F Scoular, Dentons US LLP.

Kohler Co, Defendant, represented by Steven H Frankel, Denton US
LLP.

Gerber Plumbing Fixtures LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven H
Frankel, Denton US LLP.

Mansfield Plumbing Products Inc, Defendant, represented by Steven
H Frankel, Denton US LLP & Timothy Joseph Grant, Fredrickson
Mazeika and Grant LLP.

Home Depot USA Inc, Defendant, represented by John R Lawless, Jr,
King and Spalding LLP.

Sloan Valve Company, Defendant, represented by Steven H Frankel,
Denton US LLP.


SOLARCITY CORP: DeMattio's Bid to Certify Class Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity 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 Kevin Demattio, a
former outside sales employee, filed on August 17, 2012, a
putative class action complaint against the Company in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. Mr.
Demattio purports to represent a class of certain current and
former outside sales representatives, and those with a similar
title, who worked for the Company in California for the four-year
period prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges
causes of action for failure to pay proper wages due under various
commission pay plans; failure to properly pay the wages of
terminated (or resigned) employees; failure to provide proper
itemized wage statements because of an alleged failure to specify
requisite information; failure to keep accurate time records; and
related claims for unfair competition and a California state
statute permitting individuals to pursue claims not pursued by a
state agency. Mr. Demattio seeks unspecified damages for himself
and affected class members, including all wages due and owing,
applicable statutory penalties (including waiting time penalties),
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 24, 2013, the Company answered the complaint and
asserted a cross complaint against Mr. Demattio to recover
commissions that he was paid, but not entitled to, along with the
Company's fees and costs in the litigation.

On July 15, 2014, the Superior Court denied Mr. DeMattio's motion
to certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, and denied
Mr. DeMattio's application to act as the class representative. The
Company intends to defend itself against the individual complaint
and pursue its own claims vigorously.

SolarCity is engaged in the design, installation and sale or lease
of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers,
or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to
customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo,
California.


SOLARCITY CORP: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity 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 purported stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2014, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and two of its officers. The complaint alleges
claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company has
not recognized any liability as a result of this matter.

SolarCity is engaged in the design, installation and sale or lease
of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers,
or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to
customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo,
California.


SPOKEO INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Purcell" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss the case captioned JENNIFER PURCELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SPOKEO, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-06003-
ODW(AGRX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Court recently lifted a lengthy stay of this class action
after a successful appeal in the now-consolidated case Robins v.
Spokeo, Inc., No. 10-cv-5306-ODW(AGRx). Here, Plaintiff Jennifer
Purcell alleges that Defendant Spokeo, Inc. violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., by
publishing inaccurate personal information about Purcell and the
purported class. Spokeo runs a website that collects and
aggregates information about individuals and then offers the
information for sale. The Ninth Circuit ruled on the Robins appeal
earlier this year, and Spokeo moved to dismiss Purcell's Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) after the Court lifted the stay.  Spokeo
moved to dismiss Purcell's claims for violation of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (IUDTPA), unjust enrichment,
and equitable relief on several distinct grounds.

Judge Wright denied Spokeo's Motion to Dismiss with respect to
Article III standing under the FCRA, as well as Spokeo's Motion to
Dismiss with respect to Purcell's IUDTPA claim.  The Court granted
Spokeo's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Purcell's unjust-
enrichment claim without leave to amend, and with respect to the
separate claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Court ordered Spokeo to answer the Complaint within 14 days of
the date of the Order.

A copy of Judge Wright's August 25, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/Qql2LTfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Purcell, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Stepick, IV --
alex@progressivelaw.com -- Progressive Law Group LLC, David C
Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi and Havens LLP,
Lindsey Erin Goldberg -- lindsey@progressivelaw.com -- Progressive
Law Group LLC, Mark Bulgarelli, Progressive Law Group LLC &
Suzanne Havens-Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- Parisi and
Havens LLP.

