CAR_Public/140915.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 183

                             Headlines


AIRBNB: Exacerbates San Francisco Housing Shortage, Suit Claims
ALL AMERICAN: "Mollere" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
APEX REDI: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AURORA LOAN: Gets Prelim. Approval of $5.25-Mil. Class Settlement

BANK OF AMERICA: Quinn Emanuel Files Antitrust Class Action
BARRICK GOLD: Three Law Firms File Amended Claim in Class Action
BAYER: Neonicotinoids Class Action Attracts Criticism
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Sets $39 Million Reserve for Class Action
CATERPILLAR INC: Consumer Law Group Files ACERT Class Action

CBS BROADCASTING: Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages for Interns
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fisher-Klosterman Faces Liability Suit
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Over Met-Pro Merger Fully Resolved
CENTURYLINK INC: To Defend Against Appeal in "Fulghum" Case
CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in Right-of-Way Cases Have Final OK

CENTURYLINK INC: Defendant in Louisiana Securities Actions
CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal of Bond Market Fund Suit on Appeal
COOPER TIRE: Class Actions Over Botched Apollo Merger Terminated
COOPER TIRE: OFI Risk Arbitrages Class Action in Early Stage
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over $55 "Executive Membership"

COVISINT CORPORATION: Faces Two Class Actions Over IPO
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Has Fixed Wages, Animation Artist Says
ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "Cooper" Suit Paid in June 2014
ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Four Wage and Hour Lawsuits
ECOLAB INC: Nalco Faces Actions Over Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

ECOLAB INC: "Franks" Product Liability Action Dismissed in May
ETHICON INC: W.V. Jury Awards $3.27MM in Pelvic Mesh Device Suit
ELDORADO TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied in June
FANNIE MAE: Deal in Principle Reached in 2008 Securities Case

FANNIE MAE: Motion for Reconsideration in 2008 ERISA Case Denied
FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss Purchase Agreements Suit Fully Briefed
FIFTH THIRD: Merchants Appeal Approval of VISA Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court to Issue Mandate Remanding ERISA Case
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Seeks Summary Judgment in "McGrogan" Case

FIRST COMMONWEALTH: 3 New Cases May Proceed on Theories of Fraud
FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Facing "Hawkins" Class Action
GENERAL MILLS: Court Refused to Dismiss Contamination Lawsuit
GM SALARIED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Plan Benefits Interest
GOOGLE INC: Lawyers Challenge Rejection of "No-Poach" Settlement

GOOGLE INC: Calls Rejection of $325-Mil. Deal "Clear Legal Error"
HAMMAD ENTERPRISES: Faces "Maceda" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HAMPSHIRE TIMES: Faces "Feng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HAWAII: Human Services Dep't Sued Over Denial of Autism Treatment
IMPACT STAFF: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Plaintiffs Must File Consolidated Suit
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Xarelto Suits May Expand to Mass-Tort
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gets Final OK of $13.5-Mil. Class Settlement
LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action
M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery

MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: "Militello" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Agreement Reached in Questcor Class Actions
MARRONE BIO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
MARRONE BIO: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
MERCK & CO: Defendant in 30 Vioxx Class Action Lawsuits

MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Actions
MERCK & CO: To Proceed With ONJ Accord at Reduced Funding Level
MERCK & CO: 280 ONJ-Related Lawsuits Pending in New Jersey
MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL
MERCK & CO: 490 Claims Over Januvia/Janumet Products at June 30

MERCK & CO: 1,940 NuvaRing Cases at June 30
MERCK & CO: 1,280 Lawsuits Involving Propecia/Proscar at June 30
MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Coupon Litigation Granted in Part
MIDWAY AIRPORT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Uriostegui" Suit Says
MYLAN INC: 775 Self-Funded Customers Dropped From Lorazepam Suit

MYLAN INC: Motions Remain Pending in Modafinil Antitrust Suit
MYLAN INC: Facing Civil Lawsuits by Purchasers of Solodyn(R)
MYLAN INC: Wants Suit by Actos(R), Actoplus Met(R) Buyers Nixed
MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4MM at June 30 on Product Liability
NEWBERRY EATS: Faces "Silvey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

OAKLAND RAIDERS: Wins Prelim. OK of Cheerleaders Suit Settlement
PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Files Class Securities Class Action
PFIZER INC: Court Dismissed Celebrex and Bextra Claims in July
PFIZER INC: Accord Reached in Neurontin Third-Party Payer Case
PFIZER INC: Lipitor PI Lawsuits Consolidated in MDL 2502

PFIZER INC: Third Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Complaint
PFIZER INC: Faces Celebrex Class Action Filed in July
PNC FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Lauren" Action Still Pending
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Court Consolidates 3 Class Actions
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Faces "Yancy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

RALPH LAUREN: Falsely Marketed Merchandise, "Branca" Suit Claims
RJJ RESTAURANT: "Cholula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ROCKET FUEL: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Report
ROCKET FUEL: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Bot Blocking
SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Ruling Over "Control" of Hotels

SABRE CORPORATION: Provides Updates on 4 Consumer Class Actions
SABRE CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
SILVER DINER: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims
SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Faces Lawsuit Over OmniAmerican Merger
SUN HOLDINGS: Fast-Food Employees Seek OT Class Certification

THORATEC CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooper Class Action
TOTAL SYSTEM: Unit Named as Defendant in Telexfree Class Suits
TRUSTMARK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss OSIC Claims
TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Funds in Overdraft Suit Distributed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Concedes Error in Class Action Ruling

ULTIMATE VACATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Texas Suit Claims
US NAVY: Nonliturgical Protestant Chaplains Class Not Certified
VETERANS AFFAIRS: Wins Judgment in Suit Alleging Retaliation
VOLTARI CORPORATION: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit

* Counsel & Heal Unveils 10 Most Dangerous Foods Based on Recalls


                            *********


AIRBNB: Exacerbates San Francisco Housing Shortage, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
AirBnB is driving up the already stratospheric price of rentals in
San Francisco, and exacerbating its housing shortage, by illegally
facilitating the conversion of residential properties to short-
term rentals, a class action claims in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Louis Gamache claims that through its Web site,
"AirBnB participates in, facilitates and enables the illegal
rental of short-term rentals for rooms and apartments in the City
and County of San Francisco."

AirBnB works with its "hosts" by offering them a welter of
services through which they can list their properties online for
rent.  It even "claims to insure hosts up to $1,000,000, which
facilitates a false sense of security," Gamache says in the
lawsuit.

"Given the number of articles surrounding the illegality of
AirBnB, postings on its own website from users, and involvement in
lawsuits on behalf of users, AirBnB is on notice that its business
is illegal in San Francisco," according to the complaint.  "On its
website, AirBnB even summarizes the San Francisco Administrative
Code, Section 41.A.5b y stating: 'San Francisco law prohibits the
offering of a "residential unit" for rent for "tourist or
transient" use.  The definitions of "residential unit" and
"tourist or transient" are found at Section 4I.A.4.  While the
definitions are not entirely clear, the law appears to regulate
the rental of a residential unit for less than a 30-day term in
any apartment building with at least four units, and it may
regulate more types of housing.'

"AirBnB is also on notice that its business is illegal in San
Francisco because Plaintiffs' counsel notified AirBnB of its
intent to file a lawsuit based on AirBnB's violations of the laws
discussed below."

Gamache seeks to represent a class of "tenants who lived in a
residential unit while other units within the building were rented
through AirBnB's platform."  He claims that AirBnB knows it is
violating the law, and encourages others to do so, and that it is
"aware that permanent residents are being displaced and harmed as
a result of AirBnB's activities in San Francisco."

He seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for
violations of the City Code and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
          HOOSHMAND LAW GROUP
          22 Battery Street, Suite 610, San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 318-5709
          Facsimile: (415) 376-5897
          E-mail: tyson.reden@gmail.com


ALL AMERICAN: "Mollere" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Mollere, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated V. The All American Bar On First Avenue Inc. d/b/a
American Bar, Bar at 1140 2nd Ave., Inc. d/b/a The Blue Room, 58
E. 34th St. Wings Lodge Inc. d/b/a Murray Bar, Robert Gerola, Jr.,
and Robert O'Rourke, Case No. 1:14-cv-07095 (S.D.N.Y., September
3, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate and control a bar and restaurant
within the State if New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 ParkAvenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Sept. 8 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Altisource Portfolio Solutions SA on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
during the period from July 25, 2013 through August 4, 2014.

Altisource provides real estate and mortgage portfolio management
and related technology products and asset recovery and customer
relationship management services.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the
Company's improper business and operational practices including,
among other things, the fact that Ocwen Financial Corporation, a
financial services holding company of which Defendant William C.
Erbey is Chairman of the Board, was funneling as much as $65
million in fees annually from already-distressed homeowners to
Altisource for minimal work; and that Erbey, who owns
approximately 27% of Altisource's shares outstanding, was directly
involved in approving Altisource's conflicted transactions with
Ocwen.

Accordingly, Defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements and omitted material information from Altisource's
public disclosures, which failed to disclose, among other things,
that: (i) Altisource was charging exorbitant fees to Ocwen to
enable Defendants to funnel as much as $65 million in questionable
fees; (ii) despite public representations to the contrary,
Defendant Erbey was personally involved in approving conflicted
transactions with Altisource and other related entities which he
controlled; (iii) the Company failed to comply with applicable
laws and regulations, including lending regulations designed to
protect homeowners; (iv) the Company's financial statements during
the Class Period were artificially inflated and did not provide a
fair presentation of the Company's finances and operations; (v)
the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and
(vi) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Altisource stock between July 25, 2013 and August
4, 2014, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Altisource common stock during the Class Period
of July 25, 2013 through August 4, 2014, and wish to apply to be
the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than November 7, 2014.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.


APEX REDI: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Jackson and others similarly situated v. Apex Redi Mix
Industries, LLC and Terry Daniel, Case No. 3:14-cv-03146 (N.D.
Tex., September 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Apex Redi Mix Industries, LLC operates in the brick, stone, and
related construction material merchant wholesalers industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Leonard Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel Bret Ross, Esq.
      Vijay Anand Pattisapu, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com
              dbr@rosslawpc.com
              vijay@rosslawgroup.com


AURORA LOAN: Gets Prelim. Approval of $5.25-Mil. Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Loan Services can pay $5.25 million to settle a class
action alleging that it deceived distressed California homeowners
to extract more money from them, according to Courthouse News
Service.  The case is Mauder, et al. v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC,
Case No. C 10-3118 SBA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


BANK OF AMERICA: Quinn Emanuel Files Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that fresh
off a favorable ruling in a lawsuit accusing big banks of
conspiring to fix credit default swaps, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan has launched a new multibillion- dollar antitrust suit
against the banks, this time over interest rate swaps.

The firm filed a class action complaint on Sept. 4 in federal
court in Manhattan, asserting that 13 major banks and broker ICAP
plc conspired to fix the so-called ISDAfix rate.  The firm seeks
to represent everyone that entered into an interest rate
derivative transaction in the eight-year period from Jan. 1, 2006,
to January 2014, a group that mostly includes hedge funds, pension
funds and other large investors.

The defendants include Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and
Goldman Sachs & Co. Trillions of dollars of financial instruments
were affected by the banks' collusion, the complaint asserts.
Quinn Emanuel partner Daniel Brockett, who is also directing the
credit default swaps class action, is spearheading the case. In
contrast to the CDS case, where Quinn Emanuel battled for the lead
counsel role with plaintiffs firms, this time the firm has
partnered from the start with two of its competitors.  Named
plaintiff Alaska Electrical Pension Fund is also represented by
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Scott + Scott.  The case is
assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman.

ISDAfix is among the most important benchmarks in the U.S.
financial system, according to the complaint.  It's used to set
rates not only for "plain vanilla" interest rate swaps, but also
for commercial real estate mortgages, structured debt products and
also more esoteric financial instruments such as "steepeners" and
"snowballs."  Many of these products -- like interest rate
"swaptions," which are options to do interest rate swaps -- may
not be widely known, but there's a huge market for them.
Swaptions alone involved $29.5 trillion in interest rate swaps as
of July 2013.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is reportedly
investigating the ISDAfix market but has not yet taken action.
The pension fund plaintiff commissioned its own experts to study
swings in ISDAfix rates and found anomalous spikes that could only
be explained by collusion, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs have asked for an equitable tolling of the statutes
of limitation because the defendants concealed their activity.
Several of the defendant banks declined to comment to Bloomberg
News.

In the unrelated credit default swap antitrust case, which targets
a nearly identical group of banks, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote
on Thursday refused to dismiss claims that the defendants violated
state unjust enrichment laws and Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  Pearson, Simon & Warshaw is colead counsel with
Quinn Emanuel in that case.


BARRICK GOLD: Three Law Firms File Amended Claim in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 5, 2014, Koskie Minsky LLP, Sutts, Strosberg LLP,
Siskinds LLP and Groia & Company Professional Corporation, counsel
in the Barrick Gold Corporation securities class action, served a
Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in a $3 billion class action
against Barrick Gold Corporation and others.  The claim alleges
wrongdoing against Barrick Gold Corporation and its senior
officers Aaron Regent, Jamie Sokalsky, Ammar Al-Joundi and Peter
Kinver.

The detailed claim alleges there were misrepresentations in
Barrick's public disclosure relating to Barrick's development of
the Pascua-Lama mine located on the border between Chile and
Argentina.

In particular, Barrick failed to disclose that certain key
development activities at the Pascua-Lama mine were not in
compliance with certain environmental conditions imposed by the
Chilean government on Barrick's approval to develop the Pascua-
Lama Project.  The purpose of these conditions was to ensure that
the development and, later, the mining of the Pascua-Lama Project
would have the least possible adverse impact on the community and
the environment.

"The action raises serious questions about how Barrick Gold
conducted its business and affairs and the manner in which it
raised capital from public markets" explains Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky LLP.

If you acquired Barrick Gold Corporation securities during the
period from October 29, 2010 to November 1, 2013, please contact
Koskie Minsky LLP at 1-888-723-4305 or e-mail at
barrickclassaction@kmlaw.ca

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, labour, employment and litigation firms.  Its class
actions group has been a national leader in class actions and has
prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP is one of the preeminent class action law
firms in Canada.  It has been involved in many of the most
important class action decisions in the country and has recovered
more than $1.5 billion for its clients.

Siskinds LLP is a leader in securities class actions.  It has
successfully resolved numerous securities class actions, and is
lead counsel or co-lead counsel in eleven of the twelve class
actions filed under Ontario's new investor protection legislation,
Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. Part XXIII.1 came into
effect on December 31, 2005, and was designed to enhance the
remedies that are available to investors under Ontario law.

Groia & Company Professional Corporation is one of Canada's
leading securities litigation boutiques, having worked on almost
every major Canadian securities case: Asbestos, Bre-X, Cinar,
Hollinger Inc., Philip Services, Proprietary Industries Inc., TD
Waterhouse, Thomson Kernaghan, UBS, YBM, and Yorkton Securities.

For further information:

Media contacts:

Kirk Baert
(416) 595-2117
kbaert@kmlaw.ca

Jay Strosberg
(519) 561-6285
jay@strosbergco.com

Michael Robb
(519) 660-7872
michael.robb@siskinds.com

Joseph Groia
(416) 203-4472
jgroia@groiaco.com


BAYER: Neonicotinoids Class Action Attracts Criticism
-----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that claims made
in a recently filed class action lawsuit alleging pesticides are
harming Canada's honeybee population are not true, says an Alberta
commercial beekeeper who has seen no ill effects on his colonies.

Two Ontario beekeeping companies filed a class action lawsuit
against pesticide-manufacturers Bayer and Syngenta on Sept. 3,
seeking $450 million from the companies over claims that a class
of insecticides known as Neonicotinoids is to blame for the deaths
of many of their bees.

According to a Sierra Club Canada press release, the national
program director of Sierra Club Canada introduced the beekeepers
to the class action firm Siskinds LLP, which then filed the
lawsuit on their behalf.  And so, bees became the spokes-animals
of the Sierra Club Canada's cause, said Lee Townsend, a commercial
beekeeper at TPLR Honey Farms in Stony Plain, Alberta.

"They've been working a while trying to ban these products,"
Mr. Townsend said.  "First they tried to use butterflies and
frogs."

In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority claimed honey bees
were being threatened by exposure to the pesticides, also known as
"neonics," via dust that is sent into the air during the planting
of a crop, the complaint says.

"When they saw the dust issues . . . they latched right onto that
topic and used the bee industry as their cause to have these
products banned," Mr. Townsend said.

"I have a fine understanding of what they're doing.  But it's not
accurate."

In fact, Mr. Townsend said the amount of colonies on his farms has
more than doubled in the last eight years -- from 1,500 in 2006 to
3,100 this year.

However, the Ontario Beekeepers' Association claims the pesticides
are to blame for incidents in Quebec, citing three Pest Management
Regulatory Agency reports that found it was "highly probable" the
neonics were to blame for deaths.

In June, the Sierra Club Canada urged Health Canada to ban neonics
when it announced the results of a Worldwide Integrated Assessment
study undertaken by the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides.

"Canada needs a strong regulatory regime that bases its decisions
on science, not on needs of the pesticide industry," said John
Bennett, national program director of Sierra Club Canada.

The debate has also taken place in Europe, where 15 of 27 European
Union member states voted to restrict the use of three neocons for
two years, beginning on Dec. 1.

"When bees forage on pollen or nectar from treated crops, consume
guttation droplets or are otherwise exposed to small levels of the
Neonicotinoids, paralysis and death can result along with a
bioaccumulation of the Neonicotinoids in the bee hive," the
complaint says.

