CAR_Public/140916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 184

                             Headlines


1111 ROOF TOP: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Negron" Suit Says
ACE BAYOU: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs Due to Suffocation Hazard
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Upholds Class Certification in OT Suit
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Illegally Inflate Stock Price, Action Says
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Payment Treatment Practices

AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by Ventas
ARAB BANK: Expert Testified on Groups' "Hamasification"
ATOSSA GENETICS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington
AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: May Face Suit Over Provident Capital Collapse
AVON PRODUCTS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Robocall Class Suit
BARD PERIPHERAL: Recalls Dualok Breast Lesion Localization Wire
BASS PRO: Dec. 15 Final Hearing on $6 Million Settlement
BENNY'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

BP PLC: UK Gov't Seeks Review of Oil Spill Class Action Rulings
C & L REFRIGERATION: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
CARLYLE GROUP: Settles LBO Collusion Class Action for $115 Million
CATO CORPORATION: "Prince" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CHICAGO PIZZA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours

CHINA XD: Faces Shareholder Litigations in New York Federal Court
COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator System
CROSSTOWN ALUMINUM: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CYAN INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal.
DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Cavitron Suit Appeal Ruling
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Judgment in Periodontists Lawsuit
DONG LE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Chavez" Suit Says
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Stayed in "Loritz" Securities Suit
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Environmental Suit Over Plant Remains Stayed

FAYETTE COUNTY, KY: Faces "Berry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Manipulation of Propane Gas Price
FLO-PIE INC: "Elmquist" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FLORIDA: Department of Corrections Accused of Torturing Inmates
GAY LEA: Recalls Nordica Life Smart Cottage Cheese Products

GENERAL MILLS: Toxic Vapors Class Action in Minn. Can Proceed
GENERAL MOTORS: Challenges Dealers' Class Action in Canada
HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in S.C. Suit
HCSB FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Snyder" Securities Suit in S.C.
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over False Claims on "Fat Buster"

HIEP THANH: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Solak" Suit in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach
IDEVICES LLC: Recalls Pro Ambient Temperature Probes
IKEA CANADA: Advises to Check Crib Mattresses for Correct Fit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Dismissal of "Marentes" Securities Suit Reversed

INUVO INC: Sept. Hearing to Approve Securities Suit v. Vertro
JF VEHICLE: Faces "Goatacha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
LEE COUNTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARRONE BIO: Faces "Suasman" Suit Over False Financial Reports

MARTIN BROTHERS: Regina High Among Affected by Class Action
MEDX MEDICAL: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MERCHANT SOLUTIONS: Faces "McNally" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
METROTAINMENT CAFES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Antitrust, Unfair Competition Claims in US

MICROSOFT CORP: Still Faces Suit by Mobile Phone Users in Canada
MONSANTO CO: Settles Class Actions Over GMO Wheat Contamination
MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Reached in Ge Dandong v. Pinnacle
MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Stock Suit
NATIONAL IMPORTS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

NEW YORK: OOIDA's Tax Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
NIRU ENTERPRISES: Recalls Faluda and Sherbet Drink With Jelly
NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
NU SKIN: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Utah
OTRUPONCOSO PROTECTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

OUTERWALL INC: Redbox to Argue Dismissal of Late Fees Suit
OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment in Video Privacy Suit Appealed
OUTERWALL INC: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of Song-Beverly Suit
PATISSERIE GAUDET: Recalls Apple Pies Due to Presence of Glass
PENN WEST: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports

PETRUS FOOD: Faces "Duran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRIORITY HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RAMIREZ & SON: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Deepwater-Related Suit
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Medical Settlement by BP Entities Now Effective

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Plans to File Motion to Decertify Prejean Class
SEARS CANADA: Recalls One Direction Children's Sleepwear
SEMPRIS LLC: RSUI Must Cover TCPA Class Action, Court Rules
SHEUNG KEE: Recalls Soup Stock Due to Undeclared Sulphites
SHINE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says

SILVER SPRING: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Defective Smart Meters
SKINMEDICA INC: Judge Allows "Nouricel" Class Action to Proceed
SMART ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Sales Practices
SP BANCORP: Motion to Consolidate Merger Actions Filed
SPECIALTY ENGINEERING: Doesn't Pay Workers Properly, Action Says

STAMINA GRILL: "de los Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
STEAK N SHAKE: Faces "Drakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SUPER ASIA: Recalls EMB Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Expedited Proceedings for Stock Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Discrimination Against Blind People

UNITED PLASTICS: Faces "Maravillas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UNITED STATES: Faces "Steele" Suit Over Unlawful Fee Collection
UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Tax Preparer User Fees
URS CORP: La. Dismisses Claims in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
URS CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits in Delaware Over AECOM Merger

V&T MEAT: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Dismissed Pension Fund's Suit
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Retirement Plan & Trust Continues
VINH FAT: Recalls Pork Spring Rolls, Pork Buns and Pork Wontons
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over "Non-Poaching" Agreements

WEST 54 DELI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
WHARTON COUNTY: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WORLDWIDE PANTS: Former Intern Files Wage & Overtime Class Action
XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Securities Class Action Dismissal


                            *********


1111 ROOF TOP: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Negron" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Negron, Stephane Veillard, and Paul Henriquez, on their
own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1111 Roof
Top, LLC, a Florida for-profit corporation, and Jonas Millan, an
individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-23315 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, reimbursement
for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

1111 Roof Top, LLC owns and operates the Juvia Restaurant in Miami
Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert William Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail robert@kuvinlaw.com


ACE BAYOU: Recalls Bean Bag Chairs Due to Suffocation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 9, 2014
Posting date:             September 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41291

Affected products: Bean Bag Chair by Ace Bayou Corporation

The recalled bean bag chairs by Ace Bayou Corporation are round or
L-shaped, vinyl or fabric, and filled with polystyrene foam beads.
The round bean bag chairs were sold in three sizes (30, 32, and 40
inches in diameter).  The L-shaped bean bag chairs measures 18
inches wide by 30 inches deep by 30 inches high.  Recalled colors
include purple, violet, blue, red, pink, yellow, Kelly green,
black, port, navy, lime, royal blue, turquoise, tangerine and
multi-color.

"ACE BAYOU CORP" is printed on a tag sewn into the bean bag
chair's cover seam.

Bean bag chairs that are without a permanent zipper closure allow
young children to unzip, ingest or inhale the small beads inside
of the bean bag chair, posing a suffocation hazard.

A 13-year old boy from Texas died and a 3-year-old girl from
Kentucky died after suffocating from lack of air and inhaling the
chair's foam beads.  Both children were found inside the chairs.

Ace Bayou has received 2 reports of consumer incidents related to
the use of these chairs.  Health Canada has not received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these chairs.

The affected bean bag chairs were manufactured in China and sold
in Canada from January 2012 to July 2013.  Bean bags chairs sold
after July 2013 are not affected and are not included in this
recall.

There were approximately 3,500 affected bean bag chairs that were
sold in Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Ace Bayou Co.
                    New Orleans
                    Louisiana
                    United States

   Distributor      The Home Depot Canada
                    Mega Group
                    Ontario
                    Canada

   Distributor      Big Lots Corporate Offices
                    Columbus
                    Ohio
                    United States

Consumers should immediately take the bean bag chair away from
young children and inspect the bean bag chair to see if the
exterior zipper can be opened.  If the zipper on your chair can
open, contact Ace Bayou Corporation to receive a free Safety


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Judge Upholds Class Certification in OT Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
upheld the certification of a class composed of an estimated 800
Allstate Insurance Co. adjusters who allege they were forced to
forgo overtime pay.

After Allstate shifted its claims adjusters from exempt positions
to hourly status in 2005, the plaintiffs alleged that the
insurance company never started paying them overtime for working
more than 40 hours or for missing meal breaks.

Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, writing for the court, upheld the
certification of the class regarding unpaid overtime, for
adjusters allegedly not being paid wages on time and for Allstate
allegedly engaging in unfair competition.

A plaintiff seeking to prove a claim for being forced to work of
the clock must prove he or she did work for which he or she was
not paid, the defendants knew or should have known that employees
were working without getting paid and that the defendants "stood
idly by," Judge Gould said.

"The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that these three common questions contained the 'glue' necessary
to say that 'examination of all the class members' claims for
relief will produce a common answer to the crucial" questions
raised by the plaintiffs, Gould said, citing the U.S. Supreme
Court decision cited in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

For example, the plaintiffs showed there is a common question on
whether the class worked unpaid overtime as a result of an
unofficial Allstate policy against overtime reporting, the panel
said.  And the plaintiffs also showed there is a common question
on whether Allstate knew or should have known that the class was
working unpaid overtime.

Allstate argued that its liability cannot be resolved on a common,
classwide basis and that statistical modeling of the class would
violate its due process rights.

The panel rejected the argument that statistical sampling violates
due process during the liability stage in class actions.

"Statistical sampling and representative testimony are acceptable
ways to determine liability so long as the use of these techniques
is not expanded into the realm of damages," Judge Gould said.


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Illegally Inflate Stock Price, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Palm Beach Firefighters Pension Fund individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Altisource Portfolio
Solutions SA, William C. Erbey, William B. Shepro and Michelle
Esterman, Case No. 9:14-cv-81156 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014),
arises out of the Defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price, specifically by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements, and failing to
disclose material information, concerning the Company's true
financial condition and business prospects.

The Defendants and their subsidiaries are a market place and
transaction solution provider for the real estate, mortgage and
consumer dent industries offering both distribution and content.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester Rene Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
      Boca Center, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Illegal Payment Treatment Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Zevon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Express Bank, FSB, Case No. 1:14-cv-07112
(S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), seeks redress for the illegal
practices of the Defendant for unlawfully treating certain
payments from its credit card customers as late, in violation of
the Truth in Lending Act.

American Express Bank, FSB is doing business in the State of New
York and throughout the United States, with a principal place of
business in Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
      BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      Standard Oil Building
      26 Broadway, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 248-7906

         - and -

      Harley J. Schnall, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
      711 West End Avenue
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 678-6546


AMERICAN REALTY: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by Ventas
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. disclosed at its
Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, that in
connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc. of all of
the outstanding stock of the Company, purported shareholders of
the Company have filed thirteen class action lawsuits in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and the Supreme Court
of the State of New York and federal district court in Maryland
naming the Company and its board of directors, among others, as
defendants.

The filed actions are: Holzer v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003553 (Md. Cir.
Ct.), filed June 6, 2014; Romano v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003534 (Md. Cir.
Ct.) filed June 6, 2014; Brenner v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003540 (Md. Cir.
Ct.) filed June 9, 2014; Schindler v. Burns, et al., Index No.
671761/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed June 10, 2014; Frey v. American
Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Index No.
651772/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed June 10, 2014; Hamill v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003636, (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 11, 2014; Stanley v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003664 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 12, 2014; Shine v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003707 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 13, 2014; Uhl v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003710 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 13, 2014; Kuo v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003765 (Md. Cir. Ct), filed June 17, 2014; Flor v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003817 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 19, 2014, Rosenzweig v.
Schorsch et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-02019-GLR (U.S.D.C. - Dist. Md.)
(Russell, D.J.), filed June 23, 2014 and Abbassi, et al. v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-004104 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed July 9, 2014. The Stanley,
Shine, Kuo, Rosenzweig and Abbassi complaints also assert
derivative claims on behalf of the Company against the individual
defendants. The filed actions allege, inter alia, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims arising from the
proposed acquisition of the Company by Ventas and seek (i) to
enjoin the proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the
proposed acquisition is completed. There have been no other court
filings in any of these matters.


ARAB BANK: Expert Testified on Groups' "Hamasification"
-------------------------------------------------------
Several Palestinian groups accused of funding suicide attacks in
the West Bank during the Second Intifada focused on charitable
efforts like helping orphans and supporting literacy programs for
women before their ultimate "Hamasification," a Hamas expert
testified on September 10, 2014, reports Nick Divito at Courthouse
News Service.

She described one such group's headquarters as an "oasis of calm
and peace amidst the conflict, chaos and destruction," and said
others worked to "give aid without discrimination to victims of
the violence that was taking place."

It was second day Hamas expert and professor Beverly Milton-
Edwards from Belfast's Queens University testified on behalf of
Arab Bank as it defends itself against a class action filed a
decade ago on behalf of families of 300 victims killed or injured
during 24 suicide attacks in the West Bank.

The families' attorneys said during open arguments that the bank
turned a "blind eye" and bankrolled the terrorist attacks by
paying out families of suicide attackers and keeping accounts for
known Hamas leaders.

Milton-Edwards testified that she toured several of the charitable
groups' headquarters in her research over the years, and said she
had never seen any kind of Hamas propaganda in any of them between
2000 and 2004, adding that the only kind of "paraphernalia of
martyrdom" she spotted was from a poster made by the Palestinian
Authority in honor of soldiers who had been killed.