Spokeo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anne Fowler Bradley, Foley
& Lardner LLP, John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Barrett Lee
Schreiner -- bschreiner@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


STAAR SURGICAL: Faces "Todd" Securities Suit in Calif. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company faces a securities class action "Todd v.
STAAR" filed by Edward Todd in federal court located in Los
Angeles, California, according to the company's July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 4, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against the Company and three officers in
federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff
claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted
material information from the Company's investors between February
27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at
the Company's Monrovia manufacturing facility. The Company was
served with the Complaint on July 21, 2014.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Against Owner-Operator Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation Company: Garza vs. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV7-472, or the Garza
Complaint. The putative class originally involved certain owner-
operators who contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor
Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is
alleging that the Company should have reimbursed owner-operators
for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry
standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles.

The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the
Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review,
and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the
decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals
lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial
court's original denial of class certification and remanded the
matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and
determination.

Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class
certification and expanded it to include all persons who were
employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift
as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who
were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4,
2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying
a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include
employees. Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to
compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in the trial
court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not
limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and
because the named owner-operator class representative only
contracted with the Company for a three month period under a one
year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7,
2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear
this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition
for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the
Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the
Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect
to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to
compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the
class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of
contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based
on statute of limitations.

Swift Transportation 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 intends to
continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the
record, which the Company believes demonstrates that the class is
improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no
merit. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability
and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Supreme Court Nixed Petition for Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation Company and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC
("IEL"): Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons
v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-
10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. The putative class
involves owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation
misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, and
various New York and California state laws and that such owner-
operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL.

At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200
other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.
Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been transferred from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the United States District Court in Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief.

On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion
to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further
denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion
for conditional class certification. The District Court also
denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order.

The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's September 30,
2010 order to compel arbitration alleging that the agreement to
arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs
are alleged to be employees exempt from arbitration agreements. On
November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded, stating its prior published decision "expressly held
that a district court must determine whether an agreement for
arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
as a threshold matter".

As a consequence of this determination by the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court to address whether the district court or the
arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an employment
contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for writ of certiorari.

Swift Transportation 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 intends to
vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Case Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on March 22, 2010, by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint.

On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative class includes
drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the
date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the California
minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods and
failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The
Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of proceedings pending
determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift,
Brinker v Hohnbaum, which was then pending before the California
Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the Brinker matter and in
August 2012 the stay in the Burnell Complaint was lifted.

On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

On May 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on
alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the
California Labor Code.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino, or the Rudsell
Complaint. The Rudsell matter has been stayed pending a resolution
in Burnell v Swift. Any claims related to orientation pay in the
Rudsell matter have been subsumed within the Montalvo v. Swift
class action matter.

Swift Transportation 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 issue of class
certification must first be resolved before the court will address
the merits of the case.

"We retain all of our defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of class certification. The Company
intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in both
matters as well as the merits of these matters should the classes
be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact
of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at
this time," the Company said.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Appeal in "Montalvo" Case Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation Company: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
1827-L.

Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to state
court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand, which appeal
has been denied. The putative class includes employees alleging
that candidates for employment within the four year statutory
period in California were not paid the state mandated minimum wage
during their orientation phase.

On July 29, 2013, the court certified the class.

The Company appealed the class certification and the remand to
state court but on April 10, 2014, the Company's appeal of class
certification was denied.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
this matter. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this
time, Swift Transportation 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.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appealing Certification in Drivers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation Company: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Complaint. The Slack Complaint was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380.  The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State based
employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meals and rest
periods.

On November 23, 2013 the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class
as it pertains to dedicated route drivers and did not certify
any other class or claims including any class related to over
the road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The court also further
limited the class of dedicated drivers to only those dedicated
drivers that either begin or end their shift in the state of
Washington and therefore is a Washington-based employee.