Richard Tren, the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, disagreed
so strongly with the anti-neonic claims that he authored an
opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in July.  It is called,
"The Honeybees are Just Fine."

The piece notes that the bee population in the United States has
remained stable since the introduction of neonics, while numbers
have slightly risen in Europe and have grown to the highest
they've been in Canada since the late 1980s.  He also said
worldwide, global bee populations are up dramatically since the
1960s.

"One thing that we know from other (environmental) campaigns is
that you need to have a bit of cause and effect," Mr. Tren said in
an interview Sept. 4.

"I just don't see that, and so the other threats to bees such as
parasites and viruses seem to be more important causes of harm.
It doesn't seem to be that there is a problem to bees in Canada.
There are all sorts of natural variations such as weather, not
insecticides."

But large pesticide-makers make enticing targets, he argued, and
the word "insecticide" carries very negative connotations, he
feels.

"This has more to do with politics than any threat to bees," he
said.  "It's very worrying.

"I live in Washington, D.C., now, but in developing countries,
look at a world without insecticides.  It's a pretty nasty place
with nasty parasites and low yield -- less food that's more
expensive."

The Sierra Club Canada's news releases page has a graphic showing
a bee wearing a protective suit. The group has also started a
#SaveTheBees campaign.

Mr. Townsend said a better solution would be education.  Of those
beekeepers who are complaining, he says, "I wouldn't call them
exactly great beekeepers."

"Many are small in size or hobbyists," he continued.  "It's easier
to blame a chemical than to explain the unknown, in their mind."

A four-year program that began in 2006, he said, helped after
substantial winter losses.

"This industry, while not perfect and the challenges before it, is
thriving," he said.  "It's bigger than it's ever been.  So where's
the crisis?"


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Sets $39 Million Reserve for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. (NYSE: EAT) on August 7, 2014,
announced results for the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 25,
2014.  The Company said that other gains and charges in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2014 includes pre-tax charges of approximately
$39.5 million related to various litigation matters including a
class action litigation pending in California.

In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team
members filed a putative class action lawsuit against Brinker in
California Superior Court alleging violations of California labor
laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks.  The parties
participated in mediation regarding this case on April 8, 2014,
where preliminary settlement discussions began that ultimately
culminated in a preliminary settlement agreement being reached on
Aug. 6, 2014.  This preliminary settlement agreement remains
subject to court approval and seeks to resolve all claims in
exchange for a maximum settlement payment not to exceed $56.5
million.

The company established a reserve of approximately $39.0 million
related to this pending class action litigation, but the actual
amount of any settlement payment could vary from the company's
reserve and will be subject to many factors including approval by
the court, claims process, and other matters typically associated
with the potential settlement of complex class action litigation.
The aggregate litigation reserves of approximately $39.5 million
established in the fourth quarter are based on the terms set forth
in the applicable agreements and the company's reasonable
expectations regarding future events.

Brinker International, Inc. is one of the world's leading casual
dining restaurant companies. Founded in 1975 and based in Dallas,
Texas, as of June 25, 2014, Brinker owned, operated, or franchised
1,615 restaurants under the names Chili's(R) Grill & Bar (1,569
restaurants) and Maggiano's Little Italy(R) (46 restaurants).


CATERPILLAR INC: Consumer Law Group Files ACERT Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line Magazine, reports that a law
firm in Canada has filed a national class action complaint against
Caterpillar Inc. and Caterpillar of Canada Corp. over alleged
defects with its C13 and C15 engines.

Jeff Orenstein of the Consumer Law Group told Land Line in
September his cases filed in Quebec and Ontario are similar to the
cases filed in the United States over problems with Caterpillar
Advanced Combustion Emissions Reduction Technology (ACERT)
engines.  The complaint in Canada includes Caterpillar engines
from model years 2007 to 2011.

"I have heard from quite a few people, and the amount of money
they have spent repairing these engines is amazing," Mr. Orenstein
said.  "We have heard from fleets that have leased or purchased
these trucks to the smaller guys who have all lost money in not
being able to work.  The massive cost of repairs has put some
people in financial ruin."

He said the cases in Canada are still in the early phases, and his
firm is still "determining the jurisdiction where we will proceed"
with the case.  At this point, Orenstein said he was unsure of the
exact number of trucks that have been sold in Canada with ACERT
engines problems.

Mr. Orenstein said he has heard from Canadian truck drivers who
say they have experienced problems with their regeneration systems
and have had to pay costly repair bills to replace their emissions
and regeneration systems, sometimes multiple times if the repairs
were not covered under warranty.  Others have had to pay pricey
towing bills to have their trucks towed to a Caterpillar-certified
repair facility in Canada because the computer technology is
proprietary.  They have suffered a diminished value of their
vehicles because of the alleged defects.

"The amount of money they have spent on repairs is amazing, and we
are hoping to help them recover some of this money," he said.  "We
realize that for some people, they need the money now and they
can't wait, but we are fighting the good fight."

In the U.S., a dozen lawsuits have now been filed against
Caterpillar over alleged defects with its C13 and C15 engines from
model years 2007 to 2010.  Recently, Paul Weiss of the Complex
Litigation Group LLC in Highland Park, Ill., told Land Line the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that five
proposed class action lawsuits over the Cat engines would be
consolidated and heard in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey.


CBS BROADCASTING: Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages for Interns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Musallam, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by CBS Broadcasting, Inc.,
CBS Corporation, and Worldwide Pants Incorporated or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
and Worldwide Pants Incorporated v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., CBS
Corporation, and Worldwide Pants, Inc. or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by CBS Broadcasting, Inc., CBS
Corporation, and Worldwide Pants Incorporated, Case No.
158662/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 4, 2014) is
brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons, who worked for
the Defendants as interns on The Late Show with David Letterman,
and were misclassified as exempt from minimum wage and overtime
requirements.

CBS Broadcasting, Inc. is a New York business corporation
headquartered in New York City, and is engaged in the
entertainment industry.  CBS Broadcasting is a subsidiary of
CBS Corporation, and is the distributor of The Late Show with
David Letterman.  CBS Corporation is a foreign business
corporation organized in Delaware and authorized to do business
New York.

Worldwide Pants Incorporated is a New York business corporation
headquartered in Los Angeles, California, and is engaged in the
entertainment industry.  Worldwide Pants produces The Late Show
with David Letterman.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
          Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad St, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Fisher-Klosterman Faces Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental 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 one of its
subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. ("FKI"), is a defendant
party in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County,
Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies. The
plaintiffs claim that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an
allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it
supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and
operate. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered property damages
including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement
part costs, damage to other property and business interruption
loss although the Plaintiffs generally have alleged losses not in
excess of $75 million, the Plaintiffs only specifically claim
approximately $36 million in damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

"Based on currently available information, as of June 30, 2014, we
have not recorded any reserve with respect to this matter," the
Company said.

CECO Environmental Corp. is a global environmental technology
company focused on critical solutions in the energy, air pollution
control, fluid handling and filtration segments.


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Over Met-Pro Merger Fully Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental 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 Met-Pro Corporation and
the Met-Pro former board of directors had been named as defendants
in a putative class action lawsuit brought by an alleged former
Met-Pro shareholder who challenged the proposed mergers filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. The case was captioned Raymond Gold v. Met-Pro
Corporation, et al., filed July 8, 2013, and alleged, among other
things, that the Met-Pro board of directors breached its fiduciary
duties to Met-Pro and its shareholders in approving the merger
agreement at an unfair price, unduly restricting other potential
bidders from making competing offers, failing to consult with
other bidders to create a competitive bid process, and unduly
limiting the board's ability to consider and potentially accept an
alternative proposal. The action sought an award of unspecified
money damages.

Met-Pro and the Company believe that these claims were without
merit; however, in order to avoid the risk of delaying the
consummation of the acquisition and to avoid the costs, disruption
and distraction of further litigation, on July 20, 2013, Met-Pro
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the
plaintiff to settle the foregoing action without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing. As part of the MOU, Met-Pro made certain
additional disclosures related to the acquisition.

On February 25, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement, as contemplated by the MOU, which provides, among
other things, for the conditional certification of a non-opt out
class, for settlement purposes only, that includes any and all
persons or entities who held shares of Met-Pro common stock,
either of record or beneficially, at any time between April 22,
2013, the date Met-Pro announced the merger agreement, and August
27, 2013, the date of the consummation of the acquisition.

The stipulation of settlement also provided for the payment of up
to $0.2 million for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs to
the attorneys for the class.  The settlement and the amount of
attorneys' fees and costs were subject to court approval, which
was obtained on June 10, 2014.

Accordingly, this matter is now fully resolved without any
remaining liability to the Company.

CECO Environmental Corp. is a global environmental technology
company focused on critical solutions in the energy, air pollution
control, fluid handling and filtration segments.


CENTURYLINK INC: To Defend Against Appeal in "Fulghum" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in William Douglas
Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December
28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit
challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree
benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance
and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1,
2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications,
was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject
benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq,
certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and
the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits
plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of
its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of
plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other
claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum
court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal, continue
to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to
have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds.

"We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we
believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is
warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of
probable liability," the Company said.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of communications services to its
residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in Right-of-Way Cases Have Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that several putative class
actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in
certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest Communications
International, Inc. on behalf of landowners on various dates and
in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable
(Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)

The Company said, "For the most part, the complaints challenge our
right to install our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.
The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as
an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install
our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. In
general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and
unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous
attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single
court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court
approval of settlements on a state-by-state basis."

To date, the parties have received final approval of such
settlements in 30 states. The settlement administration process,
including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in
relation to a number of these settlements.

The parties have not yet received either preliminary or final
approval in two states where an action is pending (Texas and
Massachusetts) and two states where actions were at one time, but
are not currently, pending (Arizona and New Mexico).

"We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for
resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to
our consolidated financial statements," the Company said.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of communications services to its
residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers.


CENTURYLINK INC: Defendant in Louisiana Securities Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink 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 CenturyLink and certain
of its affiliates are defendants in one consolidated securities
and four shareholder derivative actions.  The actions are pending
in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs
in these actions have variously alleged, among other things, that
CenturyLink and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated federal securities laws and/or breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its shareholders.
Plaintiffs' complaints focus on alleged material misstatements or
omissions concerning CenturyLink's financial condition and changes
in CenturyLink's capital allocation strategy in early 2013. These
matters are in preliminary phases and the Company intends to
defend against the filed actions vigorously.

"We have not accrued a liability for these matters as it is
premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and
(ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable
liability," the Company said.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of communications services to its
residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Dismissal of Bond Market Fund Suit on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that
the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives
by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs' federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims
were dismissed in proceedings before the court and following a
successful petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth
Circuit, where the case is currently pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in securities
brokerage, banking, money management, and financial advisory
services. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (Schwab) is a securities
broker-dealer with over 300 domestic branch offices in 45 states,
as well as a branch in each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and
London, England. In addition, Schwab serves clients in Hong Kong
through one of CSC's subsidiaries. Other subsidiaries include
Charles Schwab Bank (Schwab Bank), a federal savings bank, and
Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM), the investment
advisor for Schwab's proprietary mutual funds, which are referred
to as the Schwab Funds(R), and for Schwab's exchange-traded funds,
which are referred to as the Schwab ETFs(TM).


COOPER TIRE: Class Actions Over Botched Apollo Merger Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that following the
announcement of the proposed acquisition of the Company by wholly
owned subsidiaries of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (the "Apollo entities") in
June 2013, alleged stockholders of the Company filed putative
class action lawsuits in state courts in Delaware and Ohio. These
lawsuits, captioned In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Stockholders
Litigation, No. 9658 VCL and Auld v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et
al., No. 2013 CV 293, alleged that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by
agreeing to enter into the proposed transaction for an allegedly
unfair price and as the result of an allegedly unfair process. The
lawsuits sought, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On December 30, 2013, the Company terminated the merger agreement
with the Apollo entities. Following the termination of the merger
agreement, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Delaware and
Ohio lawsuits in April 2014.

On October 4, 2013, the Company filed a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Cooper Tire Co. v.
Apollo (Mauritius) Holdings Pvt. Ltd., et al., No. 8980- VCG,
asking that the Apollo entities be required to use their
reasonable efforts to close the then-pending merger transaction as
expeditiously as possible and also seeking, among other things,
declaratory relief and damages. On October 14, 2013, the Apollo
entities filed counterclaims against the Company seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 8, 2013, after expedited proceedings, the court found
that the Apollo entities had not materially breached the merger
agreement. On December 19, 2013, the Apollo entities moved for an
entry of declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the
conditions to closing the then-pending transaction were not
satisfied before the November 2013 trial. On December 30, 2013,
the Company terminated the merger agreement with the Apollo
entities, and requested payment of the reverse termination fee,
which the Apollo entities have refused to do.

On January 27, 2014, the court determined that it would proceed
with a decision on the Apollo entities' motion for declaratory
judgment. That motion has been fully briefed and on July 9, 2014,
the court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected to be
issued in the future.


COOPER TIRE: OFI Risk Arbitrages Class Action in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on January 17,
2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative class-
action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That lawsuit,
captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,
et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company
and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by
issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the
terminated transaction and seeks, among other things, damages.

The Company and its officers believe that the allegations against
them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The Company regularly reviews the probable outcome of such legal
proceedings, the expenses expected to be incurred, the
availability and limits of the insurance coverage, and accrues for
these proceedings at the time a loss is probable and the amount of
the loss can be estimated.

This case has recently been filed and is at an early stage. As a
result, the outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be
predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot
be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon
information currently available, any liabilities that may result
from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, financial
condition or results of operations.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit Over $55 "Executive Membership"
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Costco promised that a $55
"executive membership" would pay for itself by saving customers
more than $55 a year, but it didn't, a class action claims in Kent
County Court.


COVISINT CORPORATION: Faces Two Class Actions Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------
Covisint 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 beginning on May 30,
2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
directors and certain officers at the time of the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation of securities
laws in connection with the Company's IPO and seeking unspecified
damages.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend them. The Company currently has no other
outstanding material litigation," the Company said.

Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform for enabling
organizations to securely connect, engage and collaborate with
large, distributed communities of customers, business partners,
and suppliers.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Has Fixed Wages, Animation Artist Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that major players
in the animation industry collude to fix wages and restrict career
opportunities for their artists, a former DreamWorks animator
claims in a federal antitrust class action filed on September 8,
2014.

Robert A. Nitsch Jr., who was a senior character effects artist
for DreamWorks and a clothes and hair technical director at Sony
Pictures Imageworks, says animation and special effects studios --
including Walt Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and LucasFilm,
Sony Pictures, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers -- worked
together to stifle wages and restrict career opportunities for
animators, digital artists, software engineers and other technical
workers.

Nitsch's suit mirrors a class action filed against tech giants,
Apple, Google and others in 2010 which claimed their CEOs made
"gentleman's agreements" to eliminate competition and companion
wage-setting mechanisms by not poaching each other's employees.

Pixar and LucasFilm settled that case for $9 million collectively
last year, but a $325 million agreement proposed by Apple, Google,
Intel and Adobe has so far been nixed by the federal judge hearing
that case.

According to Nitsch's complaint, the animation studios acted in
much the same way as the tech companies, conspiring to deprive the
artists of "millions of dollars which defendants instead put to
their bottom lines."  The complaint continues: "It did so at the
same time the films produced by these workers achieved world
renown and generated billions in the United States and abroad."

Nitsch says the scheme dates back to when the late Apple founder
Steve Jobs bought LucasFilm's computer graphics division from
George Lucas in 1986 and created Pixar.  He claims that the pair,
along with Pixar president Ed Catmull, then agreed not to cold-
call each other's employees.

Neither Lucas nor Catmull, nor Job's Apple, are defendants in
Nitsch's action.

Nitsch claims that Pixar and LucasFilm allegedly further agreed to
notify the each other when making an offer to an employee, and
agreed not to offer higher pay if the employee's current employer
made a counter offer.  And Jobs and Catmull spread these kinds of
anti-competitive agreements throughout the animation industry, his
complaint states.

"Whenever a studio threatened to disturb the conspiracy's goals of
suppressing wages and salaries by recruiting employees and
offering better compensation, the leaders of the conspiracy took
steps to stop them," Nitsch says in the complaint.

The studios' cooperation was allegedly so thorough that they even
emailed each other salary and budget information.  In his
complaint, Nitsch quotes Lucas as saying that "the rule we always
had [was] we cannot get into a bidding war with other companies
because we don't have the margins for that sort of thing."

The other studios used similar practices and pay structures,
Nitsch's complaint states.

After a Justice Department investigation, Nitsch says Pixar and
Lucasfilm signed settlements prohibiting them from make those
kinds of nonsolicitation agreements.  But the practice continues
to this day, according to the complaint.

"Defendants continue to discuss and agree on wage and salary
ranges and prohibit active solicitation of other defendants'
employees through the present," Nitsch says in his complaint.

"Defendants communicated among themselves by phone and email and
in in-person meetings in furtherance of the conspiracy," Nitsch
adds.

Nitsch seeks compensatory damages and a permanent ban on making
agreements not to solicit other company's employees. He is
represented by Daniel Small of the New York firm Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, and locally by Richard Grossman of Pillsbury &
Coleman.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdubner@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          George Farah, Esq.
          Matthew Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: gfarah@cohenmilstein.com
                  mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Bruce Spiva, Esq.
          THE SPIVA LAW FIRM PLLC
          1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 601
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 785-0601
          E-mail: bspiva@spivafirm.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Grossman, Esq.
          PILLSBURY & COLEMAN LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-8000
          E-mail: rgrossman@pillsburycoleman.com

The case is Robert A. Nitsch, Jr. v. DreamWorks Animation SKG,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04062-VC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "Cooper" Suit Paid in June 2014
---------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that in Cooper v. Ecolab Inc.,
California State Court - Superior Court-Los Angeles County, case
no. BC486875, the plaintiffs sought certification of a purported
class of terminated California employees of any business for
alleged violation of statutory obligations regarding payment of
accrued vacation upon termination. The company reached a
preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs, which was approved by
the court on March 17, 2014. The settlement amount, which is not
material to the company's operations or financial position, was
paid in June 2014.


ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Four Wage and Hour Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that the company is a defendant in
four pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law.

Of these four suits, two have been certified for class action
status. Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court -
Northern District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an
action under California state law, has been certified for class
treatment of California Institutional employees.

In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of
California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination Service
Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also seeks a
purported California sub-class for alleged California wage hour
law violations and certifications of classes for state law
violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and North Carolina.

A third pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court-
Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks
nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for
alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in
New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging
violations of state wage hour laws.

A fourth pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, case no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a
class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of
Illinois wage and hour laws.


ECOLAB INC: Nalco Faces Actions Over Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 Nalco Company was named, along
with other unaffiliated defendants, in six putative class action
complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Adams v.
Louisiana, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01051 (E.D. La.); Elrod, et al.
v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al., 12-cv-00981 (E.D.
La.); Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02078-
CJBSS (E.D. La.); Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et al., Case No.
11-cv-00881 (E.D. La.); Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla.); and, Wright, et al. v. BP,
plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00397-B (S.D. Ala.). The cases were
filed on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live
and work in or derive income from the effected Coastal region.

The Company said, "Each of the actions contains substantially
similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things,
negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in
these putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards
of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs. These cases have been consolidated in MDL 2179."

Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in 23 complaints filed by individuals: Alexander, et
al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00951
(E.D. La.); Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et
al. Case No. 2:11-cv- 867, (E.D. La.); Brooks v. Tidewater Marine
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00049 (S.D. Tex.); Capt Ander, Inc.
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla.);
Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.); Danos,
et al. v. BP Exploration et al., Case No. 00060449 (25th Judicial
Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); Doom v. BP Exploration &
Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.); Duong, et
al., v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
00605 (E.D. La.); Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW (E.D.
La.); Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00650
(E.D. La.); Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N
(S.D. Ala.); Hogan v. British Petroleum Exploration & Production,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County,
Texas); Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00532-N (S.D.
Ala.); In re of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 12-
426 (E.D. La.); Kolian v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. ,
Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D. La.); Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 1:10-cv-00472-M (S.D. Ala.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Shimer v. BP
Exploration and Production, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-4755 (E.D.
La.); Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C., et al., No. 0165708
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., Case No. 59-121 (25th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); and,
Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR (S.D.
Miss.). The cases were filed on behalf of individuals and entities
that own property, live, and/ or work in or derive income from the
effected Coastal region.

The Company said, "Each of the actions contains substantially
similar allegations, generally alleging, among other things,
negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in
these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs."

Pursuant to orders issued by the court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint").

On May 18, 2012, Nalco filed a motion for summary judgment against
the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i)
Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the comprehensive oil spill
response scheme set forth in the Clean Water Act and National
Contingency Plan; and (ii) Nalco is entitled to derivative
immunity from suit.

On November 28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and
dismissed with prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint
asserted against Nalco.  The Court held that such claims were
preempted by the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan.
Because claims in the "B3" Master Complaint remain pending against
other defendants, the Court's decision is not a "final judgment"
for purposes of appeal.  Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
4(a), plaintiffs will have 30 days after entry of final judgment
to appeal the Court's decision.

Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responder
defendants have been named as first party defendants by Transocean
Deepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "Transocean
Entities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton Asset
Leasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In April
and May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron International
Corporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,
Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.
(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL
2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated cross
defendants.

The Cross Claimants generally allege, among other things, that if
they are found liable for damages resulting from the Deepwater
Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, they are
entitled to indemnity or contribution from the cross defendants.

In April and June 2011, in support of its defense of the claims
against it, Nalco Company filed counterclaims against the Cross
Claimants. In its counterclaims, Nalco Company generally alleges
that if it is found liable for damages resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response, it
is entitled to contribution or indemnity from the Cross Claimants.

In December 2012 and January 2013, the MDL 2179 court issued final
orders approving two settlements between BP and Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel: (1) a proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement;
and (2) a proposed Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement. Pursuant to the proposed settlements, class members
agree to release claims against BP and other released parties,
including Nalco Energy Services, LP, Nalco Holding Company, Nalco
Finance Holdings LLC, Nalco Finance Holdings Inc., Nalco Holdings
LLC and Nalco Company.


ECOLAB INC: "Franks" Product Liability Action Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 Nalco Company was named, along
with other unaffiliated defendants, in an amended complaint filed
in March 2011 by an individual in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, Mississippi, Second Judicial District (Franks v. Sea Tow
of South Miss, Inc., et al., Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court
of Harrison County, Mississippi)).  The amended complaint
generally asserts, among other things, negligence and strict
product liability claims relating to the plaintiff's alleged
exposure to chemical dispersants manufactured by Nalco Company.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, medical
expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff's allegations
place him within the scope of the MDL 2179 Medical Benefits Class.

In approving the Medical Benefits Settlement, the MDL 2179 Court
barred Medical Benefits Settlement class members from prosecuting
claims of injury from exposure to oil and dispersants related to
the Response. As a result of the MDL court's order, on April 11,
2013, the Mississippi court stayed proceedings in the Franks case.
The Franks case was dismissed in May 2014.


ETHICON INC: W.V. Jury Awards $3.27MM in Pelvic Mesh Device Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a West Virginia jury has awarded $3.27 million to a woman who
underwent surgery to remove a pelvic mesh device made by Johnson &
Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc.

The closely watched case, brought by Jo Huskey and her husband,
Allen Huskey, is the first federal trial over Ethicon's TVT-O
pelvic mesh sling.

"As the first federal trial over TVT-O device, we expect it will
have a significant impact on the litigation and hope that it will
lead to the resolution of the claims that have been brought on
behalf of women," Edward Wallace, partner at Chicago's Wexler
Wallace, said about the verdict.

The jury, which awarded exclusively compensatory damages, found
against Ethicon on claims of failure to warn, design defect, pain
and suffering and past medical expenses.  The jury's award also
included $200,000 to Huskey's husband for loss of consortium.
In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said Ethicon would challenge the
verdict through post-trial motions.

"The verdict is disappointing and we believe we have strong
grounds for appeal," Ethicon spokesman Matthew Johnson said.
"Ethicon's TVT-O mid-urethral sling was properly designed, and
Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research,
development and marketing of the product.  We have always made
patient safety a top priority and will continue to do so."

Ethicon faces 33,000 lawsuits worldwide claiming its mesh devices,
used to treat urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, have
caused women pain and forced them to undergo subsequent surgeries
to remove them.

On April 3, a jury in Dallas, hearing a case in Texas state court,
awarded $1.2 million in the first trial over the TVT-O sling.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of
West Virginia, overseeing most of the cases in Charleston, threw
out the first pelvic mesh trial in federal court against Ethicon
on Feb. 19 involving another device, the TVT.

Johnson & Johnson also lost an $11 million verdict in New Jersey
state court last year in a case over a different device.

In West Virginia, Ethicon was represented at trial by Christy
Jones of Butler Snow in Ridgeland, Miss., and David Thomas,
founding member of Thomas Combs & Spann in Charleston.


ELDORADO TRADING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mirabel Vranjkovic, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Eldorado Trading Group,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06810 (N.D. Ill., September 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendant describes itself as an innovative proprietary
trading firm that actively participates in capital markets all
around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied in June
---------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae was a
defendant in a consolidated class action lawsuit initially filed
in 2004 that was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.  In the consolidated complaint filed in
2005, lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio alleged that Fannie Mae
and certain former officers, as well as Fannie Mae's former
outside auditor, made materially false and misleading statements
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs contended that Fannie Mae's accounting statements were
inconsistent with GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting
and the amortization of premiums and discounts, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees
and costs.

On January 7, 2008, the court defined the class as all purchasers
of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of
publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from
April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004. On October 17, 2008, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), as conservator for Fannie
Mae, intervened in this case.

In September and December 2010, plaintiffs served expert reports
claiming damages to plaintiffs under various scenarios ranging
cumulatively from $2.2 billion to $8.6 billion. In 2011, the
parties filed various motions for summary judgment.

On September 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to
defendant Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's former Chief Executive
Officer, on all claims against him. On October 16, 2012, the court
granted summary judgment to defendant J. Timothy Howard, Fannie
Mae's former Chief Financial Officer, on all claims against him.
On November 20, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to
defendant Leanne Spencer, Fannie Mae's former Controller, on all
claims against her.

On April 10, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this litigation, subject to court approval. On May 7,
2013, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the
court. On June 7, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, approved the form and manner of notice to the
class, stayed non-settlement related proceedings, and set certain
other deadlines related to the settlement. On October 31, 2013,
the court held a hearing to evaluate the fairness of the
settlement to the class, and on December 5, 2013, granted final
approval of the settlement, dismissed the case with prejudice, and
entered an order and judgment effecting the settlement. Fannie
Mae's contribution to the settlement did not have a material
impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

On January 9, 2014, Rinis Travel Service, Inc. Profit Sharing
Trust U.A. 61-1989, a purported class member, appealed the court's
approval order with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, but voluntarily dismissed the appeal with prejudice on
March 13, 2014.

On January 29, 2014, an individual purported class member also
appealed the settlement approval, and plaintiffs-appellees moved
to dismiss this appeal on February 6, 2014. The motion to dismiss
the appeal was granted on May 8, 2014.

On June 9, 2014, the individual filed a petition for rehearing en
banc.  That petition was denied on June 25, 2014, Fannie Mae 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.


FANNIE MAE: Deal in Principle Reached in 2008 Securities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated amended complaint filed on June 22, 2009, lead
plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management
Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common shareholders) and
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for preferred
shareholders) allege that Federal National Mortgage Association or
Fannie Mae, certain of its former officers, and certain of its
underwriters violated Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Lead plaintiffs also allege that Fannie Mae, certain
of its former officers, and its outside auditor, violated Sections
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs seek various
forms of relief, including rescission, damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable and injunctive
relief.  On October 13, 2009, the court entered an order allowing
the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") to intervene.

In 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims as to all defendants. In 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims. As a result of the
partial denial, some of the Securities Exchange Act claims
remained pending against Fannie Mae and certain of its former
officers. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the consolidated
complaint on December 31, 2010.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended joint consolidated class action
complaint on March 2, 2012, renewing the remaining claims and
adding FHFA as a defendant.  On August 30, 2012, the court denied
defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint,
allowing plaintiffs' Securities Exchange Act claims premised on
Fannie Mae's subprime and Alt-A disclosures to proceed along with
plaintiffs' claims premised on Fannie Mae's risk management
disclosures. Fannie Mae filed its answer to the second amended
complaint on October 29, 2012.

On July 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this litigation. The proposed settlement amount did not
have a material impact on Fannie Mae's results of operations or
financial condition, Fannie Mae 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.


FANNIE MAE: Motion for Reconsideration in 2008 ERISA Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009, plaintiffs allege that
certain of Federal National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae's
current and former officers and directors, including members of
Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans Committee and the Compensation
Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of Directors during the relevant
time periods, as fiduciaries of Fannie Mae's Employee Stock
Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached their duties to ESOP
participants and beneficiaries by investing ESOP funds in Fannie
Mae common stock when it was no longer prudent to continue to do
so. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts invested in Fannie Mae
common stock beginning April 17, 2007. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, and
injunctive and other equitable relief. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 2, 2012 adding two current Board members and
then-CEO Michael J. Williams as defendants.

On October 22, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice
claims against seven former and current directors and officers who
joined the Board of Directors or Benefit Plans Committee after
Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship. The court allowed
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor claims
to go forward, but dismissed plaintiffs' conflict of interest
claim.

On September 23, 2013, defendants filed a motion asking the court
to reconsider its October 22, 2012 order in light of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in Rinehart v.
Akers (In re Lehman Bros. ERISA Litigation), 722 F.3d 137 (2d Cir.
2013). The court denied the motion for reconsideration on April
21, 2014.

"Given the stage of this lawsuit, the substantial and novel legal
questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are
currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation," Fannie Mae 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.


FANNIE MAE: Bid to Dismiss Purchase Agreements Suit Fully Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against Federal
National Mortgage Association or Fannie Mae, the Federal Housing
Finance Agency ("FHFA") as conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac
from July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae
and/or Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each
company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.
These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013,
plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or
Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Fannie
Mae, FHFA as conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac ("In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations").

The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012
amendments to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase
agreements providing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay
dividends equal to their entire net worth (minus a specified
capital reserve amount) ("the net worth sweep provisions")
nullified certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the
right to receive dividends.

The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012
amendments constituted a taking of their property by requiring
that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are paid to
Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
against Fannie Mae, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim against
FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim
derivatively on Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's behalf against FHFA
and Treasury.

Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or
common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held
stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against Fannie
Mae, FHFA as conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official
capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his
official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims for
breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and
claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against
the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net worth
sweep provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred
shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends.
Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

On January 17, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss both the
class action and non-class action suits pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, and these motions are
now fully briefed, Fannie Mae 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.

"Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel
legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are
currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range
of loss arising from this litigation," Fannie Mae said.


FIFTH THIRD: Merchants Appeal Approval of VISA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that during April 2006, the
Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class
action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and
several other major financial institutions in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout
the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees
charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought
injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a
named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible
indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into
judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and
certain other named defendants.

In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a
settlement agreement. The court entered a Class Settlement
Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp
paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account.
Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another
settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from
plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900
merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the
funds paid into the class settlement escrow account have been
returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion
Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of the merchants who
requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal
lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants
alleging similar antitrust violations. The federal lawsuits have
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a
defendant in any of the federal lawsuits, but may have obligations
pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or
loss sharing agreements.

In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit
against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including
the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the
class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from
that approval.


FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court to Issue Mandate Remanding ERISA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in 2008, two cases were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers styled
Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No. 1:08-cv-538.
The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on allegations
similar to those set forth in securities class action cases. The
ERISA actions were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision. The
Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and
reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of
proceedings in the trial court pending appeal.

On December 13, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and
agreed to hear the appeal. Oral argument was held on April 2, 2014
and on June 25, 2014 the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the
Sixth Circuit decision and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with the standards articulated in its
decision.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its mandate remanding the
case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the next 30-90
days.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Seeks Summary Judgment in "McGrogan" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, 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, provided
updates on the Market Rate Savings IRA Litigation.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank was filed as a class action on
January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The action alleges that First Commonwealth
Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum interest rate
of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as long as the
class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA account. The
class asserted that the Bank committed fraud, breached its
modified contract with the class members, and violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
(UTPCPL) when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market Rate
Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a roll-over
IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate. Plaintiffs sought monetary
damages for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for
the alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law violations and attorney's fees.

The court granted class certification as to the breach of modified
contract claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims. The breach of contract claim was predicated upon a letter
sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by
the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts.

The letter stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as
notification that a decision has been made to re-establish the
rate on your account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be
retroactive to your most recent maturity date and will continue
going forward on deposits presently in the account and on annual
additions."

On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the class action claims.
The Court found that the Bank retained the right to resign as
custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning as
custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of the
underlying IRA contract.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of class
certification to the claims of fraud in the execution and
violation of the UTPCPL. The Superior Court found that none of the
other issues were ripe for appeal. Jurisdiction was returned to
the Court of Common Pleas where the individual fraud and UTPCPL
claims of Mr. and Mrs. McGrogan are pending.

Plaintiffs filed their pretrial statement on June 16, 2014,
seeking $0.5 million in damages for the McGrogans and $0.8 million
for their adult children beneficiaries. The Bank considers these
damage claims exaggerated and otherwise invalid. The Bank has
filed a motion for summary judgment; it is pending.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: 3 New Cases May Proceed on Theories of Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, 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, provided
updates on the Market Rate Savings IRA Litigation.

In December 2013, three new complaints were filed by 34 former
members of the McGrogan class:

     (1) Jarrett et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action
filed by eight plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland
County Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

     (2) Young et al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action filed
by 12 plaintiffs on December 2, 2013 in the Westmoreland County
Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL,
breach of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

     (3) Fisanik et. al. v. First Commonwealth Bank - An action
filed by 14 plaintiffs on December 9, 2013 in the Cambria County
Court of Common Pleas asserting claims for fraud in the
inducement, fraud in the execution, violation of the UTPCPL, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The 36 plaintiffs who have filed individual actions held Market
Rate Savings IRA balances totaling approximately $4 million at the
time of the Bank's resignation as custodian of the IRAs in 2008.
The average age of the plaintiffs at that time was 62.

The Bank filed preliminary objections to the three new complaints.

On July 22, 2014 the court issued an order permitting the three
new cases to proceed only on theories of fraud in the execution
and violation of the UTPCPL based on fraud in the execution and
dismissing the claims for fraud in the inducement, breach of
fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel with prejudice.

At this time, the Bank believes the claims are without merit.


FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Facing "Hawkins" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National 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 First
Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in
connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the
method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day
was improper.

The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee Bank National
Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby County,
Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11.  The plaintiff seeks actual
damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of fees
charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other things.

FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss for this matter is
subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class
will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims
as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies
that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of
potentially dispositive early-stage motions such as motions to
dismiss; and the incomplete status of the discovery process.