Another organization, she said, focused on building children's
libraries, while another provided literacy programs for women,
helped women manage their household budget and taught courses on
hygiene.  And although they might have been later taken over by
members of Hamas, she said such organizations "continue to run the
same kinds of services" to address the "undiminishing needs of the
poor and needy, the orphaned, health and education and support
through the Gaza Strip."

The bank has maintained that it did not know who it was paying out
when it handed out the American cash given to it by the Saudi
Committee and provided it to families of suicide attackers.  The
bank also said it never knowingly paid a suicide attacker's
family, and that it had a policy of running customers' names
through a database to determine if they might be linked to
terrorism.

Bank officials said that if there was a hint in the so-called
"OFAC" system, it would not have made the transaction.  But since
the names of the terrorists families weren't in the list, it had
no way of knowing who it was paying or why.

Arab Bank's chairman Sabih al-Masri on September 8, 2014,
testified that his bank did not provide funds to Hamas, and that
his bank was "clean."  The bank was sued in 2004 in Brooklyn
Federal Court, and the lawsuit survived several challenges over
the decade.  It's thought to be the first civil lawsuit to reach
trial in the United States accusing a financial institution of
bankrolling terrorism.

The families sued for violations of the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, a
law signed by President Bill Clinton that allows American victims
of terror attacks to seek damages.

Hamas was named a terrorist organization by the United States in
1997.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. is seeking to dismiss a consolidated
securities suit filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint,
captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-
01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the company, certain of the
Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the
Company November 2012 initial public offering.  The complaint
alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and
that the Company and certain of its directors and officers
violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material
false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's
registration statement, and that the company and certain of our
directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration
statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC
filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our
ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device.   This action
seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between
November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an
unspecific amount.

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel.  The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM.  An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014.


AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: May Face Suit Over Provident Capital Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas O'Donoghue, writing for Money Management, reports that
Australians impacted by the collapse of debenture insurer,
Provident Capital Limited are being invited to take part in a
class action suit against the business' trustee.

Compensation law firm, Slater & Gordon, announced its plan to
bring a class action against Australian Executor Limited, the
trustee of Provident, after being approached by "hundreds of
people who lost their money investing" in the company.  Slater &
Gordon senior class action lawyer, Odette McDonald, said many
retirees had lost their savings as a result of the collapse of
Provident.

"The trustee was obliged under the Corporations Act to protect the
interests of debenture holders," she said.

"In particular, the trustee was required to exercise reasonable
diligence to ascertain whether Provident would have sufficient
property available to repay debenture holders when their
investment came due."

Ms. McDonald said Australian Executor failed in its duties, and
the class action will seek compensation for the losses suffered by
investors as a result of the trustee's contraventions of the
Corporations Act.  The class action will be brought on behalf of
investors who acquired new debentures issued by Provident on or
after 22 December 2010 and who have not been repaid the amount
that they invested in full.  However, the class action may be
extended to cover debentures issued by Provident after December
24, 2008.


AVON PRODUCTS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. still awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss
the shareholder suit City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26,
2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two individual
defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements
and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's
internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as
injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on June 14, 2012.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank
PLC, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche
Bank AG, Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Bank Plc, Icap Plc, J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., Nomura Holdings Inc., Royal Bank of Scotland
Plc, UBS AG, and Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-07126
(S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendants entered
into a secret conspiracy to fix the International Swaps and
Derivatives Association fix rate at artificial levels to avoid
paying the true amounts owed when investors' ISDAfix-linked
investments were in-the-money by jointly manipulating the ISDAfix
rates used to determine the amounts due to investors.

The Defendants are financial institutions, doing business
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      Daniel Cunningham, Esq.
      Steig D. Olson, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010-1601
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
              danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com
              steigolson@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Patrick Coughlin, Esq.
      David Mitchell, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619)231-7423
      E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
              davidm@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174-4099
      Telephone: (800) 404-7770
      Facsimile: (212)223-6334
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
              ssokol@scott-scott.com
         - and -

      Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
      Ronald J. Aronoff, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
      10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-1414
      Facsimile: (212)779-3218
      E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
              Aranoff@bernlieb.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Robocall Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that plaintiffs
attorneys who wrangled a recent $32 million class-action
settlement from Bank of America Corp. are entitled to a whopping
70 percent less than the $8 million compensation they sought, a
federal judge has decided.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of
California was unsparing in his dissection of the fees requested
by 10 law firms that took on Bank of America on behalf of
plaintiffs alleging they were harassed by the bank's debt-
collection robocalls.  In the end, using the lodestar method,
Judge Davila found just $2.4 million in fees to be justified.

Judge Davila devoted about half of his 22-page order granting
final approval to the deal to the matter of legal fees.  His
Aug. 29 order in Rose v. Bank of America also found fault with the
non-monetary "prospective relief" to which the bank agreed in
order to prevent future violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act that prohibits automated calls or texts to
consumers without their prior consent.

The judge's criticism of the fees was wide-ranging.  He questioned
the participation of so many firms, along with the total of 18
attorneys and eight paralegals.  While not quibbling about the
hourly fees charged, he found the number of hours billed to be
bloated and duplicative.  One example he highlighted: The
"particularly excessive" 800 total hours in settlement
negotiations and mediation spent by representatives for all firms.
"In the Court's experience, there is little reason why so many
attorneys would need to be present," Judge Davila wrote, and
reduced the hours billed to 400.

The judge also criticized the distribution of hours worked; of the
2,560 hours reported, 1,670 were billed by attorneys with rates of
more than $500 an hour, while only 890 hours were billed by those
with lower rates.  "Few clients would stand for such an
inefficient allocation of time," Judge Davila wrote.

He also found little to like in the "nominal" changes the bank
agreed to in order to prevent future TCPA violations.  Because the
bank will continue to use the definition of "prior express
consent" that got it in trouble to begin with, "it would appear
that most, perhaps all, Class Members will continue receiving
automated calls," Judge Davila wrote.

"Because the primary goal of this litigation, as described by
Class Counsel, was to put an end to these phone calls, the touted
relief falls short and is of particular concern," he wrote.

According to the judge's order and other court documents, the
firms from which attorneys served as plaintiffs' counsel are Meyer
Wilson Co., LPA; Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie, PLLC; Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Saeed & Little, LLP; Law
Offices of Douglas J. Campion; Trepel Greenfield Sullivan & Draa,
LLP; Kazerouni Law Group, APC; Hyde & Swigart; Trepel Mcgrane
Greenfield, LLP; Ankcorn Law Firm.

Bank of America's counsel are attorneys at Reed Smith and
Yu/Mohandesi.


BARD PERIPHERAL: Recalls Dualok Breast Lesion Localization Wire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 3, 2014
Posting date:             September 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41303

Recalled Products: Dualok Breast Lesion Localization Wire

Specific product code / lot number combinations of bard Dualok
breast lesion localization wires may be at risk of having portions
of the wire protruding from the packaging, thus representing a
reach of the sterile barrier and potential sharps hazard.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc.
                    1625 West 3rd Street
                    Tempe
                    85281
                    Arizona
                    United States


BASS PRO: Dec. 15 Final Hearing on $6 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a settlement
has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Bass Pro
Outdoor World that alleged it recorded certain telephone calls
received from or placed to California, which violated state law.

"The proposed settlement agreement applies to class members
defined as '[a]ll natural persons who, while present in California
and using a telephone with a California area code, participated in
at least one recorded telephone call to Bass Pro between March 14,
2012 and March 27, 2013 or at least one recorded telephone call
from Bass Pro between March 14, 2012 and April 3, 2013'," the
Aug. 5 order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement states.

The monetary consideration consists of $6 million in cash, plus
accrued interest.

No later than 15 court days following the preliminary approval
date, the defendants are to transfer the $6 million settlement
amount into an interest-bearing escrow account administered by the
claims administrator.

The proposed settlement also reflects a change in the defendants'
business practices in which they will not record any inbound
telephone calls from California area codes without first giving
notification at the outset of the call that the call may be
recorded, according to the document.  The defendants have not
recorded outbound calls to California since April 4.

"Furthermore, defendants have no intention to change these
practices, but reserve the right to change these procedures in the
event that there is a change in the law requiring two-party
consent, or there is a finding by the California Legislature or
California Supreme Court that defendants' telephone calls do not
fall within the scope of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in
whole or in part," the document states.

The proposed settlement also requires the claims administrator to
provide notice by mail and by publication, providing, among other
things, a description of the terms of the settlement, instructions
for submitting a claim, and directions to accessing the settlement
website.

Following final court approval and occurrence of the "effective
date," each participating class member will be entitled to receive
a pro-rata portion of the net settlement amount -- the amount
available for distribution after payment of settlement costs,
including attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, a class-
representative-enhancement award and administration expenses.

"Each participating class member will receive a settlement payment
equal to the net settlement amount divided by the number of
participating class members," the order states.  "Any portion of
the settlement amount not distributed to participating class
members at the end of 120 days will be paid to a court-approved
cy pres recipient."

On March 14, 2013, Geoffrey McDonald filed the class action
lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Bass Pro
recorded telephone calls made to or received from California
residents without their consent in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act

The defendants had the lawsuit removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

"After more than a year of litigation, the parties have reached a
settlement which, upon final court approval, will resolve the
claims of plaintiff and all putative class members," the
settlement document states.

The settlement amount equates to approximately $197.49 for each
potential class member for whom name and address information is
reflected in the defendants' records.

"That calculation is apparently a result of dividing the full
$6,000,000 settlement by the approximate 30,400 identifiable
individual customers who make up the class," the settlement
document states.  "However, the full $6,000,000 amount will almost
certainly not be available for distribution because of the
attorneys' fees, litigation-costs, and service-payment
deductions."

These values could amount to, respectively, $1.8 million,
$150,000, and $20,000.

"Taking into account these deductions, the amount available for
distribution to the class members could be as low as $4,030,000,
which turns out to produce a $132.57 payment to each potential
class member," the document states.

Bass Pro denies the allegations but has agreed to settle the
lawsuit to avoid the expense and uncertainty of ongoing
litigation.

A final hearing is scheduled for Dec. 15.

The plaintiffs are being represented by James F. Clapp --
jclapp@sdlaw.com -- James T. Hannink -- Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com --
and Zach P. Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com -- of Dostart Clapp &
Coveney LLP.

The defendants are being represented by Richard M. Segal --
richard.segal@pillsburylaw.com -- and Nathaniel R. Smith --
nathaniel.smith@pillsburylaw.com -- of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

The case is assigned to District Judge Cynthia Bashant.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:13-cv-00889


BENNY'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Gonzalez, Jaime Gonzalez, and Carmen Gonzalez, individually
and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Benny's
Pizzeria, Inc., d/b/a Prohibition 2138 Pub & Grill, and Joseph
Dituri, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06951 (N.D. Ill., September
8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Benny's Pizzeria, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant known as
Prohibition 2138 Pub & Grill.

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


BP PLC: UK Gov't Seeks Review of Oil Spill Class Action Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petro Global News reports that the British government is urging
the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court class action rulings
against BP for the Deepwater Horizon spill, calling the rulings
unfair and damaging to international commerce.

BP is challenging lower court decisions that require it to
compensate claimants who showed no injury from the 2010 spill.
In a friend of the court brief, the British government said those
rulings raise concerns about the "vigorous and fair resolution of
disputes."

The British government said the lower court rulings could threaten
the fairness and cooperation required for international trade,
Reuters said.

In a separate statement, BP said companies could shy away from
investing in the United States because they would be "exposed to
liability for losses they did not cause."  BP said it is also
concerned that the rulings could fundamentally change class action
law and discourage companies from settling complex cases.

Britain and the United States carry out more than $200 billion in
trade every year.  According to the government's brief, British
businesses account for 17 percent of all foreign direct investment
in the United States.

In 2010, BP established the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust
Fund, a $20 billion trust to cover damages related to the spill.

Last week, a federal court judge found BP guilty of gross
negligence and willful misconduct in its operation of the
Deepwater Horizon rig.

In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank in the
Gulf of Mexico after a well blowout, killing 11 workers and
causing an oil spill.

BP is facing fines and penalties of up to $18 billion on top of
the $42 billion in current penalties and fines.
BP said it will also appeal that ruling.

The British government's brief is not related to last week's
decision.