Swift is appealing the limited certification of the Washington
dedicated drivers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

"The issue of class certification must first be resolved before
the court will address the merits of the case, and we retain all
of our defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class as well as the merits
of these matters should the class be certified. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time," the Company said.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Against Utah Minimum Wage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 8, 2013, a collective action lawsuit was filed by Jacob
Roberts on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer
and John Does 1-10 ("CRS"): Jacob Roberts and Collective Action
Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.,
Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-00911-
EJF, or the Roberts Complaint. The putative nationwide class
includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within
the three year statutory period in Utah were not paid proper
compensation pursuant to the FLSA, specifically that the putative
collective action plaintiffs were not paid the state mandated
minimum wage for orientation, travel, and training.

The issue of collective action certification in the Roberts
Complaint must first be resolved before the court will address the
merits of the case, Swift Transportation 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.

"We retain all of our defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of collective action certification.
Central intends to vigorously defend against collective action
certification as well as the merits of this matter should the
collective action be certified. The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time," the Company said.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: CRS to Defend Arbitration in "Cilluffo"
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed
by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually
and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes ("Central"): Gabriel Cilluffo,
Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf
themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central
Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson,
and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886, or the
Cilluffo Complaint.

The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Central
misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in
violation of the FLSA, and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced
labor and state law contractual claims.

On September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that
FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah
Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and not the Federal Arbitration
Act ("FAA"). The September 24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator
to determine the validity of proceeding as a collective
arbitration under the UAA, and then if the arbitrator determines
that such collective action is permitted, then the arbitrator is
to consider the plaintiff's FLSA claim.

On November 8, 2012, the California District Court entered a
clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff's FLSA claim was
to proceed to collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the
plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law contractual claims
were to proceed as individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs
seeking to pursue those specific claims.

Central filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for
interlocutory appeal of the California District Court's orders,
both of which were denied and the claims are proceeding to
collective and individual arbitration as originally ordered. On
December 9, 2013 the arbitrator determined that the issue of
misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a
collective arbitration, however the plaintiffs forced labor claim
and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach
of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and
not as a class.

"Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in
the Cilluffo Complaint as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and
any individual arbitration matters that are filed and proceed on
the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time," Swift
Transportation 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.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Against "Calix" Minimum Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by Jorge
Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino, or the Calix
Complaint. The putative class includes employees alleging that
candidates for employment within the four year statutory period in
California were not paid the state mandated minimum wage during
their orientation phase. On December 13, 2013, Central filed an
answer denying the allegations.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, Swift Transportation
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.

"We retain all of our defenses against liability and damages
pending a determination of class certification. Central intends to
vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as
the merits of this matter should the class be certified. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time," the Company said.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC and its subsidiaries, a truckload carrier
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and Interstate Equipment
Leasing, LLC.


TACTICAL CRIME: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kishu Johally v. Tactical Crime Prevention Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and David Negron, Case No. 1:14-cv-23304-JAL (S.D.
Fla., September 5, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
wages and unpaid overtime wages.

Tactical Crime Prevention Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation,
having its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida.
The Company and David Negron were the Plaintiff's employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Brian Roller, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ ROLLER, LLP.
          Sheridan Street
          Hollywood, Florida 33021
          Telephone: (954) 966-2483
          Facsimile: (954) 966-2566
          E-mail: broller@szalaw.com


TEAMSTERS LOCAL 863: 3rd Cir. Approves Atty Fees in ERISA Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that
attorney fees may be awarded in Employee Retirement Income
Security Act cases under the catalyst theory, which entitles
plaintiffs to fees where the pressure of a lawsuit causes a
defendant to voluntarily change its conduct.

In a nonprecedential ruling in Boyle v. International Brotherhood
of Teamsters Local 863 Welfare Fund, a panel led by Judge Jane
Richards Roth, and including Judges Thomas I. Vanaskie and Joseph
A. Greenaway Jr., reversed a New Jersey district judge's ruling
that the ERISA statute does not permit attorney fee awards under
the catalyst theory.

In doing so, the court awarded attorney fees to plaintiffs
Allen Boyle and Michael Luongo, despite upholding the lower
court's ruling granting summary judgment to the defendants.