GENERAL MILLS: Court Refused to Dismiss Contamination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners who blame their health issues on a toxic vapors from an
old chemical plant may have a case against General Mills, reports
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

Karl Ebert is the lead plaintiff in the class action, which
alleges that a GM chemical plant in the Como neighborhood of
Minneapolis dumped "thousands of gallons of hazardous substances
per year by burying it in perforated drums in the ground" from
1947 to 1962.  The plant operated from 1930 to 1977.

General Mills has been remediating the site since 1984, but the
class claims to have only learned about the vapor contamination
threat around their homes in 2013.  The homeowners sought an
injunction requiring General Mills to fully remediate the property
surrounding their homes, but General Mills said its remediation
efforts, including the installation of vapor mitigation systems
(VMS), required dismissal of the class action.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank refused to do so on Sept. 4,
2014, citing testimony from the plaintiffs' expert witness, Lorne
Everett.

"Dr. Everett states that: '[t]o mitigate the threat to these
residents, each home in the class area at a minimum requires a
vapor mitigation system. . . .  Such systems must be operated for
the foreseeable future, until the source(s) of these toxic vapors
can be identified and fully remediated,'" Frank wrote, emphasizing
the text himself.  The doctor's statement regarding the
remediation of the source of the vapors suggests a threat of
future or ongoing harm to the plaintiffs, the court found.

General Mills also argued that costs incurred by the homeowners in
response to the vapor contamination were not necessary and
therefore not recoverable under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Judge Frank once again disagreed, citing numerous allegations from
the plaintiffs in his opinion, including:

   * "Plaintiffs incurred out of pocket costs to evaluate the
      release or threat of hazardous substances inside their
      house [sic] and to evaluate structural issues concerning
      approaches to interim mitigation measures.

   * "[A plaintiff] purchased an air filtration system to
      'prevent, minimize or mitigate damages.'

   * "Plaintiffs' specific type of costs were incurred as
      'removal' and 'response costs' as described in relevant
      CERCLA provisions.

   * "The response and removal costs were necessary and
      reasonable; and

   * "All cost-incurring actions were taken to protect
      plaintiffs' families from vapors."

The plaintiffs' negligence claim regarding a drop in the value of
their homes also survived the motion to dismiss, as Judge Frank
concluded -- contrary to General Mills' argument -- that a precise
valuation of the drop is not necessary at this stage of the
litigation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward J. Manzke, Esq.
          Shawn M. Collins., Esq.
          THE COLLINS LAW FIRM PC
          1770 Park Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 687-9838
          Toll Free: (866) 480-8223
          Facsimile: (630) 527-1193

               - and -

          Michael D. Hayes, Esq.
          Norman B. Berger, Esq.
          VARGA BERGER LEDSKY HAYES & CASEY
          125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 341-9870
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0225
          E-mail: nberger@vblhc.com
                  mhayes@vblhc.com

               - and -

          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Toll Free: (800) 887-8029
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: Anne.Regan@zimmreed.com
                  Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Mark H. Thieroff, Esq.
          SIEGEL BRILL, P.A.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 337-6102
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6591
          E-mail: markthieroff@siegelbrill.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          Corey Lee Gordon, Esq.
          Emily A. Ambrose, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          Wendy M. Carlisle, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE PA
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  cgordon@blackwellburke.com
                  eambrose@blackwellburke.com
                  blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  wcarlisle@blackwellburke.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Fowler, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6404
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: jfowler@omm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          5200 Willson Road, Suite 150
          Edina, MN 55424
          Telephone: (952) 921-7340
          E-mail: mark@carpenter-law-firm.com

The case is Karl Ebert, et al. v. General Mills, Inc., Case No.
0:13-cv-03341-DWF-JJK, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.


GM SALARIED: Sued Over Failure to Pay Plan Benefits Interest
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald E. Halcomb, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GM Salaried Retirement Program, Case No. 1:14-cv-00124
(W.D. Ky., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay interest on the delayed payment of plan
benefits paid to participants in a lump sum and lump sum benefits
that are the actuarial equivalent of the annuity form of benefit.

GM Salaried Retirement Program is a benefit pension plan providing
benefits to General Motors' employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
      GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
      2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
      Louisville, KY 40223
      Telephone: (502) 244-9331
      Facsimile: (502) 244-9334
      E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Lawyers Challenge Rejection of "No-Poach" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that defendants
in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" case have made a rare and risky
move to avoid either going to trial or shelling out an extra $55
million to settle antitrust claims over their hiring practices.

Lawyers for Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel
Corp. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on Sept. 4 in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh's rejection of a proposed $324.5 million
settlement.  In it, they ask the appeals court to intervene and
approve the deal, arguing Judge Koh "committed clear legal error"
that could make it harder to settle class actions.

Judge Koh "impermissibly substituted the court's assessment of the
value of the case for that of the parties who have been litigating
the case for more than three years," defense lawyers argue.
Plaintiffs lawyer Joseph Saveri, who did not join the petition,
called the defense maneuver extraordinary.

"The trial judge has much discretion with respect to proposed
settlements and the approval process," he wrote in an email.
"This is true at preliminary approval and final approval, and I
don't view it as controversial."

Because the settlement is not final and cannot yet be appealed,
defendants styled their appeal as a petition for a writ of
mandamus, a remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances.
Defense lawyers say the court's intervention is warranted because
Judge Koh's order is not otherwise appealable and raises "an
important issue of first impression on which this court's guidance
is urgently needed."

If review is granted, defendants say it will be the first time the
Ninth Circuit has addressed the standard governing preliminary
settlement approval.

Arthur Bryant, chairman of Public Justice in Oakland, said the
defendants' strategy is a long shot.

"Generally speaking, it would be very surprising if an appeals
court issued a writ of mandamus to overturn an order denying
preliminary approval," he said, "unless the reasons given by the
judge were just way out of bounds."

Judge Koh rejected the "no-poach" settlement as insufficient early
last month, basing her decision on an earlier $20 million
settlement reached with smaller defendants Pixar Animation Studios
Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc.  The Google group paid out 95
percent of the compensation given employees during the class
period, Koh wrote, and therefore should collectively pay about 19
times more, or roughly $380 million.

Defense lawyers blasted that logic, insisting there should be no
formula for preliminary settlement approval.

"There was no suggestion that the settlement was collusive;
indeed, it was the highest settlement ever in an employment
antitrust case and satisfied any preliminary approval test ever
articulated by any federal court," the petition states.

Keker & Van Nest and Mayer Brown represent Google in the case,
O'Melveny & Myers represents Apple, Jones Day represents Adobe,
and Munger, Tolles & Olson represents Intel.

Along with Saveri, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein partner
Kelly Dermody represents plaintiffs.

Girard Gibbs partner Daniel Girard -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com --
represents named plaintiff Michael Devine, who has objected to the
proposed settlement as too low.

Orly Lobel, an employment and labor law professor at the
University of San Diego, said judges have an obligation to
determine whether a settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
"Koh is known as one of the few judges who scrutinizes such
settlements seriously," Mr. Lobel said in an email.  "In my view,
Judge Koh is correct to be skeptical about such a small figure
relative to the original number."

But defense lawyers for the technology companies insist
Judge Koh's approach to weighing the settlement's adequacy would
"significantly hinder parties' ability to settle in future class
actions" and disrupt the usual incentives of class action
litigation.

Class counsel seeking to reach early settlements with some, but
not all, defendants would assume any early deals must create a
floor for future settlements, according to the companies' counsel.

Meanwhile, defendants who choose not to settle early would be
unfairly bound by those who do.

Historically, the defense lawyers argue, courts evaluating
settlements have deferred to the judgment of the settling parties
unless faced with a collusive deal.

Topping off their attack, the defendants' lawyers also accused the
judge of faulty math.  Judge Koh based her $380 million assessment
on the premise that Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel accounted for
95 percent of the damages, when in reality, the lawyers argue
their clients accounted for 94.386 percent under plaintiffs'
theory.  That would, under Judge Koh's model, yield a settlement
of about $336.2 million, just above the agreed-on amount,
according to the filing.

"The court therefore not only committed legal error but also
misapplied its own erroneous standard," they wrote.

Mr. Bryant, of Public Justice, said if the petition fails, it
could damage the defendants' standing with Judge Koh.

The case is now proceeding toward a new Jan. 12 trial date.
Meanwhile, the parties have resumed discussions with mediator
Layn Phillips, a former federal judge and current Irell & Manella
partner in Newport Beach.

Defendants have asked Judge Koh to stay the case pending a ruling
from the Ninth Circuit.


GOOGLE INC: Calls Rejection of $325-Mil. Deal "Clear Legal Error"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It was "clear legal error" to reject a proposed $325 million
settlement of wage-fixing in the high-tech industry, Google and
two other tech giants told the 9th Circuit, according to William
Dotinga at Courthouse News Service.

The dispute stems from a 2010 class action filed on behalf of up
to 64,000 software engineers for a number of tech companies and
Disney-owned LucasFilm and Pixar. Earlier this year, four of the
Silicon Valley companies -- Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe --
offered $325 million to settle the claims that their CEOs made
"gentleman's agreements" not to poach each other's employees --
eliminating competition and its companion wage-setting mechanism
in the high-tech sector.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had rejected the offer last month,
however, as "below the range of reasonableness," given the
strength of the workers' case and the potential $9 billion in
damages if a jury found in their favor.

But on September 4, Google attorney Robert Van Nest of the firm
Keker & Van Nest advised Koh that the four tech giants had asked
the 9th Circuit to review their settlement offer and the judge's
rejection of it.

In their 27-page petition, the companies said that Koh's
"formulaic approach" in deciding that the offer was short by 16
percent went against precedent that values negotiation and
mediation over benchmarking.

"The District Court's benchmark formula impermissibly substituted
the court's assessment of the value of the case for that of the
parties who have been litigating the case for more than three
years, and in particular plaintiffs' counsel, who were 'sobered'
by the 'very real risks' faced at trial after devoting 'a lot of
work product' to analyzing the case and conducting jury research
and other 'empirical work' -- none of which the district court had
access to," the petition states, citing transcripts from previous
hearings.  "The District Court dismissed the parties' analysis of
the trial risks, suggesting that, unless the settlement was
larger, the court had -- in its own words -- 'wasted years on this
case.'  This too directly contradicts Rodriguez v. West Publishing
Corp., which held that 'parties represented by competent counsel
are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that
fairly reflects each party's expected outcome in litigation.'"

The tech companies called on the 9th Circuit to use this case as
an opportunity to set "the proper standard for preliminary
approval of class settlements."

They also noted that by rejecting the $325 million deal -- the
highest ever in an employment antitrust case -- Koh potentially
doomed the tech employees to "the very real chance that they and
the absent class members will receive nothing."

The petition continues: "And it forces defendants to abandon the
bargain they reached with highly qualified class counsel and
instead either pay at least an additional $55.5 million to settle
the case or proceed to trial.  This court should therefore issue
the writ because, without mandamus, this fundamentally erroneous
ruling will evade appellate review, irreparably harm plaintiffs,
absent class members, and defendants, and make it significantly
more difficult for parties to settle class actions in future
cases."

The software engineers already reached a $9 million settlement
with Pixar and LucasFilm, and they reached a deal with Intuit for
$11 million.  Koh signed off on both of those agreements last
year.

Both sides said last week they had resumed negotiations with the
engineers in hopes of hammering out a deal more to Koh's liking.

Judge Koh met the filing on September 5, 2014, by releasing two
emails she had received, praising her for rejecting the settlement
offer.

One, allegedly written by a Google employee and shareholder, said
tech employees "need the real story out" and that she hoped the
case would go to trial.

"Real choices and opportunities were taken away from these
employees due to lack of recruiting among the companies," the
email says.  "No amount of money can fix that now."

A hearing on other matters originally slated for Sept. 10 has been
pushed to December.  The trial date is tentatively slated for
April 9, 2015.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Anne P. Shaver, Esq.
          Lisa J. Cisneros, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  dharvey@lchb.com
                  ashaver@lchb.com
                  lcisneros@lchb.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 500-6803
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
                  jdallal@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  chc@girardgibbs.com
                  eak@girardgibbs.com

Defendant and Petitioner Google Inc. is represented by:

          Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
          Daniel Purcell, Esq.
          Eugene M. Paige, Esq.
          Justina Sessions, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com
                  dpurcell@kvn.com
                  epaige@kvn.com
                  jsessions@kvn.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Johnson, Esq.
          Lee H. Rubin, Esq.
          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real, Suite 300
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2057
          Facsimile: (650) 331-4557
          E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com
                  lrubin@mayerbrown.com
                  dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Defendant and Petitioner Adobe Systems, Inc., is represented by:

          David C. Kiernan, Esq.
          Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          Craig A. Waldman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com
                  ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
                  cwaldman@jonesday.com

Defendant and Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Michael F. Tubach, Esq.
          George A. Riley, Esq.
          Christina J. Brown, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: griley@omm.com
                  cjbrown@omm.com
                  mtubach@omm.com

Defendant and Petitioner Intel Corporation is represented by:

          Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
          Bradley S. Phillips, Esq.
          Steven M. Perry, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          Email: gregory.stone@mto.com
                 brad.phillips@mto.com
                 steven.perry@mto.com

Defendant Intuit Inc. is represented by:

          Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          Craig E. Stewart, Esq.
          Catherine T. Zeng, Esq.
          Roberta D. Tonelli, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
                  cestewart@jonesday.com
                  czeng@jonesday.com
                  rtonelli@jonesday.com

Defendants Pixar and Lucasfilm Ltd. are represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: ehenn@cov.com

The appellate case is In Re Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple, Inc.,
Google, Inc., and Intel Corp., Case No. 14-72745, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The trial court
case is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
11-CV-02509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


HAMMAD ENTERPRISES: Faces "Maceda" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis Maceda and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C. 216
(B) v. Hammad Enterprises, Inc. and Amjad Hammad, Case No. 0:14-
cv-62019 (S.D. Fla., September 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Hammad Enterprises, Inc. owns, operates, and controls a warehouse
located in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Claudio R. Cedrez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIO R. CEDREZ
      1090 Kane Concourse, Suite 206
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 868-7177
      Facsimile: (786) 664-6596
      E-mail: ccedrez@cedrezlaw.com


HAMPSHIRE TIMES: Faces "Feng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lianyuan Feng, Gong Xian Huang, Junran Jiang, Zhong Li, Jian Wu,
Jie Xu and Tian Yu Xu on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Hampshire Times d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki
Japanese Restaurant, DWC Inc. d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki
Japanese Restaurant, ZXY 48 Corp. d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki
Japanese Restaurant, XYZ 48 Corp. d/b/a Saigon 48 and d/b/a Aoki
Japanese Restaurant, John Doe 01, Michael Zhao, John Doe 02, Peter
Doe, Ho Cheung King, Jei Lola and Jaevimie Ng, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07102 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each work week.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant under the trade names
Saigon 48 and Aoki Japanese Restaurant located in the State of New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718)762-1342
      E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com


HAWAII: Human Services Dep't Sued Over Denial of Autism Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 5, Suzanne Egan, the single-mother of a severely autistic
five-year old boy, and the Hawaii Disability Rights Center filed a
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Honolulu, accusing
the state Department of Human Services of ignoring federal
Medicaid rules require the state treatments for the autistic.

The Kalama Valley resident says she can no longer afford the
$5,000-a-month treatments for her son's autism, which she believes
should be covered by Medicaid.

"My child has not received the interventions he requires in his
formative years and that's going to affect him for the rest of his
life," said Ms. Egan.

The service is called applied behavioral analysis treatment, or
ABA, and it involves one-on-one counseling and behavior
modification training.

Many say it's effective in treating autism in early childhood
development.  But it costs between $30,000 and $50,000 per
student, which can translate into millions of dollars for a school
system. And that's why the state is balking.

Louis Erteschik, executive director of the Hawaii Disability
Rights Center, said the federal Medicaid program's Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services recently concluded that coverage
for ABA treatment is mandatory for state Medicaid programs.  He
said that 37 states in the country legally require private
insurers to pay for these treatments and that many of the states
whose Medicaid program don't pay for the services have been
ordered to do so by the courts.

"Everybody is saying you have to cover it and DHS is not covering
it.  That's what it comes down to and this case is being brought
to force them to cover it," Mr. Erteschik said.

According to Mr. Erteschik, the state believes the program will
cost $20 million.  But he pegs the start-up costs at $3 million.

That's far less than the tens of millions of dollars that the
state could wind up paying for the lifetime treatment for severely
autistic children, he said.

Hawaii Disability Rights Center and Ms. Egan, who are represented
by local attorney Paul Alston -- palston@ahfi.com -- and his firm
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, are seeking an injunction that would
require the state to provide the coverage.


IMPACT STAFF: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Anes Darvilmar and Gensilia Joseph, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Impact Staff
Leasing, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23258 (S.D. Fla., September 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Impact Staff Leasing, Inc. is a farm labor contractor based in
Jupiter, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Scott Schell, Esq.
      FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES INC.
      508 Lucerne Avenue
      Lake Worth, FL 33460
      Telephone: (561) 582-3921
      Facsimile: 582-4884
      E-mail: Greg@Floridalegal.Org


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Plaintiffs Must File Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in April 2014, the
first of four purported class action lawsuits was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Southern District") by the City of Providence, Rhode Island,
against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange Defendants",
"Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency Trading)
Defendants". New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two
of the Company's subsidiaries, are among the named Exchange
Defendants. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class of "all
public investors" who bought or sold stock on a U.S.-based
exchange or alternative trading venue from April 18, 2009 to the
present. The complaints assert violations by all Exchange
Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages
against all defendants, jointly and severally, as well as various
forms of equitable relief.