C & L REFRIGERATION: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. C & L Refrigeration Corporation, and DOES 1
to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01431 (C.D. Cal., September 8,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

C & L Refrigeration Corporation is a service provider of
refrigeration and HVAC systems for various customers throughout
Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Ksajikian, Esq.
      KSAJIKIAN LAW FIRM
      100 North Brand Blvd Suite 600
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 924-4222
      Facsimile: (818) 924-4261
      E-mail: john@ksajikianlaw.com


CARLYLE GROUP: Settles LBO Collusion Class Action for $115 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that after
seven years of litigation, the white flags are waving in a once
massive antitrust class action accusing top private equity firms
of scheming to drive down the value of leveraged buyout deals.
Holdout defendant Carlyle Group LP and its lawyers at Latham &
Watkins inked a $115 million deal to exit the case on Sept. 5, two
months before a jury was scheduled to hear the plaintiffs' claims.

The proposed settlement with Carlyle follows similar deals with
Bain Capital Partners LLC, Blackstone Group LP, Goldman Sachs
Group Inc., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Silver Lake Technology
Management LLC and TPG Capital LP.  The combined settlements total
$590.5 million.

Defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co., Apollo Global Management,
Providence Equity Partners and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP won
dismissal from the case in July 2013.

The plaintiffs firms spearheading the case -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi and Scott + Scott --
represent investors who claim the defendants colluded to divvy up
promising takeover targets and to refrain from outbidding each
other in a series of multibillion-dollar deals.  The case at one
point involved 27 leveraged buyouts, but a judge limited the suit
to allegations covering eight deals in March 2013.

As recently as early last month, Carlyle and its lead lawyer,
Latham's Margaret "Peggy" Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com --
appeared to be digging in for a continuing fight.  Latham argued
in a summary judgment motion that the plaintiffs couldn't prove
that collusion drove instances of the LBO firms avoiding topping
each other's bids.  And Carlyle and the other defendants long
argued that many of the plaintiffs are subject to releases in
connection with past M&A litigation that made the case unsuitable
for class treatment.

The lawyers leading the case include Patrick Coughin --
patc@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller, K. Craig Wildfang --
kcwildfang@rkmc.com -- of Robins Kaplan and David Scott --
david.scott@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott.  The firms have
yet to submit requests for attorney fees.

All of the settlements still require approval from U.S. District
Judge William G. Young in Boston.


CATO CORPORATION: "Prince" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Prince, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Cato Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-01708 (N.D.
Ala., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an equal amount of liquidated damages, attorneys=
fees and costs, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Cato Corporation owns and operates multiple Cato stores in
Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
      Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
      Robert J. Camp, Esq.
      Rocco Calamusa Jr, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building, 301 19th Street, North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0542
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: gwiggins@wigginschilds.com
              kjent@wigginschilds.com
              rcamp@wigginschilds.com
              Rcalamusa@wcqp.com


CHICAGO PIZZA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Garcia, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Chicago Pizza Connection, Inc., and Ayed Al
Farah, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06954 (N.D. Ill., September
8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Chicago Pizza Connection, Inc. owns and operates a pizzeria within
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


CHINA XD: Faces Shareholder Litigations in New York Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

These actions, which allege violations of the United States
securities laws, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and
are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and
Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-5359
(GBD), respectively.  The plaintiffs in both actions seek to
represent a class of all persons, other than defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics
Company Limited between August 12, 2009 and July 10, 2014,
inclusive.  The plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  Specifically, the plaintiffs allege the defendants
made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts
in the Company's Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended June 30,
2009 and the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31,
2009, December 31, 2010, December 31, 2011, December 31, 2012, and
December 31, 2013.  The plaintiffs also assert claims under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants as persons who allegedly controlled the
Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions were made.  The complaints seek damages
in unspecified amounts.


COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 3, 2014
Posting date:             September 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41307

Recalled Products: Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator System - Main
Unit

Covidien is issuing a field safety corrective action (FSCA) to its
Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator customers to provide new
information for the Puritan Bennett 840 Ventilator operator's
manual.  These new pages provide additional instruction and
information for interacting with loss of display events.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Covidien LLC
                    15 Hampshire Street
                    Mansfield
                    02048
                    Massachusetts
                    United States


CROSSTOWN ALUMINUM: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Wilson v. Crosstown Storefront #1, Corp., d/b/a Crosstown
Aluminum & Glass, Corp., and Abe Sabel, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-05234 (E.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Crosstown Storefront #1, Corp. is in the commercial window
installation business with an address for service of process
located at 406 Willoughby Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


CYAN INC: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cyan, Inc. faces a consolidated securities lawsuit in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco, according to the
company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company, the members of the Company's Board
of Directors, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO.  On April 30, 2014, a
substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against
the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of
the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's IPO, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.


DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Laub, DDS, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Den-Mat Holdings, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-07004
(C.D. Cal., September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Den-Mat Holdings, LLC provides patient-focused, comprehensive,
minimally invasive solutions through technology and innovation in
aesthetic dentistry and oral care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark John Geragos, Esq.
      Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
      GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC
      644 South Figeuroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
      E-mail: mark@geragos.com
              meiselas@geragos.com


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Cavitron Suit Appeal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS are appealing the
rejection by the San Francisco Superior Court of their claims
against DENTSPLY International Inc.'s Cavitron ultrasonic scalers,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the
performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which
Cavitrons were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated"
Cavitron use for "periodontal debridement for all types of
periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013,
and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued
its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company
intends to defend against this appeal.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Judgment in Periodontists Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
for a breach of express warranty claim in the "Center City
Periodontists" lawsuit over Cavitron ultrasonic scaler, according
to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The
plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to
which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court has
not yet ruled on class certification. The Court subsequently
granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs'
New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving
only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the
Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.


DONG LE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Chavez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Gabriel Reynoso Chavez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Dong Le Corporation d/b/a Shinju
Japanese Buffet Sushi Seafood Hibachi Grill, Case No. 0:14-cv-
62034 (S.D. Fla., September 4, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Dong Le Corporation owns and operates Shinju Japanese Buffet Sushi
Seafood Hibachi Grill located in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Stayed in "Loritz" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently stayed in the case Loritz v. Exide
Technologies, Inc., lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, according
to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2014.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska,
R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf
filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named
defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James
Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action
in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased
the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013,
against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E.
Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated
these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption,
lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman
and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former
Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file
their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013.
On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a
future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to
pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the
pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their
claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy.
On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous
deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A.
Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly,
Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D'Appolonia, David S. Ferguson,
John O'Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi. Lead Plaintiffs did not
name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs
purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013.
In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Senior Secured Notes during the period
August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that
certain public statements made by the Company and its officers
during these periods were materially false and misleading. The
Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of
damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and
intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to
dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge
Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety,
without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file
their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January
30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical
in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an
amount of damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against
them and intend to vigorously pursue their defense. On February
13, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2014 Judge
Wilson heard oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and
took the motion under advisement. Discovery is currently stayed
pursuant to the discovery-stay provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Environmental Suit Over Plant Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed over alleged injury caused by hazardous waste or
chemicals from Exide Technologies' facility located in Vernon,
California remains stayed, according to the company's July 31,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014.

On April 25, 2013, Zach Hernandez filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles against the Company and Does 1-100 seeking damages and
medical monitoring for an alleged class consisting of all Los
Angeles County residents who allegedly have sustained physical or
neurological injury or toxic exposure allegedly as the result of
the release of allegedly hazardous waste or chemicals from the
Company's facility located in Vernon, California. On June 10,
2013, the Company filed a voluntary petition for reorganization
pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the District
of Delaware, and the case is stayed.


FAYETTE COUNTY, KY: Faces "Berry" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Van Berry and Joshua Bedson, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. Office of the Fayette County Sheriff, Case
No. 5:14-cv-00356 (E.D. Ky., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unjust enrichment, declaratory
relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Office of the Fayette County Sheriff is a Kentucky public
agency that provides law enforcement activities in Fayette County,
Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN PA
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515

         - and -

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N. Orange Avenue
      14th Floor, P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 418-2069
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Jonathan A. Rabinowitz, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Telephone: (859) 219-4529
      E-mail: jrabinowitz@forthepeople.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued Over Manipulation of Propane Gas Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yocum Oil Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas L.P.,
AmeriGas Partners, L.P., AmeriGas Propane, L.P., AmeriGas, Inc.,
and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02453 (D. Kan., September 8,
2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount
of propane gas contained in portable steel tanks from 17 pounds to
15 pounds without a corresponding price decrease.

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business,
and owns or has access to distribution locations nationwide. Its
business includes the filling, refilling, refurbishing, sale and
distribution of propane exchange tanks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN PA
      6900 College Blvd., Suite #285
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931
      Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com


FLO-PIE INC: "Elmquist" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Elmquist, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Flo-Pie, Inc. d/b/a Mellow Mushroom, D-
Shroom, Inc. d/b/a Mellow Mushroom, John Doe, individually; and
Matt Duke, individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-03548 (D.S.C., September
4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, as well as other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, which has 3 separate
locations, within the Florence-Horry County area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER LAW OFFICE
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 579-7373
      E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


FLORIDA: Department of Corrections Accused of Torturing Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Florida Department of
Corrections tortures mentally ill inmates at the Dade Correctional
Institution, including locking them "in a scalding hot shower for
hours at a time," and beating and killing them, a class action
claims in Florida Federal Court.


GAY LEA: Recalls Nordica Life Smart Cottage Cheese Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gay Lea Foods Co-Operative Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9165


GENERAL MILLS: Toxic Vapors Class Action in Minn. Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
neighborhood of Minnesota homeowners has staved off an attempt by
General Mills Inc. to derail their proposed federal class action
against the company for allegedly failing to prevent toxic vapors
from seeping from a Superfund site into their residences.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank of the District of Minnesota
denied General Mills' motion to dismiss Ebert v. General Mills,
ruling that the residents had standing and presented sufficient
facts to support claims of negligence, nuisance and willful and
wanton conduct, as well as for injunctive relief.

The litigation centers on the Como neighborhood in Minneapolis,
near a defunct General Mills research facility that, from 1947 to
1962, disposed of thousands of gallons of hazardous substances
each year by putting them in perforated drums and burying them,
according to court documents.  Among the toxins dumped at what was
declared a Superfund site in 1984 was the chemical and human
carcinogen trichloroethylene, or TCE, used as an industrial
solvent and degreaser.

Plaintiffs Karl Ebert, Carol Krauze and Jackie Milbrandt allege at
least 200 properties have been affected by the TCE contamination,
which fouled the groundwater and later took the form of vapors
that allegedly have also poisoned soil near the houses.

General Mills acknowledges the TCE was dumped at its facility, and
from 1985 to 2010 treated two underground layers of water to clean
them.  The company is paying to inspect houses for evidence of
contamination and install vapor ventilation systems.

According to their complaint, filed on Dec. 5, the plaintiffs ask
the judge to award them compensatory and other damages, and to
impose an injunction barring General Mills from allowing any more
vapor intrusion and to compel the company to abate the
contamination that already has occurred.

General Mills contends that the federal court lacks jurisdiction
to consider the case, and that the plaintiffs lack standing and
did not allege facts establishing facially plausible claims for
relief.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Varga Berger Ledsky
Hayes & Casey; The Collins Law Firm; Siegel Brill; and Zimmerman
Reed.

General Mills is represented by O'Melveny & Myers; Blackwell
Burke; Carpenter Law Firm; and Carlisle Law.


GENERAL MOTORS: Challenges Dealers' Class Action in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
David Paddon, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that GM
Canada denied in court on Sept. 9 accusations that it deliberately
ambushed and misled dozens of its dealers in 2009 when it gave
them six days to decide whether to shut down within months and
receive whatever compensation the automaker would offer, or risk
pushing the automaker into bankruptcy protection and ending up
with nothing.

The dealers were experienced and sophisticated business people who
made their choice "with their eyes wide open" and those who signed
the deals had decided it was better to get something than "roll
the dice" and risk everything, GM lawyer Kent Thomson told Ontario
Superior Court on the opening day of the trial.

The class action lawsuit launched by 181 of the dealers is seeking
up to $750 million in compensation, claiming they could have
received a better deal if they'd had more time and better legal
representation than they received in 2009.

In the opening remarks for what's expected to be a six-week trial,
David Sterns, lawyer for the dealers, said that GM Canada broke
provincial laws in Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Alberta that
state dealers, as franchisees, must get 14 days notice and
complete disclosure if asked to sign any contract by their
franchisor -- in this case General Motors of Canada.  But GM chose
to wait, giving the dealers less time to negotiate a better deal,
said Mr. Sterns.

"The evidence will show that General Motors achieved this result
by ambush, deception and divide and conquer tactics," Mr. Sterns
said.

Thomson said that Sterns mischaracterized the franchise laws and
that the dealers were advised repeatedly that they had virtually
no chance of getting anything for their business if GM Canada
sought bankruptcy protection -- a definite possibility at the time
when the wind-down offers were made, amid an industrywide
downturn.