Judge Roth pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance, in which it found that
the ERISA statute gives district courts broad discretion to award
attorney fees to plaintiffs.

The Hardt court said the ERISA statute does not limit attorney fee
awards to "'prevailing parties,'" but instead allows parties that
show "'some degree of success on the merits'" beyond a "'trivial
success on the merits or purely procedural victory'" to recoup
fees, according to Roth.

Judge Roth found that while Messrs. Boyle and Luongo ultimately
did not prevail in the case, they achieved some success with their
lawsuit by prompting their former employer to voluntarily offer to
retroactively reinstate benefits to early retirees and to
reimburse them for any alternative coverage they may have
purchased during the four-month period in 2011 when benefits
ceased.

"We hold that in light of the Supreme Court's clear rejection of
the 'prevailing party' standard in Hardt, the catalyst theory
remains viable under ERISA," Judge Roth said.

Messrs. Boyle and Luongo, both early retirees of C&S Whole Grocers
and its subsidiary Woodbridge Logistics, filed a putative class
action against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local
863 Welfare Fund, alleging that between February 2011 and June
2011, after C&S closed all of its warehouses in New Jersey and
fired 1,000 employees, the fund ceased covering medical expenses
for all of its active and former employees, including 67 early
retirees.

It wasn't until 10 days after Messrs. Boyle and Luongo filed their
ERISA suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on June 3, 2011, that the fund retroactively reinstated
benefits, later offering to reimburse, with interest, the early
retirees for any substitute insurance policies or uncovered
medical expenses, according to Judge Roth.

But U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of
New Jersey found Mr. Boyle's claim for breach of fiduciary duty
was moot because he accepted full reimbursement, with interest,
from the fund for alternative coverage he had purchased when
benefits ceased.

Judge Roth agreed, but said Boyle's claim for attorney fees was
not rendered moot by his agreement to accept reimbursement.

Mr. Luongo, meanwhile, has repeatedly refused to accept
reimbursement, according to Judge Roth.

While the defendants argued that the mere offer of reimbursement
was enough to moot Mr. Luongo's claims, Judge Roth disagreed,
saying that a justiciable controversy remains between Mr. Luongo
and the fund because the fund failed to offer to pay Mr. Luongo's
attorney fees and costs.

"We believe that a unilateral offer of relief that fails to cover
the entire claim does not render moot a plaintiff's claim,"
Judge Roth said, adding, "If an offer of attorney fees is made,
Mr. Luongo's whole claim will become moot, since an offer of
relief has already been made on the remainder of the claim."

Judge Roth did, however, uphold Judge Chesler's ruling denying
class certification in the case because the plaintiffs did not
seek declaratory or injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2).

Judge Roth said the plaintiffs' amended complaint sought
reinstatement of medical benefits -- which has since occurred --
and various forms of individualized monetary relief that, by their
nature, bar class certification.

Judge Roth also upheld Judge Chesler's grant of the defendants'
cross-motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no
genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding whether the fund
breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

Judge Roth said the fund met the standard set forth in Section
1104(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA statute, which requires fiduciary
duties to be carried out "'with the care, skill, prudence and
diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent
man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would
use.'"

According to the opinion, after C&S shut down its New Jersey
facilities and briefly lapsed in its payments to the fund, there
was confusion over the allocation of benefits payments to the
company's former employees.

"Given the confusion and uncertainty, we agree with the district
court that the fund's decision to reinstate benefits once it could
receive clarification was consistent with ERISA's prudent person
standard," Judge Roth said.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Colin Page of Mountain Lakes, N.J.,
said he and his clients were "disappointed" by the court's
decision to dismiss the case but noted that the allowance of fee-
shifting in ERISA cases under the catalyst theory was an important
ruling.

Without that finding, Mr. Page said, fiduciaries that don't change
their conduct until faced with litigation would incur "no penalty
for failing to meet their obligations."