On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all
purposes, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and directed the plaintiffs to file an amended, consolidated
complaint within 60 days. After the plaintiffs' filing, the
defendants will have 60 days in which to move to dismiss or
otherwise respond to the complaint.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities
exchanges that are participants in each of the three national
market system data distribution plans, the Consolidated Tape
Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, Nasdaq UTP Plan, and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (the "Plans"), which are
established under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC are among the
defendants named in one or more of the suits. Lanier is claiming
to sue on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
subscribers to the market data disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's
allegations include that the exchange participants in the Plans
breached agreements with subscribers by disseminating market data
in a discriminatory manner in that other "preferred" customers
allegedly received their data faster than the proposed class. The
complaints seek, among other relief, restitution of the fees for
data paid by the purported class members, disgorgement of the fees
paid by the so-called preferred customers, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

At an initial court conference on July 31, 2014, the court set a
schedule for the filing of amended complaints (if any) and for the
briefing of any motions to dismiss to be filed by the defendants.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is a global operator of exchanges
and clearing houses. The Company currently operates 11 global
exchanges and five central clearing houses.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Xarelto Suits May Expand to Mass-Tort
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
with litigation surrounding the blood thinner Xarelto in its
infancy, some lawyers examining cases said the litigation could
expand to mass-tort proportions while others said it's too early
to tell.

Xarelto, prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation and
pulmonary embolism, is alleged by plaintiffs to cause
uncontrollable, and sometimes fatal, bleeding.

Marc Bern -- MJBern@NapoliBern.com -- a senior partner at
New York-based Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, said he has received
hundreds of Xarelto claims nationwide and has already filed a
handful of cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen
Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare Corp. in Philadelphia.

"Instead of controlling bleeding, which is what it claims to do,
it actually makes bleeding worse," Mr. Bern said.  "We believe
Xarelto is headed in the same direction as Pradaxa," another blood
thinner, "which settled for $650 million."

"It's virtually the same type of drug with the same type of
problem," he continued, "although the injuries seem to be a little
worse than the Pradaxa injuries."

Despite the number of claims, and Janssen's offices in the region
allowing for Philadelphia to be set as the venue, Mr. Bern said it
was unclear as to whether a mass tort would develop in the city's
courts.

"There's always a potential for that," he said.

As for the establishment of a multidistrict litigation, Mr. Bern
said that was also up in the air.

"Would it surprise me if an MDL eventually evolves? No." Mr. Bern
added, "I think that right now it's the very beginning of these
cases."

Mr. Bern said the widespread usage of Xarelto stemmed from the
blood thinner Coumadin going off-patent.

A call to Janssen's lawyer, David F. Abernethy --
David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath, was not
returned.  Bayer's attorney, Albert Bixler --
abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
declined to comment.

Sheller P.C. founder Stephen Sheller -- sasheller@sheller.com --
said his firm is evaluating "five to 10" Xarelto claims.

"We're at the beginning stage to see if we're going to be heavily
involved; it's starting to look that way," Mr. Sheller said.
As for whether the litigation has mass-tort potential, Sheller
said, "It's too early to say.  It may.  You see lawyers already
advertising for these cases."

Kline & Specter co-founder Thomas R. Kline said his firm is
investigating roughly two dozen claims.

"We have been looking carefully at the science and the potential
claimants as to whether we plan to get into these cases or not,"
Mr. Kline said.  "To the extent that there is litigation over the
drug, regardless of what our review ends up showing, I believe
there will be cases.  There are clearly lawyers who have
significant interest in the cases."

Mr. Kline added that it remains to be seen how many lawsuits will
surface or whether lawyers will choose a federal venue for the
cases.

"The numbers of cases and the attractiveness of the cases will
depend on the claimants who come forward as well as the science on
the subject, which is currently under review by lawyers around the
country," Mr. Kline said.  "It is, in my view, premature to
predict the extent of a mass tort here."

Ross Feller Casey products liability attorney Brian J. McCormick
Jr. -- bmccormick@rossfellercasey.com -- also said he has received
several Xarelto claims from across the country and is "talking to
experts and investigating each individual claim, as well as the
theory in general, although I think the theory is pretty safe
now."

In terms of the future of the litigation, Mr. McCormick said, "It
does have mass-tort potential, it's a blockbuster drug.

Thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients have taken it."
Mr. McCormick said although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approved Xarelto relatively recently, in 2011, the drug has
brought in roughly $1 billion in sales revenue.

"These new anticoagulants are really taking over the market.  You
can see the amount of . . . advertising Janssen is doing to push
Xarelto," Mr. McCormick said.

According to Mr. Bern's master complaint, the "defendants
fervently marketed Xarelto using print advertisements, online
marketing on their website, and video advertisements with no
regard to the accuracy and repercussions of their misleading
advertising in favor of increasing sales."

The complaint alleges that the defendants did not inform doctors
about the risk of uncontrollable bleeding in patients or how to
stabilize them if bleeding occurred.  The complaint also calls for
Xarelto to be withdrawn from the market.

"Defendants willfully, wantonly and with malice withheld the
knowledge of increased risk of irreversible bleeds in users of
Xarelto to prevent any chances of their product's registrations
being delayed or rejected by FDA," the complaint said.  "While
defendants enjoy great financial success from their expected
blockbuster drug, Xarelto, they continue to place American
citizens at risk of severe bleeds and death."

A spokesperson for Janssen said in an email to The Legal, "Xarelto
(rivaroxaban) is an important medicine used to treat and reduce
the risk of blood clots, with a positive benefit-risk profile
across its six approved indications.  The risk of bleeding -- a
known side effect for all blood thinners -- is clearly highlighted
in the warnings and precautions sections of the Xarelto
prescribing information."


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Gets Final OK of $13.5-Mil. Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge approved a $13.5 million final settlement in a
Fair Credit Reporting Act class action against LexisNexis that
promises to increase protections for consumer information.

LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group offers a service
called Accurint that sells information about debtors' financial
backgrounds to debt collectors.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives consumers the right to
review "consumer reports," but LexisNexis asserted that Accurint
reports are not consumer reports under the Act.

Last year, LexisNexis agreed to settle class claims against it for
violations of the FCRA.  Under the terms of the settlement,
LexisNexis will reform its procedures for sharing debtors'
information to ensure compliance with the Act, said U.S. District
Judge James Spencer in granting final approval to the agreement.

The class consists of approximately 200 million people whose
information resides in the Accurint database.  An additional
31,000 people comprise a second class of people who requested a
copy of an Accurint report, or submitted a dispute regarding their
report.  Members of this class will each receive approximately
$300 from a $13.5 million fund after attorneys' fees.

"In this case, all of plaintiffs' claims are predicated on
Accurint(R) reports being deemed 'consumer reports' within the
meaning of the FCRA.  However, the FTC [Federal Trade Commission]
in 2008 voted unanimously that Accurint(R) for Collection reports
do not fall within the FCRA and do not involve credit reports,"
Judge Spencer wrote.  "Absent some authority to the contrary, the
merit of plaintiffs' claims -- and, necessarily, the absent class
members' theoretical future claims -- is speculative at best.  For
this reason, the benefit of substantial relief without the risk of
litigation demonstrates the adequacy of the settlement agreement."

The judge also approved an attorneys' fees award of $5.3 million,
and a $5,000 award for each named plaintiff.

The class is represented by:

          Leonard Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd. 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660

               - and -

          Dale Pittman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803
          Telephone: (804) 861-6000
          Facsimile: (804) 861-3368

               - and -

          Michael Caddell, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 581-8295
          Toll Free: (877) 553-3057
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906

               - and -

          James Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor
          Philadelphia PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: mmailman@consumerlawfirm.com

The case is Gregory Thomas Berry, et al. v. LexisNexis Risk &
Information Analytics Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00754-
JRS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Richmond Division.


LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd., a global online retail company
that delivers products directly to consumers around the world, on
Sept. 5 disclosed that it has entered into an agreement to settle
all claims in a U.S. securities class action lawsuit.  The
settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court
approval.

On August 27, 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in the
first of three putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  These three actions were consolidated under the master
caption In re LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. Securities
Litigation, No. 13-cv-6016-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). On May 1, 2014, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint for failure to state a claim as a matter of law.

The parties have entered into the settlement prior to a decision
on the Company's motion to dismiss.  According to the settlement,
which remains subject to preliminary and final court approval, the
Company and its insurers have agreed to contribute US$1.55 million
to a settlement fund payable to certain purchasers of the American
depositary shares between June 6, 2013 and August 19, 2013.  In
return, the lead plaintiff has agreed to dismiss all claims
against the Company and all of the individual defendants.
Following final approval of the settlement by the Court, the case
will not be allowed to be refiled.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of
fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants.  Indeed,
the Company has and continues to believe that the allegations made
in the consolidated lawsuits lack merit.  The Company believes
that the statements made in its initial public offering prospectus
and during its road show were true and accurate portrayals of the
Company's business, and that the Company made detailed disclosures
to inform investors of the potential risks to the Company's
business.  The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement
in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further litigation.  The Company believes that putting this matter
behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and
shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and
strengthening its business.


M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank 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 beginning on November
18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to be class
representatives, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against
Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's financial
reporting and securities filings were in violation of securities
laws.  The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust moved to
dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the Court granted Wilmington Trust's
motion to dismiss in its entirety, but allowed plaintiffs to re-
file their Complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second,
Third and Fourth Amended Complaint. Wilmington Trust moved to
dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on July 17, 2013. The Court
issued an order denying Wilmington Trust's motion to dismiss on
March 20, 2014. The case is now proceeding with discovery.

The case is In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S.
District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR)


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: "Militello" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited 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 27, 2014, that several
purported class action lawsuits have been filed in February 2014
and March 2014 by purported holders of Cadence Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. common stock in connection with the Company's acquisition of
Cadence, including in the Delaware Court of Chancery (consolidated
under the caption In re Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation), and in California State Court, San Diego County
(Denny v. Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Militello v.
Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Schuon v. Cadence
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.).

The actions bring claims against, and generally allege that, the
board of directors of Cadence breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the acquisition by, among other things, failing to
maximize shareholder value, and the Delaware and Schuon actions
further allege that Cadence omitted to disclose allegedly material
information in its Schedule 14D-9.  The lawsuits also allege,
among other things, that the Company aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits seek various
forms of relief, including but not limited to, rescission of the
transaction, damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 7, 2014, following expedited discovery, the parties in
the consolidated Delaware action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("the MOU"), which sets forth the parties' agreement
in principle for a settlement of those actions. The settlement
contemplated by the MOU will include, among other things, a
release of all claims relating to the Company's acquisition of
Cadence as set forth in the MOU. The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, including, among other things, final court
approval following notice to the class. There have been no
substantive proceedings in any of the California actions.

On July 29, 2014, the Militello case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

Mallinckrodt plc, and its subsidiaries is a global company that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and
specialty generic pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical
ingredients ("API") and diagnostic imaging agents.


MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: Agreement Reached in Questcor Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited 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 27, 2014, that since the
announcement of the merger with Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on
April 7, 2014, several putative class actions have been filed by
purported holders of Questcor common stock in connection with the
Company's proposed acquisition of Questcor (Hansen v. Thompson, et
al., Heng v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Buck v.
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Ellerbeck v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., Yokem v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Richter v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Tramantano v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Crippen v.
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Patel v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Postow v. Questcor
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.).

The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014. The consolidated
complaint names as defendants, and generally alleges that, the
directors of Questcor breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the acquisition by, among other things, agreeing
to sell Questcor for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an
inadequate process. The consolidated complaint also alleges that
the Questcor directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to disclose purportedly material information to shareholders in
connection with the merger. The consolidated complaint also
alleges, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit seeks
various forms of relief, including but not limited to, an order
enjoining the shareholder vote relating to the acquisition,
rescission of the transaction if consummated, damages and
attorney's fees and costs.

In addition, plaintiffs in a prior-pending derivative litigation,
In re Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, filed an application to lift the stay of
that action in order to file an amended complaint alleging that
the board of directors of Questcor breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the acquisition.

On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their motion.
Questcor believes that the standing of the plaintiffs in the
Derivative Action will likely be terminated upon the closing of
the Merger.

On July 29, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Questcor agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with the Company,
which are contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on July 30, 2014.

Additionally, as part of the settlement and pursuant to the
memorandum of understanding, the Company agreed to forbear from
exercising certain rights under the Merger Agreement with
Questcor, as follows: the four business day period referenced in
Section 5.3(e) of the Merger Agreement will be reduced to three
business days. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The Comopany said, "The stipulation of settlement will be subject
to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event
that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the California Superior Court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosures made in
connection therewith, including the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the Questcor acquisition,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that the they shall
negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees
and expense that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with the actions. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the California Superior Court will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding may be terminated."

Mallinckrodt plc, and its subsidiaries is a global company that
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both branded and
specialty generic pharmaceuticals, active pharmaceutical
ingredients ("API") and diagnostic imaging agents.


MARRONE BIO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Eastern District of California, and docketed under
14-cv-02055, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Marrone securities between March 6, 2014
and September 2, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Marrone securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 4, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Marrone makes bio-based pest management and plant health products.
Bio-based products are comprised of naturally occurring
microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, and plant extracts.
The Company targets the major markets that use conventional
chemical pesticides, including certain agricultural and water
markets, where the bio-based products are used as substitutes for,
or in connection with, conventional chemical pesticides.  Marrone
also targets new markets for which there are no available
conventional chemical pesticides, the use of conventional chemical
products may not be desirable or permissible because of health and
environmental concerns or the development of pest resistance has
reduced the efficacy of conventional chemical pesticides.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (1)
Marrone's financial statements contained errors related to the
improper recognition of revenues; (2) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing, among other things, that some of its previously issued
financial statements should no longer be relied upon as being in
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.50, or over 44%, to
close at $3.15 on September 3, 2014.

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


MARRONE BIO: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 8 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. common stock during the period
between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 5, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/marrone/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Marrone and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Marrone makes bio-based pest management and plant health products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted
adverse facts about Marrone's business and financial results,
including that Marrone had overstated its fourth quarter and
fiscal 2013 revenues by $870,000 by improperly recognizing revenue
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles, which
the financial reports and reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed
during the Class Period claimed to have been prepared in
compliance with; that the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal 2013
net loss was materially understated; and that Marrone was not on
track to achieve the financial results it claimed to be on track
to achieve during the Class Period.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class
Period, Marrone stock traded at inflated prices, reaching an
intraday high of $15.00 per share in March 2014.

On September 3, 2014, the Company issued a press release
"announc[ing] that, at the recommendation of management, the Audit
Committee of its Board of Directors ha[d] commenced an internal
investigation after management learned of documents calling into
question the recognition of revenue in the fourth quarter of 2013
for an $870,000 transaction," and that the "Audit Committee ha[d]
retained independent legal advisers to assist it in this
investigation."  The release also disclosed that "the Audit
Committee ha[d already] determined that the company's financial
statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, the
unaudited interim financial statements for the three month period
ended March 31, 2014 and the three- and six- month periods ended
June 30, 2014, should no longer be relied upon as being in
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles."  On
this news, the price of Marrone stock fell $2.50 per share to
close at $3.15 per share on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Marrone common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


MERCK & CO: Defendant in 30 Vioxx Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
approximately 50 federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product
Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a result of the
use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class
action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the
purchase of Vioxx.  All but two of those cases are in the Vioxx
MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of
these class actions in the Vioxx MDL.

One objector to the settlement has filed an appeal from the
approval order, which is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to
$23 million to pay all properly documented claims submitted by
class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved
settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses.

The court entered an order approving the settlement on January 6,
2014. The deadline for members to submit claims under the
settlement was May 6, 2014 and the claims administrator is
currently reviewing claims submitted under the settlement
protocol.

Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys
General of four states - Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and Utah.
All of these actions were pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding,
although Judge Fallon asked that the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") remand the Alaska, Montana and
Utah cases to their original federal courts. The JPML then issued
conditional remand orders in all three cases, and set a briefing
schedule for any objections to the remand. Merck has filed motions
to vacate the remand orders. These four actions allege that Merck
misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for
expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs,
such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act
violations.

In November 2013, the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky
approved a settlement in an action filed by the Kentucky Attorney
General, under which Merck agreed to pay Kentucky $25 million to
resolve its lawsuit and the related appeals.


MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 various putative class
actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and
state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and
former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits").
The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated
for all purposes.

In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the
claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary
withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.

In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class
Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted
that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the
class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but
granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain
allegations within the existing class period.

In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action
Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended
Class Action Complaint.

Discovery has been completed and is now closed. Under the court's
scheduling order, dispositive motions have been fully briefed.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.

Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC
Lawsuit") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several
foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  In January 2012, defendants
filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the
"ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed
in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and
denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other
things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed
as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full.

In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all
individual actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day,
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on
statute of limitations grounds.

In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the
KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered the
complaint in the KBC Lawsuit.  Discovery has been completed and is
now closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive
motions have been fully briefed.

In March and April 2014, four additional individual securities
complaints were filed by institutional investors that opted out of
the class action.  The new complaints are substantially similar to
the complaints in the other individual securities lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: To Proceed With ONJ Accord at Reduced Funding Level
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax
(the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of June 30, 2014, approximately
5,510 cases, which include approximately 5,720 plaintiff groups,
had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or
state court, including one case which seeks class action
certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring.

In approximately 1,080 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw
("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such
as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in
approximately 4,430 of these actions generally allege that they
sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur
Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL (as
defined below) to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the
Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of
$27.7 million, which the Company recorded as a liability in the
fourth quarter of 2013.  Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized
the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ
Master Settlement Agreement") that was executed in April 2014.

All of plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company that they
intend to participate in the settlement plan. As a condition to
the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs must
also agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck can
either terminate the agreement, or waive the 100% participation
requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for the
settlement fund.