In another element of the trial, the automaker is suing the
dealers covered by the class action for the return of the $123
million it paid them for shutting down by the end of 2009. GM
argues that the dealers waived the right to launch legal action
against GM Canada when they signed the wind-down agreements.

The dealers are also suing Toronto law firm Cassels Brock &
Blackwell LLP, alleging the firm, retained to advise them, was in
a conflict of interest because it also represented the federal
government on the auto industry bailout.

Cassels Brock denies the allegation.

The case was originally filed by a former Toronto GM dealership,
now called Trillium Motor World, on behalf of dealerships in
Ontario, Alberta and P.E.I. that were told in May 2009 that their
dealer agreements would be terminated before their normal
expiration date.

General Motors automaker slashed its operations to qualify for
billions of dollars of government bailout money following the
financial crisis.

Both Ottawa and the Ontario government acquired GM shares in 2009
after providing some $10.6 billion in aid to the automaker.

The trial was set to resume on Wednesday, Sept. 10


HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in S.C. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties are awaiting notice of a hearing on a pending motion
by plaintiffs to reconsider the grant of summary judgment to HCSB
Financial Corporation in a lawsuit pending against it in the Court
of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case, according to the company's Aug.
8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case
No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The Complaint named the Company and the Bank
as Defendants. However, the Complaint was never served on the
Company or Bank. On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated persons were contacted by employees of the
Bank, who then solicited a sale of Bank stock. The Amended
Complaint further alleges that Bank employees did not disclose
material information about the Bank's financial condition to the
Plaintiff and others prior to their respective purchases of stock.
The Amended Complaint seeks the certification of a class action to
include all those purchasers of Bank stock who were solicited to
purchase such stock between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011.
Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for violation of the South
Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil conspiracy,
and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary
judgment in March 2014, and the court granted the motion for
summary judgment on April 8, 2014. Mr. Shelley's attorney
subsequently filed a Motion to Reconsider. The parties are
awaiting notice of a hearing on the pending Motion.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Snyder" Securities Suit in S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation is facing a lawsuit filed by Jan W.
Snyder in the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial
District, State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014-
CP-26-0204, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Plaintiff Jan W. Snyder purchased $25,000 in subordinated debt
notes in or around March 2010. After making three semi-annual
interest payments, the Company was precluded from making further
payments by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. On January 14,
2014 Mr. Snyder sued the Company, the Bank, and several current
and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2014-CP-26-0204. He is
alleging that he and a similarly situated class of subordinated
debt purchasers have suffered an unspecified amount of damages
resulting from the Defendants' wrongful conduct leading up to
their respective purchases of subordinated debt notes. There are
several causes of action alleged, including fraud, violation of
state securities statutes, negligence and others. Mr. Snyder has
brought this case on his behalf and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated purchasers of subordinated debt notes. The
Company and the Bank have engaged legal counsel and intend to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Complaint has been
filed and the Company has filed its Answer, in which it denies any
and all liability. Counsel for the Plaintiff recently advised the
company that he has been retained by a second subordinated debt
purchaser and would like to amend the Complaint to reflect this
new Plaintiff.


HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over False Claims on "Fat Buster"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals
falsely advertises its Garcinia Cambogia Extract as "a
revolutionary fat buster" on the (nonparty) "Dr. Oz Show," a class
action claims in Florida Federal Court.


HIEP THANH: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Hiep Thanh Trading, V&T Meat and Food
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

V&T Meat and Food, Calgary, Alberta and Hiep Thanh Trading,
Edmonton, Alberta, are recalling certain raw pork products from
the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.
Consumers, food service establishments, retailers, distributors
and manufacturers in Alberta, should not consume, serve, use, or
sell certain raw pork products sold by these two
retailers/distributors because the raw pork products may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

All raw pork products sold from these locations, during the
identified time periods, are affected by the recall.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

Further analysis is underway to determine if these affected
products are linked to some of the E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in
Alberta.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Solak" Suit in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak and Dennis O'Rourke, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02856 (N.D. Ga., September 4, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to secure the
Plaintiffs and class members' personal and financial information
such as name, address, credit card number, credit card expiration
dates.

The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
retailer, which headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Wellington, Esq.
      DAY EDWARDS PROPESTER & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
      29th Floor, 210 Park Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 239-2121
      E-mail awellington@dayedwards.com

          - and -

      Darren W. Penn, Esq.
      James M. Evangelista, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
      HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
      400 Colony Square
      1201 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 900
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Telephone: (404) 961-7650
      E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com
              jim@hpllegal.com
              jeff@hpllegal.com

          - and -

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


IDEVICES LLC: Recalls Pro Ambient Temperature Probes
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 3, 2014
Posting date:             September 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41279

Affected products: Cooking thermometer probes

The recall involves all Pro Ambient Temperature Probes and Pro
Meat Probes manufactured from May 2014 through June 2014.  The
probe measures ambient air and meat temperature.  The probes were
sold separately as an accessory for the iGrill, iGrill2 grilling
thermometers and the Kitchen Thermometer cooking thermometers.
The meat probe was also sold as a component of the iGrill2 set.

The probes consist of a curved stainless steel rod attached to a
mini connector by a steel braided cable.  The iDevices logo is
stamped into the top of the cord holder.  Recalled probes have
only two indentations, or crimps, in the base of the probe tube
where is attached to the braided cable.

The plastic insulator located inside the stainless steel probe is
not heat resistant and can melt and fall into food, posing an
ingestion hazard.

iDevices has received 11 reports of the probe overheating and the
plastic insulator melting during normal use in the United States
(none in Canada).  No injuries were reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or complaints related to the use of this device.

Approximately 510 units of the recalled products were distributed
in Canada, with an unknown number sold to consumers, and
approximately 48,500 units were distributed in the United States.

The affected product was manufactured in China and sold from May
2014 through July 2014 by various retailers in Canada and the
United States.

Companies:

   Importer:     iDevices LLC
                 Avon
                 Connecticut
                 United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled temperature
probes and contact iDevices for a free replacement.


IKEA CANADA: Advises to Check Crib Mattresses for Correct Fit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 4, 2014
Posting date:             September 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41257

Affected products: IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses

IKEA VYSSA crib mattress from supplier 21905 with date stamp 1418
(YYWW) or earlier.  The product name, supplier number and date
stamp are found on a label sewn onto the mattress.

IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses are designed to be used with IKEA cribs
to ensure a snug fit and safe sleeping environment for your baby.
If you notice there is a gap greater than 3 cm between your VYSSA
mattress and the crib's side or end, please contact IKEA for an
exchange or refund.  A gap between the mattress and the side or
end of the crib that is greater than 3 cm poses an entrapment
hazard for an infant.

Health Canada has received one consumer incident report related to
this advisory for a VYSSA VACKERT crib mattress.  IKEA Canada has
received five reports in Canada of a potential gap created between
the VYSSA VACKERT mattress and the end of the crib that appears to
be greater than 3 cm, posing a safety hazard for infants.  No
injuries have been reported to Health Canada nor IKEA Canada
related to this advisory.

60,472 VYSSA crib mattress of which 6,417 are VYSSA VACKERT crib
mattresses sold at IKEA stores across Canada and online.

The VYSSA crib mattresses were manufactured in Mexico and have
been sold at IKEA since 2010.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
                    Burlington
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should check the gap between the IKEA VYSSA crib
mattress and the side and end of the crib.  If the gap is greater
than 3 cm, the mattress may be returned to any IKEA store for an
exchange or full refund.  For further information, consumers may
contact IKEA Canada toll-free at 1-800-661-9807 or visit IKEA's
website.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Dismissal of "Marentes" Securities Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court of appeals reversed the dismissal of Marentes v. Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. litigation, according to the company's
Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 30, 2012 a purported class action was filed entitled
Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain
loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair
business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the
fees charged are improper.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
prejudgment interest.  On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant
and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. On December 27, 2012, the court
granted IFC's motion to dismiss and on May 23, 2014, the court of
appeals reversed the dismissal and the Company will file an
appropriate response.


INUVO INC: Sept. Hearing to Approve Securities Suit v. Vertro
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to determine whether the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida should issue an order finally
approving a proposed settlement in a securities suit against
Vertro, has been scheduled for September 15, 2014, according to
Inuvo, Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter year ended June
30, 2014.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against Vertro and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated. The
consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as "control persons." Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages
and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period,
Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material
information. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final
judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.
Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's
prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court's
prior order on summary judgment and the case has been remanded to
the District Court.  In October 2012 the District Court entered an
order maintaining the existing stay on discovery pending a ruling
on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On March 28, 2014,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this
matter. This proposed settlement is subject to review and approval
by the District Court.  As part of the proposed settlement, the
insurance carrier is expected to pay $2.4 million to stockholders
in the class. The settlement is not expected to require any direct
payment by the company. On May 14, 2014, the parties entered a
Stipulation of Settlement.  On May 22, 2014, the District Court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. A
hearing to determine whether the District Court should issue an
order finally approving the proposed settlement has been scheduled
for September 15, 2014.  As part of the settlement, the insurance
carrier will pay $2.4 million to stockholders in the class. The
settlement requires no direct payment by the Company.


JF VEHICLE: Faces "Goatacha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus A. Goatache, Juan M. Correa-Betancourt, Huberth Cano,
Marlene P. Novoa, and Ruben D. Rojas, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. JF Vehicle Transporters, Inc.,
Juan M. Ferret, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-01437 (M.D. Fla., September 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a vehicle transportation company
doing business within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      N. Ryan LaBar, Esq.
      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, PA
      2300 E Concord St
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Telephone: (407) 835-8968
      Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
      E-mail: rlabar@labaradams.com
              sadams@labaradams.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Henry, Individually and on Behalf of AH Others Similarly
Situated v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07176-AJN (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a work week
without being paid overtime compensation or minimum wages.

Mr. Henry previously worked as a non-exempt employee at bank
branches owned and operated by the Defendants, and was given the
job title of "teller," among others.

New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a Delaware corporation
conduction business in the state of New York.  JPMorgan Chase &
Co. is one of the oldest financial institutions in the United
States, and is a leading global financial services firm with
assets of $2.4 trillion, and operations in more than 60 countries,
including the United States.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a national bank and financial
services company that operates thousands of bank branches
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael DiChiara, Esq.
          KRAKOWER DICHIARA, LLC
          One Depot Square
          77 Market Street, Suite 2
          Park Ridge, NJ 07656
          Telephone: (201) 746-0303
          Facsimile: (866) 417-2333
          E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com

               - and -

          Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528-4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528-2047


LEE COUNTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Calderone, an individual, George Schwing, an individual,
Michael Zaleski, an individual, and Selena Lee, an individual, and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Michael
Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Case
No. 2:14-cv-00519 (M.D. Fla., September 4, 2014). seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Michael Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, has the
sole authority to hire, fire, and discipline his deputies,
supervise and control the deputies' work schedule and conditions
of employment, determine the rate and method of payment for the
deputies, and maintain employment records of the deputies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
      YORMAK DISABILITY LAW GROUP
      Suite 206, 9990 Coconut Rd
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (239) 985-9691
      Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
      E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com


MARRONE BIO: Faces "Suasman" Suit Over False Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sausman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone,
Donald J. Glide Well and James B. Boyd, Case No. 2:14-cv-02072
(E.D. Cal., September 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants' made
false and misleading statements about the Company's past, present
and future financial results during the annual Securities and
Exchange Commission filing.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. is a provider of bio-based pest
management and plant health products for the agriculture, turf and
ornamental and water treatment markets.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Marrone
Bio Innovations, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: willowr@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      David C. Walton
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
              davew@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      12 Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


MARTIN BROTHERS: Regina High Among Affected by Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Dewulf, writing for The Daily Iowan, reports that a local
high school has been included in the multimillion-dollar class-
action lawsuit involving a distributing company's alleged attempt
to monopolize food sales in Iowa schools.

Regina Catholic High was one of 894 Iowa schools that received
food service from Martin Brothers Distributing Co. Inc., whose
operations are based in Cedar Falls.  The lawsuit claimed the
distributing company conspired with the Iowa Educators Consortium
and its successor, the Iowa Association for Educational
Purchasing, to restrain competition in the market for retail sales
of food at Iowa schools.  Regina used the company through its
membership in the Iowa Educators Consortium.

Alan Opheim, the director of finance and operations at the Regina
Education Center, said the school was a member of the Iowa
Educators Consortium for eight years -- from 2002 to 2003 and 2007
to 2014.

Mr. Opheim said the high school was given a number of vendors as
options to use for its food service, and it used Martin Brothers
because the company was inexpensive.

Martin Brothers was also accused of violating Iowa antitrust laws
by attempting to monopolize the market.