Counsel for the fund, Kenneth I. Nowak -- knowak@zazzali-law.com
-- of Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman in Newark,
could not be reached for comment.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in New Jersey Over Engine Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that Toyota Motor North
America Inc. has been hit with a putative class action in New
Jersey federal court accusing the company of selling vehicles with
a defect that prevents the engines from maintaining adequate oil
levels and can cause engine failure.

Plaintiffs allege the defect in the 2AZ-FE engines impedes the
ability of the engines to properly utilize oil and causes them to
improperly burn off abnormally high amounts of oil.  The defect is
a safety concern, plaintiffs claim, since it prevents the engine
from maintaining the proper level of oil and causes voluminous oil
consumption that cannot be reasonably predicted.

"The defect is unreasonably dangerous to consumers because it can
cause engine failure while the class vehicles are in operation at
any time and under any driving conditions or speeds, thereby
exposing the class vehicle drivers, their passengers and others
who share the road with them to serious risk of accidents and
injury," the complaint states.

According to the complaint, the faulty engines were installed in
various Toyota sedans -- including the Toyota Camry HV, Corolla,
Matrix, RAV4, Solara, Scion tC and Scion xB -- marketed between
the years 2007 and 2011.

Plaintiffs claim Toyota was aware of the alleged defect since at
least 2009 but continued to sell the vehicles anyway and that the
company acknowledged the existence of the alleged defect in August
2011 to their dealers in a technical service bulletin but
continued to conceal it.  The company also instructed its dealers
not to perform the engine repairs identified in the bulletin under
warranty unless the vehicle was consuming more than one quart of
oil after 1,200 miles of driving.

The complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, fraudulent concealment, violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties and negligence.

Plaintiffs are asking the court for an order requiring Toyota to
cease the unlawful omissions, conduct a corrective advertising
campaign to alert the public of the defect, pay damages and
restitution to plaintiff and class members in the amounts paid to
repair the vehicles, and reimburse plaintiffs and class members
for the loss of value to their vehicles.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley K. King --
bking@ahdootwolfson.com -- Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Robert Ahdoot and Theodore W. Maya
-- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.

The case is Lekha Keister et al. v. Toyota Motor North America
Inc. et al., case number 2:14-cv-05459, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.


TYSON FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Employees' Wage Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Guyton and Dionicio Canuzal are employees of Tyson Foods,
Inc. They represent a class of employees at Tyson's meat-
processing facility in Columbus Junction, Iowa. They sued Tyson
for not paying wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the Iowa Wage
Payment Collection Law (IWPCL), Iowa Code 91A.1 et seq. A jury
returned a verdict for Tyson. The employees appealed. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the United States Court
of Appeals, Eighth Circuit affirmed the verdict.

A copy of the Eight Circuit's August 25, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/bhrDmPfrom Leagle.com.

The case is Maria Guyton; Dionicio Canuzal, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Tyson Foods, Inc., doing business as
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-2036.


TYSON FOODS: Loses Appeal of Jury Verdict in "Bouaphakeo" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peg Bouaphakeo and other named plaintiffs are employees of Tyson
Foods, Inc. They represent a class of employees at Tyson's meat-
processing facility in Storm Lake, Iowa. They sued Tyson for not
paying wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the Iowa Wage Payment
Collection Law (IWPCL), Iowa Code 91A.1 et seq. A jury returned a
verdict for the class.  Tyson appealed.  Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit affirmed the jury verdict.

A copy of the Eight Circuit's August 25, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/DmTVv0from Leagle.com.

The case is Peg Bouaphakeo; Javier Frayre; Jose A. Garcia; Mario
Martinez; Jesus A. Montes; Heribento Renteria, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Defendant-Appellant,
NO. 12-3753.