On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the current
participation level is approximately 95%. Merck has also
requested, without objection from the PSC, that the judge
overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL enter an order that will require
all non-participants in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to submit expert
reports in order for their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ
Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging
Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: 280 ONJ-Related Lawsuits Pending in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") ordered in August 2006 that
certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts
nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one
multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ MDL") for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax ONJ MDL has been transferred to
Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. As a result of the JPML order, approximately
795 of the cases are before Judge Keenan, although, these cases
are subject to the pending settlement.

In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the Atlantic
County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of the
Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tort
designation and centralized management before one judge in New
Jersey. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that
all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising out of
the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental and
jaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seeking
medical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralized
management purposes before Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic
County Superior Court.

As of June 30, 2014, approximately 280 ONJ cases were pending
against Merck in Atlantic County, New Jersey, although these cases
are also subject to pending settlement.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck submitted in
March 2011 a Motion to Transfer to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to have all federal
cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict
litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  The Motion to
Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving
allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to
a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (the
"Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL").

As a result of the JPML order, approximately 1,020 cases were
pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of June 30, 2014. A
Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties to review
33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from that group to
be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax Femur
Fracture MDL.

The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck, began on April 8, 2013,
and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April 29,
2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, Judge Pisano granted Merck's
motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held
that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted by
federal law. Judge Pisano set a May 5, 2014, trial date for the
bellwether trial of a case in which the alleged injury took place
after January 31, 2011. Following the completion of fact
discovery, the court selected Sweet v. Merck as the next Fosamax
Femur Fracture MDL case to be tried on May 5, 2014, but plaintiffs
subsequently dismissed that case. As a result, the May 2014 trial
date was withdrawn.

In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013
requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show
cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury
that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be
dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn
case. Plaintiffs filed their responses to the show cause order at
the end of September 2013 and Merck filed its reply to those
responses at the end of October 2013.  A hearing on the show cause
order was held in January 2014 and, on March 26, 2014, Judge
Pisano issued an opinion finding that all claims of the
approximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly suffered injuries prior
to September 14, 2010 were preempted and ordered that those cases
be dismissed. The majority of those plaintiffs are appealing that
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Furthermore, on June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary
judgment in the Gaynor case and found that Merck's updates in
January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur
fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck
adequately communicated those changes.

As of June 30, 2014, approximately 2,880 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are
pending before Judge Higbee in Atlantic County Superior Court. The
parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed
through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to
be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013
and March 2014, respectively.

As of June 30, 2014, approximately 515 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in California state court. A petition
was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in
California state court before a single judge in Orange County,
California. The petition was granted and Judge Steven Perk is now
presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, Judge
Perk directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed
through fact discovery and scheduled dates in February, April and
June 2015 for trials of three individual cases that will be
selected from that group.

Additionally, there are four Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in
state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 490 Claims Over Januvia/Janumet Products at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia
and/or Janumet. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 490 product
user claims were served on, and are pending against, Merck
alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the
development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filed in
several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims are
pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability
Litigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits alleging
pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia,
Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products
manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies.

The Company has agreed, as of June 30, 2014, to toll the statute
of limitations for 16 additional claims. The Company intends to
defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 1,940 NuvaRing Cases at June 30
-------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 beginning in May 2007,
a number of complaints were filed in various jurisdictions
asserting claims against the Company's subsidiaries Organon USA,
Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Organon International
(collectively, "Organon"), and the Company arising from Organon's
marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the "NuvaRing Litigation"), a
combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. The plaintiffs
contend that Organon and Schering-Plough, among other things,
failed to adequately design and manufacture NuvaRing and failed to
adequately warn of the alleged increased risk of venous
thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or downplayed the
risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for injuries allegedly
sustained from their product use, including some alleged deaths,
heart attacks and strokes. The majority of the cases are currently
pending in a federal multidistrict litigation (the "NuvaRing MDL")
venued in Missouri and in a coordinated proceeding in New Jersey
state court.

As of June 30, 2014, there were approximately 1,940 NuvaRing cases
(excluding unfiled cases). Of these cases, approximately 1,720 are
or will be pending in the NuvaRing MDL in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri before Judge Rodney Sippel,
and approximately 210 are pending in coordinated proceedings in
the Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey before Judge Brian
R. Martinotti. Eight additional cases are pending in various other
state courts, including cases in a coordinated state proceeding in
the San Francisco Superior Court in California before Judge John
E. Munter.

Merck and negotiating plaintiffs' counsel agreed to a settlement
of the NuvaRing Litigation to resolve all filed cases as of
February 7, 2014, and all unfiled claims under retainer by counsel
prior to that date. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, which
became effective as of June 4, 2014, Merck will pay a lump total
settlement of $100 million to resolve more than 95% of the cases
filed and under retainer by counsel as of February 7, 2014. The
vast majority of the plaintiffs with pending lawsuits have opted
into the settlement and all participants in the settlement have
tendered dismissals of their cases to the settlement
administrator. The dismissals will be filed with the courts upon
completion of the settlement administration process.

The Company has certain insurance coverage available to it, which
is currently being used to partially fund the Company's legal
fees. This insurance coverage will also be used to fund the
settlement. Any plaintiffs not participating in the settlement who
choose to proceed with their case, as well as any future
plaintiffs, in the NuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state court will be
obligated to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements
under the case management orders of the NuvaRing MDL and New
Jersey state courts. Plaintiffs who fail to fully and timely
satisfy these requirements under set deadlines will be subject to
dismissal with prejudice.


MERCK & CO: 1,280 Lawsuits Involving Propecia/Proscar at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia
and/or Proscar. As of June 30, 2014, approximately 1,280 lawsuits
involving a total of approximately 1,550 plaintiffs (in a few
instances spouses are joined as plaintiffs in the suits) who
allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects
following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar have
been filed against Merck. Approximately 45 of the plaintiffs also
allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate
cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in
various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The
federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a
federal multidistrict litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the
Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court
in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in
Middlesex County. The Company intends to defend against these
lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Motion to Dismiss Coupon Litigation Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 number of private
health plans filed in 2012 separate putative class action lawsuits
against the Company alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured
health insurers by reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts and,
thereby, allegedly causing beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced
drugs than they otherwise would have purchased and increasing the
insurers' reimbursement costs. The actions, which were assigned to
a District Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, sought damages and injunctive relief barring the
Company from issuing coupons that would reduce beneficiary co-pays
on behalf of putative nationwide classes of health insurers.
Similar actions relating to manufacturer coupon programs were
filed against several other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a
variety of federal courts.

On June 30, 2014, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part Merck's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint,
dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs' claims under the federal
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, but
allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their claims of tortious
interference with contract under state law.


MIDWAY AIRPORT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Uriostegui" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fredy Uriostegui, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Midway Airport Inn, Inc., d/b/a Best Western
Hotel and Rohit Patel, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06817 (N.D.
Ill., September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Midway Airport Inn, Inc. owns and operates Best Western Hotel
located in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


MYLAN INC: 775 Self-Funded Customers Dropped From Lorazepam Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014, provided updates with respect to litigation
involving Lorazepam and Clorazepate products.

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan Inc.,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("MPI"), and co-defendants Cambrex
Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0
million, which has been accrued for by the Company. The jury found
that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts,
Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API
supply agreements entered into between the Company and its API
supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and
Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these
drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the
Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust claims
relating to Mylan's 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and
Clorazepate.

Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two
of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On December
20, 2006, the Company's motion for judgment as a matter of law and
motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were
denied on January 24, 2008.

In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict
be trebled and that request was granted on January 24, 2008. On
February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-
defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million,
which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling
of the compensatory damages in the original verdict (approximately
$11.0 million in total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff,
reflects their amount of the compensatory damages in the original
jury verdict plus doubling this compensatory damage award as
punitive damages assessed against each of the defendants
(approximately $58.0 million in total), some or all of which may
be subject to indemnification obligations by Mylan.

Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest
of approximately $8.0 million.

The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as
legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in
abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest,
which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with
the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its
appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit.

On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings
based on lack of diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On
June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of the D.C.
Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied.

The case is now proceeding before the District Court. On January
14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional
discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
containing additional factual averments with respect to the
diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to
voluntarily dismiss 775 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose
presence would destroy the District Court's diversity
jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur
(reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages
award. Mylan's brief in response to the new factual averments in
the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013.

On July 29, 2014, the court granted both plaintiffs' motion to
amend the complaint and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded
customers.

In connection with the Company's appeal of the judgment, the
Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million in February 2008.
On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the
surety bond reduced to $66.6 million.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Motions Remain Pending in Modafinil Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014, provided updates with respect to the
Modafinil Antitrust Litigation.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery
has now closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. Additional
motions remain pending.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Facing Civil Lawsuits by Purchasers of Solodyn(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan 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 beginning in July 2013, Mylan and
Mylan Laboratories Limited, along with other drug manufacturers,
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed by a variety
of plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, the District of Arizona, and the District of
Massachusetts. Those lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs
purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers of branded or
generic Solodyn(R), and assert violations of federal and state
laws, including allegations in connection with separate
settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants of patent
litigation relating to generic Solodyn(R).

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Wants Suit by Actos(R), Actoplus Met(R) Buyers Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s motion to dismiss actions by plaintiffs which purport
to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R)
and Actoplus Met(R), remain pending, Mylan 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.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). Mylan
filed a motion to dismiss based on both the lack of personal
jurisdiction, and in the alternative, for failing to state a claim
on July 11, 2014. The motions remain pending.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4MM at June 30 on Product Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company is involved in a
number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged
personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured
and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to
its Fentanyl Transdermal System, Phenytoin, Propoxyphene and
Alendronate. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself
with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has
agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims
on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the
Company. The Company had accrued approximately $13.4 million at
June 30, 2014 and $13.8 million at December 31, 2013. There are no
assurances that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments
received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. However, the
range of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued cannot
be estimated.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


NEWBERRY EATS: Faces "Silvey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Silvey, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Newberry Eats, Inc., Carl B. Johnson, and Carol Johnson, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00162 (N.D. Fla., September 3, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, specifically by failure to pay overtime wages.

Newberry Eats, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located in
Newberry, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew William Birk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 Ne 1st St
      Gainesville, Fl 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Wins Prelim. OK of Cheerleaders Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
As the Oakland Raiders lost 19-14 in Sunday night's season opener,
their cheerleaders were perhaps in better spirits after landing a
$1.25 million settlement of wage and hour claims, reports Heather
Johnson, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The Raiders and their cheerleaders, the Raiderettes, will seek
approval of the settlement on Sept. 26 at a hearing in Alameda
County.

Lacy T. and Sarah G. are the lead plaintiffs in the class action
filed early this year in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging
that the Raiders paid their cheerleaders less than $5 an hour,
fined them for minor infractions, docked them pay for gaining
weight, saddled them with unrecompensed expenses and did not pay
them anything until season end.

The settlement fund announced on September 4, 2014, will cover 90
women who worked as cheerleaders from 2010 to 2013 during NFL
seasons.  According to a joint press release, each cheerleader
will receive more than $6,000 for each year worked from 2010 to
2012 and $2,500 for 2013 when the Raiders started paying minimum
wage and overtime.

"We are thrilled with the outcome," Vinick said. "The settlement
gives the women full pay for every hour that they worked.  It
gives them reimbursements for a large portion of their expenses
and awards them penalties under California state law."

In her original lawsuit, Lacy T. said that "Raiderettes are
required to attend all of the Raiders' preseason, regular season
and postseason home football games.  They are also required to
attend and participate in all practices, rehearsals, fittings,
preparations, drills, photo sessions, meetings and workouts, as
determined and directed by the Raiders."

Raiderettes also have to attend other special events to represent
the Raiders, without pay, the complaint said.

For this, Raiderettes allegedly earned a flat rate of $125 per
game, or $1,250 per season before the 2013 pay change.

The Raiders fined cheerleaders for wearing the wrong workout
clothes to rehearsals, failing to bring a yoga mat to practice,
losing pom-poms or not turning in biographies on time, the lawsuit
stated.  If a Raiderette gained 5 pounds or looked "too soft," she
could allegedly be benched and not allowed to perform.

A U.S. Department of Labor investigation launched in March
determined that the Raiderettes are "seasonal" employees and not
subject to federal minimum wage laws.  The agency said the Oakland
Raiders qualified for an exemption from federal minimum wage and
overtime pay requirements.

The exemption covered "seasonal amusement or recreational
establishments," which included "any such establishment that
operates for no more than seven months a year," the San Francisco
Chronicle reported.  "NFL teams play their first preseason game in
August and their last regular-season game in December."

Vinick said that the determination did not affect their case.
"The decision didn't prevent us from pursuing our case and that's
exactly what we did."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sharon R. Vinick, Esq.
          Darci E. Burrell, Esq.
          Leslie F. Levy, Esq.
          LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 318-7700
          Facsimile: (510) 318-7701
          E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com
                  darci@levyvinick.com
                  leslie@levyvinick.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kenneth G. Hausman, Esq.
          David J. Reis, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: kenneth.hausman@aporter.com
                  david.reis@aporter.com
                  elizabeth.macgregor@aporter.com

The case is Lacy T. and Sarah G. v. The Oakland Raiders, et al.,
Case No. RG14710815, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda.


PENN WEST: Wolf Popper Files Class Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Penn West Petroleum, Ltd., and certain of
its current and former officers, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of Penn West common stock on the New
York Stock Exchange during the period February 17, 2011 through
July 29, 2014, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than October 3, 2014 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased Penn West on the NYSE during the Class Period and
suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their
rights.

The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, including that the Company was understating
operating costs and overstating capital expenditures and royalty
expenses; and the Company's improper accounting practices were
causing Penn West to be at risk of non-compliance with certain of
its debt covenants.

On July 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee
was conducting an internal review of certain of its accounting
practices for "2014 and the four previous fiscal years."  Thus
far, the Audit Committee has concluded that the Company improperly
reclassified approximately $181 million in operating expenses as
capital expenditures, and had "incorrectly reclassified"
approximately $200 million in additional operating expenses as
royalty expenses for 2012 and 2013.  The Company will restate its
past financial statements for years 2012 and 2013 and certain
interim periods, and consequently, may not be in compliance with
certain of its debt covenants.

On this news, Penn West shares declined $1.30 per share or 14% on
July 30, 2014.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel.: 877-370-7703
Fax: 877-370-7704
E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


PFIZER INC: Court Dismissed Celebrex and Bextra Claims in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that beginning in late 2004, several
purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts
alleging that Pfizer and certain current and former officers of
Pfizer violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the
safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions
were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a
Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities,
Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the
court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock
between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005.

In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted
Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss
causation and damages expert.

Pfizer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to submit an amended report by their expert. In July 2014,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit an
amended report, and granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.


PFIZER INC: Accord Reached in Neurontin Third-Party Payer Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that a number of lawsuits, including
purported class actions, have been filed against Pfizer in various
federal and state courts alleging claims arising from the
promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported
class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain statewide
classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health
insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-party payers, who
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin
that allegedly was used for indications other than those included
in the product labeling approved by the FDA.

In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts, including
individual actions as well as purported class actions, were
transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-
District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices
and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of
all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly
purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for
off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions
by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers
and for individual consumers.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court dismissing the action
by the third-party payer proposed class representatives and
remanded that action to the District Court for further
consideration, including reconsideration of class certification.

In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Pfizer's petition
for certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision
reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer purported class
action.

In April 2014, Pfizer and the attorneys for the proposed class
representatives and for the plaintiffs in various individual
actions entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the
third-party payer purported class action, subject to court
approval, as well as the pending individual actions by third-party
payers, for an aggregate of $325 million.

"As part of that settlement, we also are in the process of seeking
to resolve the pending consumer actions related to Neurontin,
including the purported statewide consumer class actions in
California and Illinois," the Company said.


PFIZER INC: Lipitor PI Lawsuits Consolidated in MDL 2502
--------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that a number of individual and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against the Company in various
federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed
type 2 diabetes as the result of the purported ingestion of
Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.  In
February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.


PFIZER INC: Third Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that in June 2010, a purported class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Pfizer, as successor to Wyeth, and several
former officers of Wyeth. The complaint alleged that Wyeth and the
individual defendants violated federal securities laws by making
or causing Wyeth to make false and misleading statements, and by
failing to disclose or causing Wyeth to fail to disclose material
information, concerning the results of a clinical trial involving
bapineuzumab, a product in development for the treatment of
Alzheimer's disease. The plaintiff sought to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Wyeth securities from May
21, 2007 through July 2008 and sought damages in an unspecified
amount on behalf of the putative class.

In February 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint.

In April 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. In May 2013, the plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the complaint.


PFIZER INC: Faces Celebrex Class Action Filed in July
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 29, 2014, that in July 2014, purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain
subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs in
these various actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-
state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly
purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of,
Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation
of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs
allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of
federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer
protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on
Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact
of sham litigation through settlement activity that further
delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Celebrex since May 31, 2014.


PNC FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Lauren" Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided
updates on Lender Placed Insurance Litigation.

In May 2014, the court in Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al, (Case
No. 2:13-cv-00762-TFM), granted the plaintiff's motion to amend
her complaint to, among other things, assert a nationwide RICO
claim on behalf of the class, with the understanding that
defendants may pursue their arguments against the viability of
this claim by way of a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is
pending.

In May 2014, the complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York in Tighe v. PNC Bank,
N.A., et al. (Case No. 14-CV-2017) was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In June
2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, thereby terminating that action.

In Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-
20474-JEM), pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, PNC filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in May 2014. The motion is pending.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Court Consolidates 3 Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May
27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Farrah Case"),
and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Chaney Case"),
and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the plaintiffs in the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case collectively
referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees, Timothy
C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants") alleging
violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") in the Spring of 2014 and the FDA's subsequent
denial of the Company's application for BTD.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in
these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties
of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome
of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

By order dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating
the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
(collectively and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation")
and transferred the Securities Litigation to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Faces "Yancy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Yancy, Kevin Mitchell, Shahn Curry, Dior Welch, and
Darrell Welch, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. Prudential Security, Inc., Derek
Wroblowski, and Dan Penya, Case No. 2:14-cv-13419 (E.D. Mich.,
September 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Prudential Security, Inc. engaged in the business of providing
private security guards to private businesses and at special
events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Philo, Esq.
      SUGAR LAW CENTER
      4605 Cass Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 993-4505
      Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
      E-mail: johnphilo1@comcast.net


RALPH LAUREN: Falsely Marketed Merchandise, "Branca" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Branca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ralph Lauren Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-07097 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 3, 2014), arises from the deceptive and misleading
labeling and marketing of merchandise it sells at its company-
owned Polo Ralph Lauren Factory stores.

Ralph Lauren Corp. operates 14 Polo Ralph Lauren Factory stores in
California, with its principal place of business at 650 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE KREGER
      303 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1201
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)956-2136
      Facsimile: (212)956-2137
      E-Mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com


RJJ RESTAURANT: "Cholula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celestino Cholula, Dilman Vasquez, and Santiago Vasquez, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v.  RJJ Restaurant
LLC d/b/a Empire Steak House, Jack Sinanaj, Jeff Sinanaj, and Russ
Sinanaj, Case No. 1:14-cv-07105 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours
pay, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act  and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate Empire Steak House restaurant
located at 237West 54th Street, New York, New York, 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Vivianna Morales, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS&PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor
      New York, New York 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com
              morales@bwp-law.com


ROCKET FUEL: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nipu Shah, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter Bardwick, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-03998 (N.D. Cal., September 3, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's financial performance.

Rocket Fuel Inc. provides a programmatic media-buying platform to
purportedly improve marketing return on investment in digital
media across web, mobile, video, and social channels.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC operates as an investment bank
in the United States.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. provides investment banking and
financial advisory services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RAMZI ABADOU
      79 Woodland Avenue
      San Francisco, CA 94117
      Telephone: (415) 231-4313
      E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com

         - and -

      Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
      Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington St.
      Madisonville, LA 70447
      Telephone: (504) 455-1400
      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
              melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
              michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com


ROCKET FUEL: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Bot Blocking
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that when bots
attacked, a Redwood City advertising company made promises it
couldn't keep, according to a securities class action filed on
Sept. 3 in the Northern District of California.

Rocket Fuel Inc. employs artificial intelligence to track
consumers' online habits, and uses the data to place client ads
where they will get the most attention.  Plaintiffs lawyers say
company executives inflated stock prices between September 2013
and August of this year by telling clients they could safeguard
against the scourge of the online advertising industry -- Internet
robots, or bots, that rack up ad views with fraudulent clicks.

The lawyers argue those false promises pushed stock prices to more
than double the company's IPO price, only to plummet after
unflattering media reports and company disclosures.  Before the
drop, plaintiffs lawyers say the company's highest-ranking
insiders cashed out in a secondary February offering for a
windfall of $175 million.

"Their timing was, to say the least, exquisite," wrote lead
plainitffs lawyer Ramzi Abadou, a partner at Kahn Swick & Foti.
"Plaintiff and the class have not been as fortunate.  At present,
Rocket Fuel's shares currently (languish) at approximately $16 per
share, while the company's year-to-date performance is down
approximately 75 percent."

All online advertisers deal with the problem of bot traffic, the
complaint states.  Code-driven bots hike up ad revenue for website
owners by acting like human consumers -- clicking on different
sites, watching videos and putting items in shopping carts.  The
problem, according to the complaint, is "bots don't buy and wear
Levi's."

To effectively protect its clients from bot fraud, Rocket Fuel
would have to screen about 500 billion ad impressions each month,
an impossibility, Mr. Abadou alleges.  Executives knew of the
discrepancy, but continued to tell clients the company could
"block bad sites and pages" from ad campaigns, according to the
suit.

After news articles began to question Rocket Fuel's fraud
protection, the company admitted a problem in August.  Executives
lowered Rocket Fuel's revenue expectations because of "customer
concern about the inventory quality resulting from the company's
inability to identify and eliminate fraudulent ad traffic,"
according to the complaint.

Stock prices dropped about 30 percent following the August
announcement.


SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Ruling Over "Control" of Hotels
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas ("W.D.T.")
entered on April 4, 2013, a final judgment against Travelocity and
other online travel agencies ("OTAs") in a class action lawsuit
filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on
a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control"
hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes.

Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded
that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to city hotel occupancy
taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to assess, collect and remit
these taxes.

"We disagree with the jury's finding that we "control" hotels, and
with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the jury finding, and
intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit," the Company said.

Sabre Corporation operates through three business segments: (i)
Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for travel suppliers
and travel buyers, (ii) Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an
extensive suite of travel industry leading software solutions
primarily for airlines and hotel properties, and (iii)
Travelocity, its portfolio of online consumer travel e-commerce
businesses through which the Company provides travel content and
booking functionality primarily for leisure travelers.


SABRE CORPORATION: Provides Updates on 4 Consumer Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre 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 four consumer class
action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and other
online travel agencies in which the plaintiffs allege that the
Company made misrepresentations concerning the description of the
fees received in relation to facilitating hotel reservations.
Generally, the consumer claims relate to whether Travelocity and
the other OTAs provided adequate notice to consumers regarding the
nature of the Company's fees and the amount of taxes charged or
collected.  One of these lawsuits was dismissed by the Texas
Supreme Court and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed; one
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs; one is pending in
Texas state court, where the court is currently considering the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action; and the last is
pending in federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome
of the Texas state court action.

Sabre Corporation operates through three business segments: (i)
Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for travel suppliers
and travel buyers, (ii) Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an
extensive suite of travel industry leading software solutions
primarily for airlines and hotel properties, and (iii)
Travelocity, its portfolio of online consumer travel e-commerce
businesses through which the Company provides travel content and
booking functionality primarily for leisure travelers.


SABRE CORPORATION: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre 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 two individuals
alleging to represent a putative class of bookers of online hotel
reservations filed on August 20, 2012, a complaint against Sabre
Holdings, Travelocity.com LP, and several other online travel
companies and hotel chains in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging federal and state
antitrust and related claims. The complaint alleges generally that
the defendants conspired to enter into illegal agreements relating
to the price of hotel rooms. Over 30 copycat suits were filed in
various courts in the United States.

In December 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
centralized these cases in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Texas, which subsequently consolidated them. The
proposed class period is January 1, 2003 through May 1, 2013. On
June 15, 2013, the court granted Travelocity's motion to compel
arbitration of claims involving Travelocity bookings made on or
after February 4, 2010.

While all claims from February 4, 2010 through May 1, 2013 are now
excluded from the lawsuit and must be arbitrated if pursued at
all, the lawsuit still covers claims from January 1, 2003 through
February 3, 2010.

Together with the other defendants, Travelocity and Sabre filed a
motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2014, the court granted the
motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims without prejudice.

The plaintiffs have moved for leave to file an amended complaint
and the defendants have opposed this motion.

The Company said, "We are awaiting the court's ruling. We deny any
conspiracy or any anti-competitive actions and we intend to
aggressively defend against the claims."

"Even if we are ultimately successful in defending ourselves in
this matter, we are likely to incur significant fees, costs and
expenses for as long as it is ongoing. In addition, litigation by
its nature is highly uncertain and fraught with risk, and it is
difficult to predict the outcome of any particular matter. If
favorable resolution of the matter is not reached, we could be
subject to monetary damages, including treble damages under the
antitrust laws, as well as injunctive relief. If injunctive relief
were granted, depending on its scope, it could affect the manner
in which our Travelocity business is operated and potentially
force changes to the existing business model. Any of these
consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition and results of operations."

Sabre Corporation operates through three business segments: (i)
Travel Network, its global travel marketplace for travel suppliers
and travel buyers, (ii) Airline and Hospitality Solutions, an
extensive suite of travel industry leading software solutions
primarily for airlines and hotel properties, and (iii)
Travelocity, its portfolio of online consumer travel e-commerce
businesses through which the Company provides travel content and
booking functionality primarily for leisure travelers.


SILVER DINER: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Phillips, James Ngai, Robert Zapf, and Ian Mccully, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Emdad
Haque and Silver Diner Development, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01130
(E.D. Va., September 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act

Silver Diner Development owns and operates a family restaurant
with 17 locations in Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Francis Hennessy, Esq.
      VIRGINIA FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
      4015 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite G
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 865-5839
      Facsimile: (703) 865-5849
      E-mail: th@virginiafamilylawcenter.com


SOUTHSIDE BANCSHARES: Faces Lawsuit Over OmniAmerican Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Southside Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported stockholder
of OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., filed on June 25, 2014, a lawsuit
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland captioned
McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-
003920, naming OmniAmerican, members of OmniAmerican's board of
directors, Southside and Merger Sub as defendants. The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
OmniAmerican's public stockholders and seeks a declaration that it
is properly maintainable as a class action and a certification of
the plaintiff and her counsel as class representative and class
counsel.

The lawsuit asserts direct and derivative claims against
OmniAmerican's directors and alleges that they breached their
fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican, Southside and Merger Sub
aided and abetted those alleged breaches by, among other things,
(a) failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value for
OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b) failing to properly value
OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect against conflicts of
interest; (d) failing to disclose material information necessary
for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an informed vote on the
merger; and (e) agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude
a fair sales process. Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the merger.

On July 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case
to Maryland's Business and Technology Case Management Program.
OmniAmerican and Southside believe the claims asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


SUN HOLDINGS: Fast-Food Employees Seek OT Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Rodriguez and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report
that a fast-food employee on Sept. 4 moved for certification in a
proposed class action that claims Sun Holdings LLC and its
affiliate Sun Steaks LLC failed to pay employees overtime and
required the plaintiff to work under an assumed name to avoid
Affordable Care Act requirements.

In a motion for conditional certification, plaintiff Michael A.
Lorusso on Sept. 4 asked that notice of the lawsuit, which alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, be sent to current and
former hourly workers of several Florida restaurants that are
under Sun Holdings purview that could make up a putative class.

Since Mr. Lorusso filed the suit in April, two other former
employees have opted into the case and he contends they have
knowledge of others who would be interested in participating if
notice was given, according to the motion.

"The evidence submitted to the court established that defendants'
policy of not paying wait-staff for all the hours they worked was
uniformly applied at its Clearwater/Tampa/Temple Terrace/Pompano
Beach and Pembrook Pines facilities in Florida.  The evidence also
establishes that the putative class members were subject to the
same terms and conditions of employment," the motion contends.

Dallas-based Sun Holdings owns nearly 400 restaurants in Texas and
Florida, including Golden Corral, Burger King, Arby's and Popeye's
locations, according to company statements.

Sun Holdings contends that Mr. Lorusso has not alleged sufficient
facts to sustain the action and denied knowledge of the
allegations, according to a July response to Mr. Lorusso's amended
complaint.  In April, the company told Law360 it was taking the
allegations seriously and would be conducting its own
investigation into the allegations.

Mr. Lorusso, who worked busing tables at a Golden Corral in
Pinellas County, Florida, for two-and-a-half years, claimed
managers failed to pay him for all hours worked, and required him
to work under both his real name and an alter ego in order to
avoid having to pay him overtime or comply with certain ACA
requirements.

According to Mr. Lorusso, Sun Holdings didn't substantially
respond to his written demands for payment of unpaid wages, nor
did it provide him with any specifics regarding how he could have
been an exempt employee under the FLSA.

Mr. Lorusso's original complaint sought unpaid wages under Florida
law as well as liquidated damages under the FLSA.  He estimated
that he is owed more than $15,000.

Mr. Lorusso is represented by W. John Gadd.

Sun Holdings is represented by Nancy J. Stewig --
nstewig@broadandcassel.com -- and Kelly B. Holbrook --
kholbrook@broadandcassel.com -- of Broad and Cassel.

The suit is Michael A. Lorusso v. Sun Holdings LLC, et al., case
number 8:14-cv-00822, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.


THORATEC CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss Cooper Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec 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 28, 2014, that the Company and three
of its present and former officers were named as defendants in a
complaint filed on January 24, 2014, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. The action,
entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360, is a
putative class action brought on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between April 29, 2010, and November 27, 2013,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

On April 21, 2014, the Court appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead
Plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint ("Complaint"), adding
a former officer of the Company as a defendant.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made false or misleading statements in various SEC filings, press
releases, earnings calls, and healthcare conferences regarding the
Company's business and outlook, focusing primarily on Defendants'
alleged failure to disclose that the HeartMate II Left Ventricular
Assist Device had a purported increased rate of pump thrombosis
during the Class Period. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages,
among other relief.

Defendants will file a motion to dismiss the Complaint by August
19, 2014.

"Although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain,
based on the information currently available, we do not believe
the ultimate resolution of this action will have a material effect
on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations,"
the Company said.

Thoratec develops, manufactures and markets proprietary medical
devices used for mechanical circulatory support ("MCS") for the
treatment of heart failure ("HF") patients.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Unit Named as Defendant in Telexfree Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, 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 ProPay, Inc.
("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of
a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in
several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities
of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. Telexfree is
a former merchant customer of ProPay.

With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper
activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have
legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy
protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. A motion to consolidate these
proceedings has been filed by one of the plaintiffs, but has not
yet been addressed by the court.

Total System Services provides payment processing, merchant
services and related payment services to financial and
nonfinancial institutions, generally under long-term processing
contracts.  The Company also provides general-purpose reloadable
(GPR) prepaid debit cards and payroll cards and alternative
financial services to underbanked consumers.


TRUSTMARK CORP: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Dismiss OSIC Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), has been named as a
defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford
Financial Group.

The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on
August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB
and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark
as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of
fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities
controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford
Financial Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to
alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the
Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud
on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known
the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and
fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.
Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.

In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, and the motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed by all parties.  The court has not yet ruled on TNB's
motion to dismiss.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.

The court has not yet ruled on TNB's motion to dismiss the OSIC's
claims.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009
in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually
by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine
Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as
Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not
affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The complaint seeks to
recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result
of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to
other damages) under various theories and causes of action,
including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance,
conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary,
securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does not
quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.

In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.

TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February
28, 2012.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously disclosed by Trustmark.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Settlement Funds in Overdraft Suit Distributed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank (TNB), was the defendant in
two putative class actions challenging TNB's practices regarding
"overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds" fees charged by TNB in
connection with customer use of debit cards, including TNB's order
of processing transactions, notices and calculations of charges,
and calculations of fees.  Both of those cases have now been
dismissed pursuant to a court-approved class action settlement.
The period has ended in which any party could appeal the order
approving the settlement.

The settlement of $4.0 million, or $2.5 million net of taxes, was
included in other noninterest expense for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.  The Settlement Administrator has begun distributing the
settlement funds.  The settlement resolved potential claims of
more than 100,000 class members.

A total of sixteen customers excluded themselves from the class
action settlement.  None of those customers have subsequently
asserted any claim or made demands on TNB due to overdraft or non-
sufficient funds fees.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Concedes Error in Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that being a
federal judge means never having to admit you're wrong -- at least
not until an appeals court forces the issue.  That makes an order
issued on Sept. 4 by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the
Northern District of California somewhat extraordinary.

Unwinding his own 2013 order, Judge Chen quashed nationwide class
claims against Uber Technologies Inc., conceding he had relied on
a "fundamental misreading" of key case law in allowing out-of-
state drivers to pursue claims under California law.

"The court now concludes that its earlier holding was in error,
and that the California statutes involved in this action do not
apply extra-territorially," Judge Chen wrote in a 22-page order.

In December, Judge Chen had given out-of-state drivers the green
light, relying on their agreement with Uber, which provides for
disputes to be resolved under California law.  That agreement, he
held, trumped the usual presumption against out-of-state
application.

But U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria took a starkly different
view of the law last month in a similar suit against Lyft and it
appears Judge Chen was paying attention.

Citing Judge Chhabria's order, Judge Chen wrote "a contractual
choice of law provision that incorporates California law
presumably incorporates all of California law -- including
California's presumption against extraterritorial application."

Judge Chen's new order in O'Connor v. Uber, 13-3826, also granted
judgment to Uber on several other points.  Judge Chen tossed
plaintiffs' claims that Uber tortiously interfered with the
relationship between drivers and Uber customers by failing to
remit all gratuities to drivers and that Uber violated an implied-
in-fact contract with its customers.

Still, the order allows claims to proceed on behalf of California
drivers under the state's Unfair Competition Law and labor code.
Massachusetts-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents
both the Uber and Lyft drivers, said she plans to appeal Judge
Chen's ruling.

"I don't think this is the end of the story," she said.
Drivers sued Uber in 2013, accusing the company of shortchanging
them on tips and expenses.  The company, represented by Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, contends its drivers are contractors, not
employees, and therefore not entitled to recoup those costs.
Chen rejected Uber's motion to dismiss in December and sided with
plaintiffs that California law should govern the claims of out-of-
state drivers.  He cited a 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit case, Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation, to
support his conclusion.

But on Sept. 4, Judge Chen conceded he misread Gravquick.

"The court in Gravquick did not hold that a California choice of
law provision can overcome the presumption against extra-
territorial application of California law," Judge Chen wrote.
"Instead, the court recognized that parties' agreement to apply
California law must yield in those circumstances where the law in
question contains 'geographical limitations.'"