Students who paid for food at listed Iowa-based pre-kindergarten,
elementary, middle, or high schools between Jan. 1, 2000, and Aug.
1, 2014, may be affected by the lawsuit and owed a settlement,
according to a press release issued by the law firm involved in
the case, Gilardi & Co. LLC.

Settlement members include those who purchased food at any of the
listed high schools, and these individuals could receive up to
$3.50 per year they attended, up to a maximum of $50 per student.
Mr. Opheim said the school was never officially notified of the
class-action suit.

"We've received nothing from the court system," he said.  "It is
our due diligence to get something out to our parents letting them
know.  We want that release out there immediately so they still
have a couple weeks to file a claim."

President of Regina Education Center Lee Iben said when he and his
staff were made aware of the situation they decided their next
course of action was to notify the parents of the students.

"[The lawsuit] affects everyone who was on the school-lunch
program," Mr. Iben said.  "Now it's up to the parents to decide if
they want to pursue the collection of the funds due to them."

Mr. Iben said he has had no complaints from settlement class
members since the release of the settlement, and he doesn't think
it represents Regina poorly.

Martin Brothers has agreed to pay a settlement of $1.9 million in
order to settle the claims to cover attorneys' fees and costs.

The Iowa Educators Consortium and the Iowa Association for
Educational Purchasing will also make payments totaling $150,000
through their insurers to cover certain costs.

University of Iowa sophomore Peter Rhomberg was awarded $28 after
attending Regina schools since kindergarten.

However, like Regina officials, Mr. Rhomberg wasn't initially
aware of the court case.

"There should be more awareness for students who attended these
schools," Mr. Rhomberg said.

"Because if affected students or parents aren't filing claims,
that's money Martin Brothers won't have to pay as part of its
settlement."


MEDX MEDICAL: Faces "Velez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Velez, Carlos Suarez, Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre,
Diego Medina Torres, Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Michell
Farias, and other similarly-situated individuals v. MEDX Medical
Management & Technologies, LLC a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Joseph Castanova III, William Zulueta and Maikel
Mitchell, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23312 (S.D. Fla.,
September 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

MEDX Medical Management & Technologies, LLC is a South Florida
based medical billing, coding, credentialing, EHR and practice
management company,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCHANT SOLUTIONS: Faces "McNally" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles McNally, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Merchant Solutions Group, Corp., Liberty
Merchant Group, LLC, William Morrissey, and Steven Desiderio, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07116 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 in a given workweek.

The Defendants provide merchant services, including but not
limited to, cash advances to small and medium-sized businesses and
credit card processing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
      Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
      The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, PLLP
      18 West 18th Street, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10011


METROTAINMENT CAFES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Washington, Ian Ingram, and Tatyana Brown, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Metrotainment Cafes,
LLC, Political Concepts, LLC, Jeffrey Landau, and Amy Landau, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02888 (N.D. Ga., September 8, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay all hours worked at the
required minimum and overtime premium wage rates.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1049
Juniper Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Lawrence Mays, Esq.
      Michael P. Walker, Esq.
      Thomas Jefferson Kerr, Esq.
      MAYS & KERR, LLC
      Suite 202, North Tower
      235 Peachtree Street N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 410-7998
      Facsimile: (404) 855-4066
      E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com
              mike@maysandkerr.com
              jeff@maysandkerr.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Settles Antitrust, Unfair Competition Claims in US
------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation obtained dismissals or reached settlements
of all antitrust, unfair competition, and overcharge claims made
in the United States, according to the company's July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the company's PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005.

The company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all
claims made in the United States. Under the settlements, generally
class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be
reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral
computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that
the company may issue varies by state. The company will make
available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that
are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the
state). The total value of vouchers the company ultimately issues
will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are
issued vouchers. The company estimates the total remaining cost of
the settlements is approximately $400 million, all of which had
been accrued as of June 30, 2014.

Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in
the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. The
plaintiffs successfully appealed a British Columbia Court of
Appeal decision reversing class certification and dismissing the
case. In October 2013, the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case,
which is now scheduled for trial in September 2015. The other two
cases were inactive pending action by the Supreme Court on the
British Columbia case.


MICROSOFT CORP: Still Faces Suit by Mobile Phone Users in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. continues to face the "Canadian cell phone class
action" filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, according
to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014. The litigation is not yet
active as several defendants remain to be served.


MONSANTO CO: Settles Class Actions Over GMO Wheat Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Monsanto Co. has agreed to settle lawsuits by U.S. farmers
who alleged they lost money after the company contaminated their
wheat fields when a genetically modified strand was discovered in
Oregon.

More than a dozen class actions resulted after a farmer made the
discovery last year, prompting Japan and South Korea to
immediately suspend imports of soft-white wheat from the United
States.  Grain futures prices also fell.  The U.S. Department of
Agriculture has not approved genetically modified wheat for
commercial use.

On Sept. 5, lawyers for the soft-white wheat farmers, who sued for
economic losses, told a federal judge in Kansas that they had
reached a settlement, the terms of which they didn't disclose.

James Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com -- a partner at
Washington, D.C.'s Hausfeld, chairman of the interim colead
counsel team for the soft-white wheat farmers, declined to
comment, saying the settlement wasn't final.  In March, U.S.
District Judge Kathryn Vratil ordered both sides to mediation.

Lawyers for additional farmers, who sued for losses to the overall
wheat market, were scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 9.

Patrick Pendley, senior partner at Plaquemine, La.'s Pendley
Baudin & Coffin, who represents those farmers, said he hoped
Monsanto would address their cases soon now that a settlement has
been reached with soft-white wheat farmers.

"We have not been in any mediations or discussion with Monsanto
since April," said Mr. Pendley, who added he planned to meet with
Monsanto attorneys in advance of the Sept. 9 hearing.  "Obviously,
to talk about what's to be done with our cases," he said.

Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher did not respond to a request for
comment.  Monsanto attorney Edward Duckers -- ecduckers@stoel.com
-- head of the litigation practice at Stoel Rives in San
Francisco, declined to comment.

Monsanto, which field-tested genetically modified wheat about a
decade ago, has denied wrongdoing and called the Oregon strand an
isolated incident.


MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Reached in Ge Dandong v. Pinnacle
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et
al. reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation,
according to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P.'s
Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On October 25, 2010, MS&Co., certain affiliates and Pinnacle
Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle, were named as
defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by the special purpose vehicle in Singapore, commonly
referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et
al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the
SDNY. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012.  The
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17,
2013.  On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for
permission to appeal the court's decision granting class
certification.  On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.  The second amended complaint alleges that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by
structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently
from the securities' failure.  In addition, the second amended
complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials
contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the
securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of
interest between the defendants and the investors.  The second
amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and
abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting
fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is
subject to court approval.


MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Agreement to Settle New York Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement was reached in In re Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell
L.P.'s Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On May 7, 2009, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, which is now styled In re
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation and
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY").  The third amended complaint, filed
on September 30, 2011, alleges, among other things, that the
registration statements and offering documents related to the
offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates in 2006
contained false and misleading information concerning the pools of
residential loans that backed these securitizations. The
plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs,
interest and fees. On July 22, 2014, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement is
subject to court approval.


NATIONAL IMPORTS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Camacho-Monsivais and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. National Imports, LLC d/b/a Smoke & Vapor King
a/k/a Star Smoke & Vapor and Adnan Dossani, Case No. 3:14-cv-03171
(N.D. Tex., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

National Imports, LLC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


NEW YORK: OOIDA's Tax Suit Obtains Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
Land Line Magazine reports that OOIDA's lawsuit against the state
of New York's Department of Taxation and Finance was certified
Sept. 1 as a class action by the state's Supreme Court, which is
the state's trial court.  The lawsuit challenges certain highway
taxes as unconstitutional and discriminatory against out-of-state
truckers who have paid the taxes in order to do business in New
York.

The court found that a class action was appropriate due to the
potential number of trucking businesses affected.

OOIDA's attorneys filed the complaint nearly a year ago in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Albany.  The
action names the defendants as the New York State Department of
Taxation and Finance, Thomas H. Mattox (individually and in his
official capacity as commissioner), along with the State of New
York; and Andrew Cuomo (individually and in his official capacity
as governor of the State of New York).

Named plaintiffs in the case are OOIDA and OOIDA Members Bryan
Spoon dba Spoon Trucking, Steve Bixler, Jack McComb and William
"Lewie" Pugh.

The class action lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of taxes
that impose $15 for a certificate of registration and a $4 decal
charge on all trucks using New York state highways.  The taxes are
imposed not only on New York-based trucks, which are driven
proportionately higher miles in New York, but also on trucks based
outside of New York, which are driven mostly in states other than
New York.

OOIDA President Jim Johnston says that trucks owned and/or
operated outside of New York travel fewer miles on New York
highways than trucks owned and/or operated in New York.  The
imposition of the challenged taxes results in a higher per mile
tax rate being imposed on out-of-state trucks.

OOIDA charges that constitutes an undue burden on interstate
commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.

Johnston says that OOIDA's action asks the court to declare those
taxes unconstitutional and therefore invalid and not enforceable.
The complaint also asks for injunctive relief, refunds and other
appropriate relief on behalf of the plaintiffs.

OOIDA's legal action will represent a class of all interstate
motor carriers who reside and operate trucking equipment primarily
outside New York who have paid or will pay the taxes.

Johnston called the certification of the class action a "very
positive development."


NIRU ENTERPRISES: Recalls Faluda and Sherbet Drink With Jelly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Niru Enterprises Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9199

Niru Enterprises Inc. is recalling Niru brand Faluda and Sherbet
Drink with Jelly from the marketplace because they contain milk
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
milk should not consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Gallego on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:14-cv-07115 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Northland Group, Inc. is a foreign corporation located at 7831
Glenroy Road, Suite 250, Edina, MN 55439, that engages in business
of collecting debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-4971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
              bwolf@legaljones.com


NU SKIN: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Suit in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. On April 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion
requesting that the court consolidate the various purported class
actions, appoint State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action, and appoint the law firm Labaton
Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action.  On May 1, 2014, that stipulated motion was
granted.  On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action complaint
was filed.  The company has not yet filed a response.  The
consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims on
behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against
Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and to
assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt.  The consolidated class
action complaint alleges that, inter alia, the company made
materially false and misleading statements regarding our sales
operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China,
including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal
multi-level marketing activities.


OTRUPONCOSO PROTECTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Gonzalez Perez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Otruponcoso Protection Services, Corp. and Alexis
Fuentes, Case No. 1:14-cv-23308 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Otruponcoso Protection Services, Corp. is a Florida based company
that is engaged in the business of providing security guards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTERWALL INC: Redbox to Argue Dismissal of Late Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a lawsuit over late fees charged by Outerwall Inc.
subsidiary Redbox are waiting a schedule for argument of a motion
to dismiss the case, according to Outerwall's July 31, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court
remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November
2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox
moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for
summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class
certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification
motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's
amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed
all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the
Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic
Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied
plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January 29, 2014, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave to
appeal the trial court's denial of class certification. Redbox has
moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds. The
motion is fully briefed.  The parties are waiting for the court to
schedule a date for argument of the motion.


OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment in Video Privacy Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appellate court has not scheduled a date for argument of an
appeal against the grant of summary judgment to Redbox, a
subsidiary of Outerwall Inc., in a suit alleging it violated the
Video Privacy Protection Act, according to Outerwall's July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the company's Redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon
interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of information,
holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages
under this theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012,
Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012,
the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the
extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief. On
August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's
favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for
Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The appeal was fully briefed as of July 1, 2014.  The appellate
court has not scheduled a date for argument.


OUTERWALL INC: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of Song-Beverly Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a case that alleges
violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by
Redbox, a subsidiary of Outerwall Inc., according to Outerwall's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and
recording of consumer personal identification information, and
violated the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly. A similar
complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to
privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California
resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar complaint alleging only
a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest. Redbox removed the
Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The
Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, where the Mehrens
case is pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At
the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the
named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion
to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On
January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In
January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their
notice of appeal. On June 6, 2014, the appellate court affirmed
the dismissal of the case against Redbox. The deadline for filing
a petition for certiorari is September 4, 2014.


PATISSERIE GAUDET: Recalls Apple Pies Due to Presence of Glass
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Patisserie Gaudet Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9193

Affected products: 500 g. Gaudet Apple with Cinnamon Pie with
0 56639 21890 3 UPC


PENN WEST: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin M. McKean, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., Murray R. Nunns,
David E. Roberts, and Todd H. Takeyasu, Case No. 1:14-cv-07187
(S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission materially false and
misleading financial statements regarding the Company's operating
expenses, specifically by understating operating costs and
overstating capital expenditures and royalty expenses.