UMC NEVADA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Sanctions in "Small" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action brought against the University Medical Center of
Southern Nevada (UMC), Plaintiffs allege UMC systematically
deprived its employees of appropriate wages and overtime
compensation.  Plaintiffs state claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections201 et seq. (the FLSA), and
Nevada state wage and hour laws, asserting UMC failed to credit
meal breaks not taken; keep employee time records; and train
hourly employees on meal period deductions.  Plaintiffs first
commenced this action on July 27, 2012, nearly two years ago. The
parties are still resolving discovery issues. To date discovery
has required a fully briefed motion to compel1 with accompanying
oral argument; seven discovery status conferences over eight
months before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen; the appointment of
Special Master Daniel B. Garrie; five in person, all day hearings
conducted by the Special Master; 14 telephonic hearings before the
Special Master; over 20 declarations submitted by employees and
agents of UMC (many supplementing or amending prior incomplete or
inaccurate declarations); and written submissions by counsel and
ESI experts.

In a report and recommendation and final findings of fact and
conclusions of law dated August 18, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/FF0Yaufrom Leagle.com, Special Master
Daniel B. Garrie concluded that "UMC destroyed evidence by failing
to identify, preserve, collect, process, and search multiple
repositories.  Worse, UMC's executives and personnel made numerous
misrepresentations to UMC's counsel, the Court, and the Special,
further delaying these proceedings and driving up their costs, he
said. Special Master Garrie noted his serious doubts that UMC can
complete discovery in a defensible manner going forward without
increased candor to the Court and their own counsel, and more
competent technical assistance."

Therefore, as to FLSA opt-in plaintiffs, the Special Master
recommends sanctions saying the Defendant UMC's extraordinary
misconduct and substantial and willful spoliation of relevant ESI
in this case resulted in substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs and
the classes, and misled Plaintiffs, the Court, and the Special
Master on numerous discovery issues.

As to putative class plaintiffs, the Special Master held that
Plaintiffs are entitled to sanctions in the form of specific
factual findings relating to class certification, and a rebuttable
presumption regarding certain merit issues.

"It is further recommended that UMC be ordered to reimburse
Plaintiffs' reasonable costs and fees in these proceedings,
including their costs in bringing a motion to compel production,
in attending discovery status conferences before Magistrate Judge
Leen, and for time spent in the proceedings before Special Master
Garrie," the report and recommendation stated.

The case is DANIEL SMALL, CAROLYN SMALL, WILLIAM CURTIN, DAVID
COHEN, LANETTE LAWRENCE, and LOUISE COLLARD, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, Defendant, CASE NO.
2:13-CV-00298-APG-PAL, (D. Nev.).


UNUM GROUP: Court Favors Unum Life in "Merrimon," "Mowery" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group received favorable judgment in the suit filed by Denise
Merrimon and Bobby S. Mowery, and all others similarly situated
against Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the United
States District Court for the District of Maine, according to Unum
Group's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine. This class action alleges that the company breached
fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group
life insurance policies when the company paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were part of the ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and under
which the company paid death benefits via retained asset accounts.
The plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held
in retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds
earned by the company from investing those funds belonged to the
beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset
accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment
statute, requiring the company to pay interest on the undrawn
retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent.

In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting
both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for
the company. At the same time, however, the District Court held
that the company breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by
failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the
market for demand deposits. The District Court also certified a
class of people who, during a certain period of time, were
beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that
were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid
death benefits using retained asset accounts. A bench trial was
held on the issue of damages in June and July of 2013. In
September 2013, the District Court awarded damages based on a
benchmark it created by averaging the interest rates paid on money
market mutual funds and money market checking accounts. Based on
these averages, the District Court found that for certain periods
of the class the company should have paid additional interest and
awarded damages of $12.1 million and prejudgment interest of $1.3
million.

Subsequent to this judgment, in September 2013 the company filed
an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs
filed a cross appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral
argument in May 2014 and on July 2, 2014, issued its decision
overturning the District Court's judgment against the company,
finding our payment of benefits by retained asset account was in
full compliance with the policy terms and therefore ERISA. The
case was remanded to the District Court to enter judgment in favor
of the company, which has now been accomplished.