Ms. Liss-Riordan said she disagrees that the applicable California
employment laws contain "geographical limitations."  The statutes
do not explicitly say they may be applied outside of California,
but neither do they say that they can't, she said.

Uber's lead attorney, Morgan Lewis partner Robert Hendricks --
rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- was in arbitration on Sept. 4 and
did not respond to phone and email messages requesting comment.
An Uber spokesman said the company was pleased.

"[The] decision is a victory across the board for the countless
riders and drivers that rely on Uber," Lane Kasselman wrote in an
email.


ULTIMATE VACATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Texas Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Shields, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ultimate Vacation Group LLC d/b/a Royal Bahamas Cruise
Line, Case No. 3:14-cv-00285 (S.D. Tex., September 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically by contacting the Plaintiff
and Class members on their cellular or residential telephones for
non-emergency purposes via an automatic telephone dialing system
as defined and/ by using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Edwards Wynne, Esq.
      Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq.
      WYNNE & WYNNE LLP
      1021 Main Street, Suite 1275
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-8835
      Facsimile: (713) 227-6205
      E-mail: dwynne@wynne-law.com
              kwynne@wynne-law.com


US NAVY: Nonliturgical Protestant Chaplains Class Not Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a class of nonliturgical Protestant
chaplains who allege the U.S. Navy discriminated against them by
employing a secret voting system that creates a bias in favor of
promoting Catholics and liturgical Protestants.

A group of 65 current and former nonliturgical Protestant
chaplains sued the Navy claiming liturgical chaplains are 10
percent more likely to be recommended for promotion if a chaplain
of their same denomination sits on the Navy's selection board,
whose members cast secret votes of confidence.

The D.C. Circuit revived in November 2012 the Baptist,
Evangelical, Pentecostal and Charismatic Navy chaplains' claims,
which allegedly date back to 1976.

While other branches of the Armed Services use public voting, the
Navy's secret voting system allows chaplains to essentially veto a
candidate of a different religion by voting a zero level of
confidence, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs renewed on Dec. 4, 2012, their motion to certify a
class of up to 2,500 chaplains whose careers the voting system
allegedly injured or may injure in the future.

But U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler refused to preliminarily
enjoin the voting process Feb. 28, 2013, finding that the
chaplains provided no evidence of intentional discrimination.

Last week she declined to certify the class, finding that the
plaintiffs' individual anecdotes "vary widely" and thus eschew
commonality requirements.

Some plaintiffs say "they were discriminated against because they
believe themselves to be more qualified than chaplains of
different faiths who fared better in the Chaplain Corps' personnel
system," Kessler wrote.  "Others complain of poor fitness reports
and unfavorable work assignments issued by their superiors, which
they blame on interpersonal disputes combined with religious
animosity, retaliation, and/or racial or gender discrimination.
Yet others tell extended narratives of local command officers or
senior chaplains interfering with their ministry efforts, prayer,
or worship styles for a variety of reasons they attribute to
religious hostility."

The chaplains' "decentralized system" across 500 locations neither
demonstrates a common "culture of prejudice," the ruling states.

"Insofar as plaintiffs challenge facially neutral policies, such
as secret voting, the small size of selection boards, and the
practice of appointing two chaplains to each board, they cannot
prevail unless they establish that the policies are motivated by
discriminatory intent, lack a rational basis, or 'appear to
endorse religion in the eyes of a "reasonable observer"' (emphasis
in original)," Kessler wrote.  "As our Court of Appeals recently
concluded, plaintiffs either do not allege or have not shown a
likelihood of success on the merits as to any of these theories."

Here, the plaintiffs have not shown that they are adequate class
representatives, the judge held.

"Plaintiffs' readiness to draw divisions among members of the
proposed class strongly indicates that they cannot be fair and
impartial representatives of the class as a whole," Kessler wrote.
"Baptist class members (or those of other 'liberal' faiths) might
have legitimate concerns that plaintiffs will not zealously
represent their interests."  (Parentheses in original).

The court also tossed the plaintiffs' claim that, until 2001, the
Navy used a "Thirds Policy" under which it reserved 35 percent of
chaplain accessions to liturgical Protestants, 35 percent to
"nonliturgical faith groups," and 30 percent to "others,"
including Catholics.

The case is In Re: Navy Chaplaincy, Case No. 1:07-mc-269 (GK), in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.


VETERANS AFFAIRS: Wins Judgment in Suit Alleging Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
A former Department of Veterans Affairs employee cannot prove he
was subjected to a hostile work environment or that the VA
retaliated against him for filing an EEO complaint, reports
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Ronald Beavers worked for the Los Angeles Veterans' Resource
Center as a readjustment counselor from 1997 until he retired in
late 2006.

His hostile work environment claim was based on "disciplinary
action taken against him, a confrontational meeting with his
supervisor, his supervisor's accusation that Beavers was 'not a
man,' and his supervisor's contact with Beavers's physician and
subsequent receipt of Beavers's medical record," U.S. District
Judge Stephen V. Wilson wrote in granting the VA summary judgment.

Soon after Beavers was hired, his supervisor, Jason Young, noticed
that Beavers used profanity when interacting with veterans and in
front of staff members.

Young "counseled Beavers about his use of inappropriate language
at staff meetings -- namely (1) that Beavers described an implant
that he had received to treat a prostate problem as 'act[ing] like
a nigger' and (2) that at a staff meeting Beavers said he told a
Domestic Violence Group participant who requested credit for a
class that wasn't held that 'now you want me to give you some
pussy,'" the ruling states.

After Beavers did not receive a promotion in 2006, he filed an EEO
complaint alleging that Regional Manager Dick Talbott had
discriminated against because of his age and sex.  He withdrew the
complaint two days later.

At a staff meeting earlier that month, Beavers "referred to his
EEO complaint and stated 'Fuck it, I need some more money.'  Then,
around the time he withdrew his EEO complaint, Beavers came into
the kitchen during lunch and stated, 'I guess you see I withdrew
the complaint against Dick Talbott's ass.  But I'm not finished.
I want you to know one thing, that Dick Talbott is a dirty
motherfucker,'" the ruling states.

Based on this inappropriate language, Young issued Beavers a
letter of admonishment.

That same year, Young met with Beavers in Young's office to
discuss whether Beavers was entitled to his requested higher grade
level.  Young said that he informed Beavers that he was not
qualified for an upgrade, and that Beavers was angry throughout
the conversation.

Beavers provided a different story, stating that Young screamed at
him to close the "fucking door," told him that he "better not
fucking leave and sit down and listen," that he needed to pay
Young more "fucking respect," and that Young refused to allow a
union representative to be present, according to the ruling.

After that meeting, Beavers stopped going to work for medical
reasons, allegedly due to his mistreatment at work.  He faxed a
Document of Medical Impairment to the Vet Center.

Because the date on the document was illegible, and the date was
needed for time accounting purposes, Young and another employee
contacted Beavers's physician to obtain a clearer copy.  Beavers
claimed that they then obtained all of his medical records without
his consent.

Judge Wilson ruled that Beavers could not state a hostile work
environment claim or a retaliation claim, so Eric Shinseki,
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, was entitled to
summary judgment.

Beavers based his hostile work environment claim on allegations of
Young's accusing him of not being a man, Young's behavior during
their private meeting, the letter of admonishment, and the
retrieval of his medical records.

Even if Beavers could back up his allegations with admissible
evidence, he did not show that he was discriminated against
because of a protected characteristic, Wilson found.

"Construing Beavers's argument charitably, the only protected
basis on which he claims harassment is his sex.  The only
complained-of action that makes any reference to Beavers's sex is
Young's alleged statement that Beavers wasn't a man.  This
statement does not clearly constitute discrimination because of
sex -- it could equally be construed as an accusation of being
more like a child than an adult.  Even if it was harassment
because of Beavers's sex, it is only a minor insult and not
sufficiently severe to be actionable," Wilson wrote.

Additionally, the harassment was not pervasive enough to create an
abusive work environment, as Beavers pointed to just five specific
instances of harassment.  None of the incidents was particularly
severe, nor did they unreasonably interfere with Beavers's
performance of his work.  At least two of the incidents were
disciplinary actions based on Beavers's own use of profanity,
Wilson found.

Beavers was unable to show that the incidents were in retaliation
for his EEO complaint.  Even assuming that each of the incidents
qualified as an adverse employment action, which Wilson found
doubtful, the VA provided legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for
each one.

The admonishment letter was in response to Beaver's use of profane
language, the meeting in Young's office was in response to Beavers
request for a raise, and the contact with Beavers' physician was
solely to obtain a legible copy of the Document of Medical
Impairment.

Beavers, for his part, did not offer any direct evidence of
pretext, bur relied on circumstantial evidence, which is not
sufficient.


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Filed Answering Brief in 9th Cir. Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Motricity, Inc. ("Motricity") between June 18,
2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial public offering.
Motricity, which was Voltari Corporation's predecessor registrant,
is now Voltari's wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name
to Voltari Operating Corp.

The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain of Voltari's
current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K.
Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan,
Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge
CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in
Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co
Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities
LLC.

The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of Voltari's former and
current officers who are named as defendants. The complaint
sought, inter alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's
costs and rescission.

A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead
plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011 to
November 14, 2011.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 11, 2012 and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

On August 1, 2012, Voltari filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013.

A third amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30,
2013, Voltari filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013.

On October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief and on July 24, 2014 Voltari filed its answering brief, 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.

Voltari empowers customers (including brands, marketers and
advertising agencies) to maximize the reach and economic potential
of the mobile ecosystem through the delivery of relevance-driven
merchandising, digital marketing and advertising solutions,
primarily over smartphones and other mobile devices. Voltari uses
advanced predictive analytics capabilities and real-time data
management (including sophisticated data curation and modeling) to
deliver the right content to the right person at the right time.
Voltari's unique combination of technology, expertise and go-to-
market approach delivers return-on-investment for customers.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle F. Hartley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Maria Degennero v. Wells Fargo & Company,
Wachovia Securities Financial Holdings, LLC, and Wells Fargo
Advisors, LLC, as successor in interest to Wachovia Securities,
LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05169 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate as diversified financial services companies
and financial holding companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel Meredith Haskell, Esq.
      Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER DAVIS
      18 W 18th St, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (646) 356-1011
      Facsimile: (212) 905-7726
      E-mail: rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com
              chrisd573@yahoo.com


XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly before the millennium, Xerox laid off thousands of
employees to try to save billions of dollars, but the photocopying
giant wound up with a human resources problem it described
internally as a "five alarm fire," reports Adam Klasfeld at
Courthouse News Service.

Xerox executives spoke more discreetly about the "deterioration"
caused by the three mass layoffs in its public disclosures, but
acknowledged that the overhauls went "too far, too fast."  For 15
years, a union welfare fund and two other investors have tried to
lead a federal class action securities lawsuit against Xerox, its
former CEO Paul Allaire and ex-president Richard Thoman, over
alleged discrepancies between the company's internal and public
assessments.

After filing the case in 1999, the investors fought for years to
achieve class certification, only to have a federal judge throw
out the case on summary judgment last year.

On September 8, 2014, the 2nd Circuit refused to revive the case,
in a 43-page opinion outlining Xerox's ill-fated plans:

Launched in 1998, Xerox's worldwide restructuring plan aimed to
consolidate 56 European customer support centers into one
facility.  It called for 9,000 "voluntary reductions and layoffs,"
expected to yield $1 billion in annual, pre-tax savings.  Xerox's
consumer business organization, or CBO, enacted the same year,
budgeted $30 million to eliminate approximately 500 positions,
which would save a projected $45 million a year.

In its first quarterly earnings after the first plan, Xerox
trumpeted a two-digit increase in earnings per share that it
attributed to "initial benefits from the worldwide restructuring
program."  After Xerox reported that "500 heads were captured" in
1998, its accounting firm found "sales representatives were very
unhappy" with lack of face time with their supervisors and other
signs of "disruption created by the reduction in resources."

In early 1999, Xerox introduced a new sales force realignment plan
that boded a shift from geography-based to industry-based selling;
the announcement of further restructuring caused a 10 percent
plummet in its stock price that day.

Then-vice president of Xerox's North American Strategies Group,
Patrick Fulford, said later that year that his department had
fallen under a "state of emergency."

A July 22, 1999 internal presentation depicted employees as
working under "extreme duress."

The 2nd Circuit ruled on September 8, 2014, however, that Xerox
had no obligation to spell out the problems it faced in such stark
terms to investors.

"While plaintiffs may have desired more detailed or nuanced
language, that is not what the law requires," U.S. Circuit Judge
Rosemary Pooler wrote for the three-judge panel.

Her colleagues Dennis Jacobs and Christina Reiss joined her in the
opinion.  Sitting by designation, Reiss is a district judge from
Vermont.

"We hold that here, whether one referred to a problem as a 'five
alarm fire' internally or as just causing a 'deterioration' as the
result of 'too much change, too fast' publicly, the bottom line
was the same: the public information reflected that the CBO
Reorganization was causing problems for Xerox's bill collection
and sales force operations," the opinion states.

A lawyer for the plaintiff class declined to comment, and Xerox's
attorney did not reply to a request for comment before press time.

Plaintiff-Appellant IBEW Local 164 Welfare Fund is represented by:

          Brad N. Friedman, Esq.
          MILLBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: bfriedman@milberg.com

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert W. Roten is represented by:

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LEIBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (877) 779-1414
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants Thomas Dalberth and Georgia Stanley are
represented by:

          Mark Levine, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com

Defendant-Appellee Xerox Corporation is represented by:

          Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq.
          J. Wesley Earnhardt, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Telephone: (212) 474-1138
          E-mail: sgoldstein@cravath.com
                  wearnhardt@cravath.com

Defendant-Appellee G. Richard Thoman is represented by:

          Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          One Canterbury Green
          201 Broad Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 977-7300
          Facsimile: (203) 977-7301
          E-mail: tgoldberg@daypitney.com

Defendants-Appellees Barry D. Romeril and Paul A. Allaire are
represented by:

          John A. Valentine, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006 Map
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: john.valentine@wilmerhale.com

Defendants-Appellees Barry D. Romeril and Paul A. Allaire are
represented by:

          Alfred U. Pavlis, Esq.
          FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP
          177 Broad Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-5056
          Facsimile: (203) 325-5001
          E-mail: apavlis@fdh.com

The case is Thomas Dalberth, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et a.,
Case No. 13-1658-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.


* Counsel & Heal Unveils 10 Most Dangerous Foods Based on Recalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel & Heal reports food recalls occur due to contamination
that can negatively affect people's health.  This year so far, the
United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has dealt with
at least 100 food-related recalls.  For certain vulnerable groups,
such as the elderly, contaminated food can lead to life-
threatening situations. In order to reduce one's risk, it is
important to handle food properly and cook it thoroughly.

Here are 10 of the most dangerous foods:

1. Beef

Beef was involved in two major recalls in 2014.  The first one
occurred in May when the Wolverine Packing Company in Detroit, MI
voluntarily recalled 1.8 million pounds of ground meat due to
Escherichia coli (E. coli).  The second recall involved Petaluma,
which is a Californian Rancho Feeding Corporation.  The company
had to recall nearly nine million pounds of beef and veal after it
was discovered that the company had processed diseased animals
that were not inspected.

2. Chicken

Chicken is often the subject of recalls.  In this year so far,
roughly 1.5 million pounds of chicken have been recalled due to
bacterial infections caused by salmonella and campylobacter.
These infections can become very serious. Salmonella kills around
450 people per year whereas the annual death toll for
campylobacter is around 76.

3. Sprouts

Out of the vegetable category, sprouts are some of the most
potentially dangerous products.  Sprouts tend to have a higher
risk of contamination because they are grown in conditions that
are also ideal for bacteria growth.  When sprout seeds get
infected, the bacteria can stick to the roots and grow into large
numbers by the time the sprouts are fully-grown and ready to
harvest.  Health experts recommend people at risk of listeria
infections, such as pregnant women to avoid sprouts in general.

4. Spices

Even though recalls surrounding spices are not as common, these
recalls are important to know.  In this year alone, there have
been almost 12 spice recalls and for each one, people are at risk
of getting salmonella.

5. Eggs

When it comes to food contamination, many people know that eggs
could be the source of a salmonella outbreak.  In order to prevent
getting sick, people should avoid eating food with raw eggs in it,
such as cookie dough.

6. Milk

Even though raw milk has not been linked to causing food
infections recently, several studies have found that raw milk
contains more bacteria than pasteurized milk.  The bacteria that
can be found in this product include salmonella, E. coli and
listeria.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) estimated that raw milk is 150 times more likely to be lead
to foodborne illness.

7. Shellfish

In certain parts of the country, raw oysters are a staple.
However, since shellfish are filter-feeders, they tend to gather
pathogens from their environment, which can cause vibrio
infection.  This type of infection leads to diarrhea, septicemia
and wound infections.

8. Fruit

Fruits tend to become contaminated based on how they are handled
and processed.  For example, companies that use dirty water or
fresh manure increase risk of contamination.  Since fruits are
generally eaten raw, there is not much that people can do to
prevent getting an illness if the fruit is contaminated. However,
washing fruits thoroughly is still an important step.

9. Allergenic foods

Even though people often associate recalls to contamination, many
recalls occur due to mislabeling.  Companies that mislabel foods
that are highly allergenic must issue recalls before the products
cause life-threatening allergic reactions.

10. Restaurant foods

Even though restaurants are supposed to pass health inspections,
many foodborne illnesses start in restaurants.  Restaurants that
do not follow safe food handling and cooking recommendations place
their customers at a greater risk of falling ill.



                              *********

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  * * *