Penn West Petroleum Ltd. is one of the largest conventional oil
and natural gas producers in Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
      Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
      E-mail: fqian@wolfpopper.com
              pavery@wolfpopper.com
              rfinkel@wolfpopper.com


PETRUS FOOD: Faces "Duran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Rodrgiuez Duran and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Petrus Food Brickell, L.L.C. d/b/a Pizza Rustica
Brickell and Pedro Hernandez Sucre, Case No. 1:14-cv-23277 (S.D.
Fla., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

Petrus Food Brickell, L.L.C. owns and operates a pizzeria known as
Pizza Rustica Brickell, located in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIORITY HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie V. Sullivan and Anita K. Williams, on and in behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated employees v. Priority
Healthcare, Inc. and Tiffany Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-00689 (S.D.
Miss., September 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Priority Healthcare, Inc. is a full service home health care
agency located in Flowood, Rankin County, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Carlos Tanner III, Esq.
      TANNER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      263 East Pearl Street
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 460-1745
      Facsimile: (662) 796-3509
      E-mail: carlos.tanner@gmail.com


RAMIREZ & SON: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaqueline "Jackie" Quintanilla, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Ramirez & Son Construction, LLC,
Juan J. Ramirez, and Pedro Ramirez, Case No. 4:14-cv-02554 (S.D.
Tex., September 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ramirez & Son Construction Company is a construction company that
provides construction services within the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq
      WAGNER SAENZ DORITY, LLP
      3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste 610
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 554-8450
      E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com


SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM, NRC Await Ruling in Deepwater-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
O'Brien's Response Management, LLC, a subsidiary of SEACOR
Holdings Inc. and National Response Corporation awaits a court
decision on their motion for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments in the multi-
district litigation related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response and clean-up, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s July
31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana.

The suit John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No.
2010-7437 (Division K) (the "Wunstell Action"), assert, among
other theories, that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of
his exposure to certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection
with the provision of remediation, containment and response
services by ORM, a subsidiary of the Company prior to the ORM
Transaction, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and
clean-up in the U.S Gulf of Mexico. The action now is part of the
overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("MDL"). The complaint also
seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to
those of Mr. Wunstell.

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC, subsidiaries of the Company
prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction,
respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several
consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the
overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts
various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple
defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally, and the
use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the Wunstell
Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced
master complaint. The Company believes that the claims asserted
against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit and on
February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against
them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On September 30,
2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued
on October 4, 2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and
non-substantive oversights in the original order). Although the
Court refused to dismiss the referenced master complaint in its
entirety at that time, the Court did recognize the validity of the
"derivative immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM
and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited
discovery to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii)
then re-assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all
state-law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted
in the referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of
all plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient
injury. A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was
established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule,
ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18,
2012. Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012 and are still
pending decision. In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM,
pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection
with these claims in the MDL.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Medical Settlement by BP Entities Now Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Medical Settlement entered by BP Exploration and BP America
Production Company is now effective after an appeal against the
deal was voluntarily dismissed, according to SEACOR Holdings
Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Separately, on March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP
Exploration and BP America Production Company ("BP America")
(collectively "BP") and the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on
the terms of two proposed class action settlements that will
resolve, among other things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and
clean-up related claims against BP. The parties filed their
proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012 along with
motions seeking preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court
held a hearing on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and
preliminarily approved both settlements on May 2, 2012. A final
fairness hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court granted
final approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement ("E&P Settlement") on December 21, 2012, and granted
final approval to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
("Medical Settlement") on January 11, 2013. Both class action
settlements were appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit
affirmed the MDL Court's decision concerning the E&P Settlement on
January 10, 2014, and also affirmed the MDL Court's decision
concerning the interpretation of the E&P Settlement with respect
to business economic loss claims on March 3, 2014. The appeal of
the Medical Settlement, on the other hand, was voluntarily
dismissed and the Medical Settlement became effective on February
12, 2014. The deadline for bringing a claim to the Medical
Benefits Claims Administrator is one year from the effective date
of the Settlement.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Plans to File Motion to Decertify Prejean Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. intends to vigorously defend its position
that a class should not be certified in Dennis Prejean v.
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-
01045, and intends on filing a motion to decertify the Prejean
class, according to SEACOR's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

ORM is defending against two collective action lawsuits, each
asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (the
"DPH FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
These cases, Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action") and
Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action"), were
each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as
independent contractors.  The Prejean and Himmerite Actions were
each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the
overall MDL, in which the Himmerite Action was stayed pursuant to
procedures of the MDL.  However, both the Prejean and Himmerite
Actions were severed from the MDL on September 19, 2013, and
referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial case management,
including issuing a scheduling order, overseeing discovery, and
any other preliminary matters.  On October 31, 2013, ORM filed an
answer in the Himmerite Action.  In the Himmerite Action, pursuant
to an earlier tolling order entered by the Court, the limitations
periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the action has been
tolled pending further action by the Court.  In the Prejean
Action, ORM has answered the complaint and a scheduling order has
been issued. On November 6, 2013, the Court conditionally
certified a collective class in the Prejean Action.  On December
9, 2013 the Court approved a jointly-submitted form notice and
authorized the issuance of notice to all members of the
conditionally certified class in the Prejean Action. On December
20, 2013, ORM served plaintiffs' counsel with a list containing
information for approximately 330 potential class members in the
Prejean Action. The deadline for plaintiffs to file executed
consent forms with the Court has expired. As of February 28, 2014
the Court-ordered deadline for potential class members to opt into
the class, 142 individuals have opted in. Although the Court has
conditionally certified the Prejean class, the Court has not made
a final ruling on whether a class exists. The Company intends to
vigorously defend its position that a class should not be
certified, and intends on filing a motion to decertify the Prejean
class. The Court has also not yet ruled on any of the merits of
Plaintiffs' claims.


SEARS CANADA: Recalls One Direction Children's Sleepwear
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 9, 2014
Posting date:             September 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41297

Affected products: One Direction Children's Sleepwear

The recall involves One Direction children's sleepwear sold as a
2-piece pjyama set and as a sleep tee.  The affected sleepwear
includes various One Direction image prints and was sold in red,
purple and black.

Testing by Sears Canada has determined that these products do not
meet the flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under
Canadian law.

Neither Health Canada nor Sears Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this
sleepwear.

Approximately 1,500 units of the recalled products sold in Canada,
exclusively at Sears.

The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh and sold
from Jan. 2014 to July 2014.

Companies:

   Retailer     Sears Canada Inc.
                Toronto
                Ontario
                Canada

   Importer     Splendid Hosiery Mills
                Montreal
                Quebec
                Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and
return them to the nearest Sears Department Store for a full
refund.


SEMPRIS LLC: RSUI Must Cover TCPA Class Action, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, reports that a Delaware judge has
refused to release RSUI Indemnity Co. from covering Sempris LLC in
an underlying class action alleging it violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited telemarketing calls,
ruling the insurer cannot escape coverage based on the filing of
previous suits against Sempris.

Delaware Suprerior Court Judge Mary M. Johnston on Sept. 3
rejected RSUI's argument that the underlying suit, Toney et al. v.
Quality Resources Inc., is related to a series of suits filed
before it against Sempris.  As a result, RSUI cannot avoid its
obligation to indemnify and defend Sempris in the TCPA suit, the
order said.

"The facts alleged in Toney are different from those in the prior
lawsuits," the order said.  "In Toney, an outbound call was made
from an autodialer to Ms. Toney's cellular telephone, which was
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.  The underlying facts
in the prior lawsuits, as alleged at the time the Toney lawsuit
was filed, would not give rise to a cause of action under the
TCPA."

In the underlying class action, filed in October 2013, Sarah Toney
alleges she received several calls on her cellular phone from
Quality Resources, a third-party telemarketer, after placing an
online order for children's slippers, despite the fact that she
was on the national Do Not Call Registry, according to the order.

RSUI also filed the declaratory judgment action in October 2013,
seeking an order that it has no duty to defend Sempris in the
underlying class action. Both parties filed motions for summary
judgment in February.

The parties agreed that the lawsuit meets the definition of a
claim under Sempris' policy with RSUI.  However, the insurer
argued the suit is related to prior fraud suits against Sempris
and therefore is barred by a provision of the policy that says all
claims arising out of the same situation should be considered a
single claim and should be considered to be made when the first
claim was filed.

However, the court disagreed with that argument and found the suit
was unrelated to the fraud suits filed before it by members of
Sempris' membership program.

"The court finds that the prior lawsuits are not related to the
Toney lawsuit," the order said.  "The prior lawsuits all arise out
of a plaintiff contacting a third-party product vendor, and in
that same transaction, the third party enrolls the plaintiff in,
and initiates billing for, membership in a Sempris membership
program.  In contrast, Ms. Toney placed an online order. She
subsequently was contacted by Quality Resources, a third-party
telemarketer."

As a result, the date the Toney lawsuit was filed does not exclude
it from coverage, the court said.

RSUI also failed to show that the prior notice exclusion bars
coverage, in addition to the unfair trade practices exclusion and
the professional services exclusion, according to the order.

RSUI is represented by Brian L. Kasprzak -- bkasprzak@moodklaw.com
-- of Marks O'Neill O'Brien Doherty & Kelly PC.

Sempris is represented by Jennifer C. Wasson --
jwasson@potteranderson.com -- Richard L. Horwitz
-- rhorwitz@potteranderson.com -- and Michael Brendan Rush --
mrush@potteranderson.com -- of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

The case is RSUI Indemnity Co. v. Sempris LLC, case number N13C-
10-096, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for
New Castle County.


SHEUNG KEE: Recalls Soup Stock Due to Undeclared Sulphites
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sheung Kee Trading Co. Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9219

Affected products: 40 g. N/A (Chinese Characters Only) Soup Stock


SHINE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar M. Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Shine Restaurant Corp., and Jia Gong Zhang,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06849 (N.D. Ill., September 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked in a workweek and overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Shine Restaurant Corp. is a restaurant owned by Jia Gong Zhang.

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


SILVER SPRING: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Defective Smart Meters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Spring Networks, Inc. entered into a general release and
individual settlement agreement in a lawsuit filed by California
consumers who allege that the company's smart meters are defective
and generate incorrect bills, according to the company's Aug. 8,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The company was named in a lawsuit filed in September 2010 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County
(Edwards v. Silver Spring Networks). The lawsuit claims to be a
"class action" on behalf of California consumers, and alleges that
smart meters are defective and generate incorrect bills. The
company filed a motion to dismiss this case and, in September
2011, the San Mateo Superior Court granted our motion without
leave to amend as to two of the plaintiffs' causes of action and
with leave to amend as to a third claim. In February 2012, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which the company filed
an answer denying the plaintiffs' allegations in May 2012. In
August 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and
in September 2012, the company filed a demurrer to one of the two
claims asserted in the second amended complaint, which was
overruled by the court. In November 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification. In April 2013, the court denied
the class certification motion without prejudice, but allowed the
plaintiffs to file a revised class certification motion, which the
plaintiffs filed in June 2013. The court denied the revised class
certification motion in December 2013.  In June 2014, the company
entered into a general release and individual settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs to dismiss the lawsuit against the company.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company agreed to
pay an immaterial one-time settlement payment in exchange for the
dismissal with prejudice of the pending claims against the company
and a general release of claims.


SKINMEDICA INC: Judge Allows "Nouricel" Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Feb. 5 refused to throw out a proposed class
action claiming an Allergan Inc. subsidiary concealed from
consumers that its anti-aging creams derived from human foreskin
cells pose a cancer risk, finding the products could be considered
drugs that haven't received government approval.

In an order mostly denying the defendants' motion to dismiss, U.S.
District Judge David O. Carter ruled plaintiff Josette Ruhnke's
complaint sufficiently alleged that the sale of SkinMedica Inc.'s
line of "Tissue Nutrient Solution" products containing the
compound "NouriCel" is illegal, because the products haven't
received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The judge, however, also found that SkinMedica didn't act as
Allergan's agent but allowed all other claims to continue.

TNS products are marketed for "skin rejuvenation" purposes,
according to Ms. Ruhnke's complaint.  They contain a proprietary
mix of human growth factors -- derived from human foreskin tissue
and trademarked as NouriCel -- that have the ability to initiate
cell division.  According to the complaint, human growth factors
are believed to contribute to the growth of tumor cells or other
abnormalities.

Ms. Ruhnke filed suit in 2013, claiming potential safety concerns
associated with TNS products were not disclosed to consumers and
that, in addition to lacking FDA approval, SkinMedica had not
performed required controlled safety studies before marketing TNS
products.

Judge Carter rejected arguments from SkinMedica that TNS products
aren't drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because
the growth factors they contain are "naturally occurring."