UNUM GROUP: Files Motion to Junk "Don" Lawsuit in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in Ruben
Don v. Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, according to Unum Group's July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don
v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group,
Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds
who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleges the company incorrectly
administers the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint makes allegations against
the company for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of
Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief. In
June 2013, the company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

In March 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
Rather than oppose the motion, plaintiff filed an amended
purported class action complaint in April 2014 entitled Ruben Don
v. Unum Group and Unum Life Insurance Company of America in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class
and a California class of insureds who were issued long-term care
policies containing an inflation protection feature. Similar to
the original complaint, the plaintiff alleges the company
incorrectly administered the inflation protection feature,
resulting in an underpayment of benefits. The complaint makes
allegations of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of
Business and Professions Code 17200, and declaratory and
injunctive relief. In May 2014, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.


VOYA FINANCIAL: ILIAC to Make $15.0 Million Payment to Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Voya 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 litigation against the
Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc., Plan
Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING
Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed February
22, 2011), in which sponsors of 401(k) plans governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") claim that ING
Life Insurance and Annuity Company ("ILIAC") has entered into
revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in
violation of the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA.  Among
other things, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all revenue
sharing payments and profits earned in connection with such
payments, an injunction barring the practice of revenue sharing,
and attorney fees.

On September 26, 2012, the district court certified the case as a
class action in which the named plaintiffs represent approximately
15,000 similarly situated plan sponsors.

On April 11, 2014, the parties submitted to the court a motion for
preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement agreement under
which ILIAC, without admitting liability, would make a payment to
the class of approximately $15.0 million and adopt certain changes
in its disclosure practices. Final court approval will be required
before the settlement becomes effective.


WAL-MART: 5th Cir. Upholds Liability Judgment in "Forte" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
DORIS FORTE, O.D., on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons; BRIDGET LEESANG, O.D.; DAVID WIGGINS, O.D.; JOHN
BOLDAN, O.D., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 12-40854 is a "case of
first impression" which calls upon the United States Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit to interpret and apply the Texas Optometry
Act.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. rented space to optometrists using a
standard lease agreement requiring optometrists to make
representations in their leases of the projected number of hours
their offices would remain open. A jury found Wal-Mart liable for
"setting or attempting to influence . . . office hours of an
optometrist" in violation of the Act.  The jury returned a civil
penalty award, which the district judge called "stunning" and "the
highest verdict that's been reached in this court . . . in a case
that is not worthy of the highest verdict."  Accordingly, the
district judge remitted the award, and the plaintiffs accepted the
remittitur.

On Wal-Mart's appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of
liability. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit declined to adopt Wal-
Mart's construction of the Texas Optometry Act, which runs counter
to its plain words giving it its plain meaning.  The Fifth Circuit
further held, however, that Texas's rule on exemplary damages
requires it to reverse and vacate the civil penalty awards
inasmuch as the plaintiffs neither suffered nor were awarded any
underlying damages.  The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the
district court for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's August 25, 2014 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/CBiWcSfrom Leagle.com.


WARD MANUFACTURING: Court Dismisses "Roy" Product Liability Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett dismissed with prejudice the
case captioned JAMES ROY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WARD MANUFACTURING, LLC and
TITEFLEX CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. RDB-13-3878,
(D. Md.)

This class-action claim arises out of the presence of allegedly
dangerous "Gastite(R)" tubing and "Wardflex(R)" piping in
residential and commercial structures in the State of Maryland.
The Plaintiff, James Roy, on behalf of himself and two classes,
filed a six-count Class Action Complaint against the Titeflex
Corporation and Ward Manufacturing, LLC asserting strict liability
pursuant to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
(Counts I and II), negligence for design defect (Counts III and
IV), and negligence for failure to warn (Counts V and VI).
Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss.

In a memorandum opinion dated August 22, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/bfkFBSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bennett
granted Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss.

James Roy, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan K Tycko --
jtycko@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, Steven M Pavsner --
spavsner@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA & Jonathan
Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP.
Titeflex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Scott Patrick
Burns -- sburns@tydingslaw.com -- Tydings and Rosenberg LLP & John
G Papianou -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken LLP.

Ward Manufacturing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew
Luxton -- sluxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP
& Thomas J Sullivan -- tsullivan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
and Bockius LLP.


YELP INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in User Review Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that small-
business owners who accused Yelp Inc. of extorting them for
advertising payments by manipulating user reviews hit a wall on
Sept. 2 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Marsha Berzon concluded that
allegations Yelp threatened business owners with poor ratings
unless they bought advertising did not violate the Hobbs Act or
California state law.

"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," Judge Berzon wrote.  "As Yelp has
the right to charge for legitimate advertising services, the
threat of economic harm that Yelp leveraged is, at most, hard
bargaining."

Judges Richard Paez and Richard Tallman concurred.

San Francisco plaintiffs attorney Lawrence Murray argued on behalf
of the small businesses, including a Santa Barbara animal
hospital, a dentist and a furniture restoration business.  Yelp
enlisted S. Ashlie Beringer, a former Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
partner who left the firm last year to serve as Facebook Inc.'s
deputy general counsel.

Yelp spokesman Vince Sollitto said the company is pleased with the
court's decision.

"We have always said the claims were without merit," he said in an
emailed statement, "and we are pleased the courts continue to
agree."

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District
of California in 2010, which alleged that Yelp deleted their
positive reviews and replaced them with negative ones when they
declined to purchase advertising.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco dismissed Levitt
v. Yelp in 2011.  He ruled Yelp is allowed to manipulate consumer
reviews on its site under Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act, which gives publishers of online forums immunity from
suits filed over third-party content.

Judge Berzon declined to address Yelp's CDA defense, instead
focusing on the plaintiffs' failure to state claims of extortion
and unfair competition.  Extortion law only applies to threats of
economic harm from which the plaintiff has a pre-existing right to
be free, Judge Berzon wrote.

She also held that there was insufficient evidence Yelp
manufactured negative reviews as retribution against
nonadvertisers.

"Even if a particular review was not accurate as to the work done
or the customer's name," she wrote, "the inaccuracy does not make
it plausible that it was Yelp -- as opposed to a competitor, or a
disgruntled customer hiding behind an alias, or an angry neighbor,
just to give a few possibilities -- that authored the offending
review."  Mr. Murray, on behalf of plaintiffs, said the Sept. 2
ruling means businesses will continue to suffer at the hands of
Yelp.

"It is a sad day for millions of small businesses across the
nation who cannot afford to pay the extortion, which Yelp calls
'advertising,' to retain positive reviews," he wrote in an emailed
release.  "Yelp's business practice of allowing good reviews to be
stripped away depending on advertising payments destroys
businesses, jobs and families."


YRC WORLDWIDE: Seeks New Approval for "Bryant" Stock Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Bryant Holdings Securities Litigation have
revised the settlement plan of allocation in the suit and filed a
Second Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval, according to YRC
Worldwide Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

The Company said, "On February 7, 2011, a putative class action
was filed by Bryant Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of our common stock
between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws for
statements and/or omissions allegedly made by the company and the
individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs
claimed to be false and misleading."

"The individual defendants are former officers of our Company. No
current officers or directors were named in the lawsuit. The
parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11, 2013
and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the execution of a
mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the parties, which
agreement remains subject to approval by the court. Court approval
cannot be assured. Substantially all of the payments contemplated
by the settlement will be covered by our liability insurance. The
self-insured retention on this matter has been accrued as of June
30, 2014.

"On August 19, 2013, the Court entered an Order denying
plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval and,
on November 18, 2013, the Court denied that Motion.  Each denial
was based primarily on deficiencies that the Court perceived in
the plan that plaintiffs proposed for allocation of the settlement
proceeds among class members.  Plaintiffs have revised the plan of
allocation and, on February 18, 2014, filed a Second Amended
Motion for Preliminary Approval."


                              *********

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  * * *