"SkinMedica promotes TNS Products as 'cosmeceuticals' containing a
mix of endogenous 'growth factors' for skin rejuvenation. The term
'cosmeceutical' conveys that a product is both a cosmetic and
pharmaceutical," Judge Carter wrote.  "A product which occurs
naturally or is derived from natural ingredients is capable of
regulation as a drug."

Judge Carter also accepted the plaintiff's argument that by
selling TNS Products, the defendants implicitly represented to
consumers that the required safety testing for FDA-approved drugs
had been performed, when it allegedly has not.

In finding the complaint sufficiently stated allegations related
to the potential health risks associated with TNS Products, Judge
Carter noted a report from the creator of NouriCel saying that
more double-blind and controlled studies are needed to confirm the
preliminary clinical effects of growth factor products.  Judge
Carter also cited the fact that the complaint stated that the two
FDA-approved products on the market containing human growth
factors provide prominent safety warnings the TNS products lack.

"The thrust of defendants' argument is essentially that the
evidence does not support plaintiff's claim," Judge Carter wrote.
"Plaintiff's allegations, taken as true, suggest that there are
serious safety concerns associated with TNS Products."

Allergan and SkinMedica argued that the complaint had failed to
sufficiently differentiate the companies to survive a motion to
dismiss, but according to Judge Carter, the allegations of failing
to disclose material facts about TNS products "unambiguously apply
to SkinMedica," and allegations of Allergan marketing SkinMedica
products as safe after acquiring the company in 2012 were
adequately stated by the plaintiff.

However, Judge Carter did find the plaintiff failed to
sufficiently plead a principal-agent relationship between the
companies, saying the complaint failed to allege any facts
indicating that Allergan's control of SkinMedica "purposely
disregarded SkinMedica's corporate existence."

Claims for punitive damages were also allowed to remain in the
suit.

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who represents the
plaintiffs, told Law360 he welcomed the court's ruling.

"It basically green lights our case," Mr. Berman said.

Ms. Ruhnke is represented by Lee M. Gordon -- lee@hbsslaw.com --
and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

SkinMedica Inc. and Allergan Inc. are represented by John C.
Hueston -- jhueston@irell.com -- Steven N. Feldman --
sfeldman@irell.com -- and Andra Barmash Greene --
agreene@irell.com -- of Irell and Manella LLP, and by Alycia Degen
-- adegen@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Josette Ruhnke v. SkinMedica Inc., et al, case number
8:2014-cv-00420, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


SMART ONE: Sued Over Deceptive Bait-and-Switch Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ayodapo Oladapo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Smart One Energy, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07117
(S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014), arises from the Defendant's
fraudulent and deceptive bait-and-switch sales model with their
variable rate customers. The Defendant represents to potential
customers that, if they switch to Smart One from their local
utilities or other energy suppliers, they will receive a low
introductory rate on their energy bill, followed by competitive
market-based rates and savings on their energy bills.
Unfortunately for its customers, following the low introductory
rate, Defendant's gas rates increase, causing Smart One customers'
gas bills to rise substantially.

Smart One Energy, LLC is a gas and energy supplier and
distributor, which maintains a principal place of business in
Monsey, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taylor Asern, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Beatrice Yakubu, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
              byakubu@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Richard Greenfield, Esq.
      GREENFIELD AND GOODMAN LLC
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (917) 495-4446
      E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net


SP BANCORP: Motion to Consolidate Merger Actions Filed
------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in two cases filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City against SP Bancorp, Inc. over a merger with Green
Bancorp, Inc. have filed a motion to consolidate the lawsuits,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2014.

Related to the Merger, two putative class action lawsuits have
been filed in Maryland, Gary W. Stisser v. SP Bancorp, Inc., et
al., in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No. 24C14003610
(the "Stisser Suit") and Fundamental Partners v. Jeffrey L.
Weaver, et. al., in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case No.
24C14003651 (the "Fundamental Partners Suit"). Both lawsuits name
as defendants SP Bancorp, the members of our board of directors,
Merger Sub and Green.

The Fundamental Partners Suit alleges that the per share merger
consideration is inadequate, and that the members of our board of
directors were operating under a conflict of interest because of
the benefits to be received by them from the merger, resulting in
a breach of their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair
dealing and due care to our stockholders. The Fundamental Partners
Suit also alleges that the company and our board of directors
breached a fiduciary duty by not disclosing certain allegedly
material facts in the initial preliminary proxy statement on
subjects which include alleged conflicts of interest, our
financial projections, additional information about actions of the
strategic review committee (formed for the purpose of overseeing
the strategic review process, including the evaluation and
negotiation of a potential strategic transaction), and additional
information about the analysis performed by our financial advisor,
Mercer Capital Management Inc. ("Mercer Capital"). Finally, the
Fundamental Partners Suit alleges that Green aided and abetted the
breach of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes class
certification, a declaration that there has been a breach of
fiduciary duty, damages, and interest and fees, including
attorney's fees.

The Stisser Suit alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the failure
to disclose material facts in the initial preliminary proxy
statement on subjects which include our financial projections, the
process leading to the proposed transaction, potential conflicts
of interest, and additional information about the analysis
performed by Mercer Capital. The Stisser Suit also alleges that
Green aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duty. The relief
sought includes class certification, an injunction against the
merger until all alleged breaches have been cured, damages if the
merger has been completed prior to the entry of final judgment,
costs and attorney's fees.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate the two cases. A
demand for jury trial has been made in each case, and a motion for
preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger pending a trial of the
case and requesting expedited discovery has been filed in each
case.


SPECIALTY ENGINEERING: Doesn't Pay Workers Properly, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Pardue, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Specialty Engineering Consultants, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, and Kurt Johnson and Dewey Adam Leblanc, individuals,
Case No. 9:14-cv-81143 (S.D. Fla., September 4, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, unjust enrichment, and
breach of employment agreement and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Specialty Engineering Consultants, Inc. is a Florida Profit
Corporation, that is in the business of performing engineering
services, including but not limited to design, inspection, and
testing services related to the construction and renovation of
commercial and residential structures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STAMINA GRILL: "de los Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo de los Santos and Ernesto Licona Perez , individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Stamina Grill & Juice
Bar Inc. (d/b/a Stamina Grill & Juice Bar) and Chris Pizzimenti,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06761 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stamina Grill & Juice Bar Inc. and Chris Pizzimenti own, operate,
or control a Juice shop and health food restaurant located at 80
Nassau Street, New York, New York 10038 under the name Stamina
Grill & Juice Bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEAK N SHAKE: Faces "Drakes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Drake and Randy Smith, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-01535 (E.D. Mo., September 8, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime liquidated damages, costs, and attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Steak N Shake Operations, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
located in 221 Bolivar, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
      DONELON, P.C.
      802 Broadway, Seventh Floor
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 221-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
      E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com


SUPER ASIA: Recalls EMB Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Super Asia Foods & Spices Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9196


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Expedited Proceedings for Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion for expedited
proceedings in In re TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9415-VCN, according to the company's July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2014.

The Company is from time to time involved in litigation, certain
other claims and arbitration matters arising in the ordinary
course of its business. In addition, since the public announcement
of the proposed business combination with RF Micro Devices, Inc.
("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five putative stockholder class
action lawsuits have been filed against the Company, its
directors, RFMD, and others in connection with the proposed
mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the Multnomah
County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts vs.
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-02441, filed on
February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al., Case No.
1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014. The other three actions were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1)
Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9415-
VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v. TriQuint
Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on March 7,
2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case
No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014. Each of these lawsuits was
filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's stockholders
against the Company, the individual members of the Company's board
of directors, RFMD, Rocky Holding, Inc., and/or the to-be-formed
subsidiaries of Rocky Holding, Inc. that will be used to effect
the mergers. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits generally
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, injunctive relief
prohibiting completion of the mergers, rescission of the mergers
if they are completed, an accounting by defendants, rescissionary
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. TriQuint
moved to dismiss the Roberts and Lam actions filed in Oregon.
Those motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and argued and
are under advisement with the court. On April 29, 2014, the court
orally granted the plaintiffs' motions to consolidate the Oregon
actions. On April 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
consolidated the actions filed in Delaware under the caption In re
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No.
9415-VCN. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in the consolidated action and on
May 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin defendants from taking any action to complete the proposed
mergers. TriQuint opposed the motion for expedited proceedings,
and the court denied the motion for expedited proceedings on June
13, 2014.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Discrimination Against Blind People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uber drivers refuse service to and harass blind customers and
their guide dogs -- in one case even forcing a dog into a car
trunk before giving a woman a ride, the National Federation of the
Blind claims in court, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

On at least 30 occasions, Uber drivers agreed to transport
customers, but then refused after learning they were blind and had
guide animals, according to the September 9, 2014 lawsuit in
Federal Court, which refers to Uber and the UberX taxi service.

The National Federation of the Blind of California and Michael
Hingson, a blind man, sued Uber Technologies.  They are the only
parties to the complaint.  Some customers who were denied service
were charged with cancellation fees, the federation says.

"These blind riders are also often placed in the uncomfortable
position of explaining to uninformed UberX drivers that service
animals are protected by law and that blind people have the right
to bring service animals into vehicles providing taxi services,"
the complaint states.

The company insists that it's not a transportation provider and
does not have to follow laws protecting blind people, the
plaintiffs say.  In light of what Uber offers, the plaintiffs say,
that's a ridiculous argument.  Many customers have complained, but
Uber hasn't given any indication whether it is investigating or if
it has taken steps to fix the situation, the federation says.  It
claims that Uber drivers have "abandoned blind travelers in
extreme weather, all because of guide dogs."

The 25-page lawsuit is replete with examples.

"For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog.  An UberX
driver forced Ms. Dawes' guide dog into the closed trunk of the
UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes.  When Ms. Dawes
realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the
driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the
trunk, but the driver refused her request.  Other blind customers
with guide dogs have been yelled at by Uber drivers who are
hostile toward their guide dogs," the complaint states.

In another case, an Uber driver cursed federation member Jamey
Gump, because he has a guide dog, then "quickly accelerated the
vehicle forward, nearly injuring Mr. Gump's guide dog and causing
an open passenger door to strike Mr. Gump's friend.  The UberX
driver then sped away and canceled the ride request," according to
the complaint.  Gump called the police.

The federation claims it wrote to Uber in June, notifying it of
the discrimination, and proposed in July to resolve the issue
through structured negotiations.  Uber rejected the proposal for
negotiations, the federation says.

Uber and other ridesharing companies are facing legal challenges
from cab drivers across the country, who claim the Internet-based
companies compete unfairly by ducking the regulations by which
traditional taxi companies must abide.  Cabbies have filed class
action in Philadelphia, Houston and elsewhere.  The latest
complaint was filed on September 10, 2014, in Atlanta.

Uber has been accused of discrimination before.  In June, two
Houston women sued Uber and Lyft in Federal Court, saying the
companies must provide accommodation for people in wheel chairs.

The plaintiffs want Uber ordered to implement policies to prevent
discrimination against the blind, including mandatory training to
drivers about legal access requirements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Nunez, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center St., 4th Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: mnunez@dralegal.org


UNITED PLASTICS: Faces "Maravillas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Maravillas, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs
similarly situated v. United Plastics, Inc. and Anil Aggarwal,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06948 (N.D. Ill., September 8,
2014) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation.

United Plastics, Inc. is a supplier of plastics raw materials to
the plastics manufacturing industry worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marty Denis, Esq.
      Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
      BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
      525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
      Chicago, Illinois 60661
      Telephone: (312) 648-5570


UNITED STATES: Faces "Steele" Suit Over Unlawful Fee Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Steele, Brittany Montrois, and a class of more than 700,000
similarly situated individuals and businesses v. United States of
America, Case No. 1:14-cv-01523 (D.D.C., September 8, 2014), seeks
refunds of all user fees paid, plus interest, with respect to
those who have already paid such fees. The Plaintiffs also ask the
Court to issue an injunction prohibiting the Defendant and any
agency of the Defendant from charging user fees in order to
receive an initial PTIN or annually renew a PTIN. Finally, the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an injunction prohibiting
Treasury from asking more information than is necessary to issue a
PTIN, and requiring Treasury to ask for such necessary information
only once.

The Defendant has, through the Department of Treasury and the
Internal Revenue Service, charged the class representatives and
others who prepare tax returns, annual user fees for issuance and
annual renewal of a PTIN. It has also required filing of Form
W-12 with respect to initial issuance and annual renewal of PTINs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart J. Bassin, Esq.
      THE BASSIN LAW FIRM PLLC
      Suite 300, 1629 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 895-0969
      E-mail: sjb@bassinlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Tax Preparer User Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Phillips Erb, writing for Forbes, reports that the suit,
Adam Steele, Brittany Montrois et al versus United States of
America (complaint opens in Scribd), challenges the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) attempts to regulate tax preparers.  The
number of potential plaintiffs in the class action suit filed on
Sept. 8 in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia is 700,000.

The two plaintiffs who are named in the suit are Adam Steele and
Brittany Montrois.  Mr. Steele is a certified public accountant
(CPA) licensed by the State of Minnesota.  Ms. Montrois is also a
CPA, though she is licensed by the State of Georgia.  Both
Mr. Steele and Ms. Montrois are in good standing as CPAs in their
respective states.

The remaining plaintiffs, as part of the class, are paid tax
preparers who have paid the initial preparer tax identification
number ("PTIN") issuance user fee or have paid the initial PTIN
issuance user fee and one or more PTIN renewal user fees.  Those
fees are the result of final regulations issued by the IRS in 2010
requiring paid tax return preparers to register with the IRS and
pay a user fee to obtain a PTIN.  To keep the PTIN, preparers must
re-register each year and pay an additional fee; failure to pay
the fee results in a loss of the PTIN.  Paid preparers may not
prepare federal income tax returns without a valid PTIN.

In 2012, a group of tax preparers (Sabina Loving of Chicago,
Illinois; John Gambino of Hoboken, N.J.; and Elmer Kilian of
Eagle, Wisconsin) filed suit against the government, challenging
those initial regulations.  In the case, Loving v. Commissioner,
the plaintiffs accused the IRS, among other things, of lacking the
authority to license tax preparers.  The courts ultimately sided
with the plaintiffs, ruling in 2012 that the IRS could not
regulate tax preparers according to the proposed scheme.  An
appellate court affirmed that ruling in 2014.

The maneuverings in Loving did not, however, exempt tax preparers
from the requirement to obtain a PTIN and pay the user fee.  Fees
range from $63.25 for a PTIN renewal to $64 for a first time PTIN
registration.  The IRS has indicated that the actual cost of the
user fees to the agency is $13 for a PTIN renewal and $14.25 for
first time PTIN registration.  Those are costs paid by IRS to a
third party vendor.

According to the final regulations, the Department of the Treasury
anticipated that between 800,000 to 1,200,000 PTINs would be
issued or renewed each year, bringing in between $51 million to
$77 million.  Anticipated expenses "to administer the PTIN
application and renewal process" were pegged at between $11
million and $17 million. The remaining funds were to be retained
by IRS for:

     -- costs of administering registration cards or certificates
for each registered preparer;

     -- costs associated with prescribing forms, instructions, or
other guidance with respect to registered preparers; and
tax compliance and suitability checks.

Only, er, there are no registration cards or certificates: your
PTIN is issued via letter or email.  And according to the
complaint, "historically, the IRS has never charged for issuing
tax instructions, issuing guidance to taxpayers or tax return
preparers, or for creation (or dissemination) of tax forms."
That's because -- let's face it -- IRS loves forms.  And those tax
compliance and suitability checks? They haven't happened.

In fact, after Ms. Loving, a great deal of what IRS anticipated
would happen when it issued those regulations in 2010 didn't
happen at all.  And yet, the fees keep rolling in.  The IRS has
admitted collection of more than $105 million in PTIN and
competency testing user fees through 2012.  To date, fees paid out
by tax preparers are estimated to be more $150 million.

Tax preparers say that's not fair.  And they want their money
back.  By statute, certain user fees have to be "fair and based
on: (a) costs to the government; (b) the value of the service or
thing to the recipient; (c) public policy or interest served; and
(d) other relevant facts."  The plaintiffs claim that's not what's
happening here.  Further, the plaintiffs claim that the under 31
U.S.C. Sec. 9701, user fees may not "be charged with respect to
fulfillment of a requirement that is subject to a penalty
enforcement scheme because no special benefit is granted and the
thing that is done is done involuntarily."  That, the plaintiffs
assert, means that the user fees are unlawful from the start.

Lawyers being lawyers, there is also a backup plan: if the courts
find that charging a user fee for the issuance or renewal of a
PTIN is allowable, they argue that the overage (the $50 which
exceeds the actual cost of the fee) is not allowable.

The plaintiffs ultimately want a refund of what they claim are
improperly collected user fees.  And they want to put a stop to
further collections.  They also want IRS to scale back the
information requested on the form W-12, claiming that additional
information beyond basic identification is not necessary.

The suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Allen Buckley of
Allen Buckley Law in Atlanta, GA, and Stuart Bassin of The Bassin
Law Firm in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit is the second high-profile challenge to IRS attempts
to regulate the tax preparer industry filed this year.  In July,
the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) filed suit to stop the new
Annual Filing Season program (AFS), a voluntary program to
regulate tax return preparers.  That suit is currently pending.


URS CORP: La. Dismisses Claims in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana dismissed the majority of the claims in the New Orleans
Levee Failure Class Action Litigation and the remainder of the
outstanding claims is being transferred to the District Court for
final judgment of dismissal, according to URS Corporation's Aug.
8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 4, 2014.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by the company on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.  Fifty-nine personal
injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants,
including WGI Ohio, seeking $200 billion in damages plus
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs are residents and property
owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach and
failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina.

All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District,
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were
also named as defendants.  At this time WGI Ohio and the Army
Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.  These 59
lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving
WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court").

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio
performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and
floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.  WGI
Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on
grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.  On
December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI
Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court
for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the District Court
decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not
be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for
appeal.  Five of the cases were tried in District Court from
September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012.  On April 12, 2013,
the District Court ruled in favor of WGI Ohio and the Army Corps
of Engineers, finding that the five plaintiffs failed to prove
that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of Engineers' actions caused the
failure of the Industrial Canal floodwall during Hurricane
Katrina.  On July 1, 2013, WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary
judgment in District Court to dismiss all other related cases as a
result of the District Court's April 2013 decision.  On December
20, 2013, the District Court dismissed the majority of the
lawsuits and the remainder of the outstanding claims is being
transferred to the District Court for final judgment of dismissal.


URS CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits in Delaware Over AECOM Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the AECOM Merger, beginning on July 21, 2014,
multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported URS stockholders
against URS Corporation, according to URS's Aug. 8, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The suits are Falato v. URS Corp., et al., City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Creel, et al., Petroutson v. URS
Corp., et al., Miller v. URS Corp., et al., Oklahoma Police
Pension & Retirement System v. Creel, et al., Cambridge Retirement
System v. Creel, et al. and Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33
Cleveland District Pension Plan v. URS Corp., et al.  The actions
named as defendants URS Corporation, the members of the URS Board
of Directors, AECOM Technology and its affiliates.  A number of
the actions also named as a defendant JANA Partners LLC.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that some or all members of
the URS Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Merger, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaints seek, among other
relief, class certification, preliminary and permanent.


V&T MEAT: Recalls Raw Pork Products Due to E. Coli
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           V&T Meat Wholesale
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

V&T Meat Wholesale, Chestermere, Alberta is recalling certain raw
pork products from the marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7
contamination.  Consumers, food service establishments, retailers,
distributors and manufacturers in Alberta, should not consume,
serve, use, or sell certain raw pork products sold by the
retailers, listed, because the raw pork products may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The affected raw pork products have only been distributed in
Alberta.

All raw pork products sold from these locations, during the
identified time periods, are affected by the recall.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the E. coli O157:H7 foodborne outbreak
investigation led by Alberta Health Services and supported by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

As the investigation proceeds, if other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

Alberta Health Services and the CFIA are verifying that industry
is removing recalled product from the marketplace.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Mass. Court Dismissed Pension Fund's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
denied plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint in
City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. and dismissed the complaint with prejudice,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

On September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City
of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed
the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of
Bristol's attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on February 11, 2013. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint. On June 27, 2013, the Company filed a reply in
further support of the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint. The court conducted a hearing on the Company's motion
to dismiss on November 25, 2013, and the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint on March 31, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a
motion (i) for reconsideration and (ii) to file a second amended
complaint on April 28, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit by Retirement Plan & Trust Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. remains pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock. The Company believes the claims to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As of June
30, 2014, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this
purported class action.


VINH FAT: Recalls Pork Spring Rolls, Pork Buns and Pork Wontons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Vinh Fat Food Products
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Vinh Fat Food Products is recalling frozen pork spring rolls, pork
buns and pork wontons from the marketplace due to possible E. coli
O157:H7 contamination.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
products described.

These frozen pork products have been sold exclusively from Vinh
Fat Food Products, 10630-97th Street, Edmonton, Alberta.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the E. coli O157:H7 foodborne outbreak
investigation led by Alberta Health Services and supported by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

As the investigation proceeds, if other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

Alberta Health Services and the CFIA are verifying that industry
is removing recalled product from the marketplace.


WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Action Over "Non-Poaching" Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that The Walt Disney
Co., DreamWorks Animation and Sony Pictures Animation are among
the defendants in a new class-action suit, contending that the
studios and other visual effects and animation companies conspired
to suppress wages via "non-poaching" agreements between the
companies.

Also named in the lawsuit, filed on Sept. 8 in federal court in
San Jose, are Pixar, Lucasfilm and its division Industrial Light
and Magic, Digital Domain, and ImageMovers Digital.  Also named
was Sony Pictures Imageworks.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Nitsch, who was a senior
character effects artist at DreamWorks Animation from 2007 to
2011.

"The conspiracy deprived Plaintiff and other class members of
millions of dollars which Defendants instead put to their bottom
lines," the lawsuit stated.  "It did so at the same time that the
films produced by these workers achieved world renown and
generated billions of dollars in revenues in the United States and
abroad."

Lucasfilm and Pixar already were targets of a Justice Department
antitrust lawsuit in 2010, along with Apple, Google, Adobe
Systems, Intel Corp. and Intuit, in which the government contended
that their "no solicitation" agreements prevented highly skilled
employees from commanding better wages and job opportunities.  The
companies settled the litigation by agreeing to end such practices
for a period of five years.

But a class-action civil suit was filed in 2011, and during the
litigation emails were disclosed which appeared to link other
companies to the "no poaching" agreements, including Disney and
DreamWorks Animation, who were not named defendants in either that
lawsuit or the Justice Department action.  In a settlement
approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in May, Lucasfilm and
Pixar agreed to pay $9 million, and Intuit agreed to pay $11
million.  But Judge Koh refused to approve a $325 million
settlement with a class action group and other companies including
Apple and Google.

The latest class action lawsuit was filed by Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll in Washington.

A spokeswoman for DreamWorks Animation and spokesman for Sony had
no immediate comment.  A spokesman for the Walt Disney Disney Co.,
which now owns Pixar, Lucasfilm and ILM, said, "We believe this
complaint is utterly without merit and intend to defend against it
vigorously."

The lawsuit lays out an elaborate conspiracy to establish non-
solicitation agreements, "carried out by some of the most
recognizable names in the American entertainment and technology
industries," including Steve Jobs, the late founder of Apple;
Pixar President Ed Catmull; and filmmaker George Lucas.  It also
contends that Jobs and DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg
also "personally discussed and formed similar 'no raid' agreements
between their companies."  The suit cites an email from
Mr. Catmull in which he stated that they "have an agreement with
DreamWorks not to actively pursue each others employees."
"Catmull acknowledged under oath that Jobs and Katzenberg
discussed the subject and that the two companies weren't 'going
after each other,'" the suit stated.

The suit contends that when Disney bought Pixar in 2006, the non-
solicitation agreements spread to Walt Disney Feature Animation,
which Mr. Catmull headed, as well as to ImageMovers, the company
founded by director Robert Zemeckis.

"Catmull and other leaders of the conspiracy policed any violation
of the conspiracy, even when it did not directly involve efforts
to recruit their own employees," the lawsuit claims.  "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 for the anti-competitive benefit of all conspirators.  For
example, when ImageMovers began recruiting workers for its digital
wing, ImageMovers Digital, in 2007, Catmull intervened to stop
them from targeting other conspirators, even though he knew they
would not target his company Pixar. His express purpose in doing
so was to keep solicitation efforts from 'mess[ing] up the pay
structure.  At Catmull's request, a Disney senior executive
advised ImageMovers to comply with the broad conspiracy."

The litigation also alleges that senior human resources and
recruiting personnel met annually to discuss job titles to be
included in an industry compensation survey, and, in other
meetings and events, exchanged information that allowed them to
"fix the salaries and wages of their workers within narrow ranges
for the ensuing year."

The suit contends that in late 2006, the head of human resources
at Pixar sent an email to the heads of H.R. at DreamWorks, Sony
Pictures Imageworks, Lucasfilm/ILM, Disney Animation and others
"to provide Pixar's budget for salary increases in the following
year, 2007, and to ask for other studios' salary increase budgets
in return."

The lawsuit also quotes Lucas as saying that they "cannot get into
a bidding war with other companies because we don't have the
margins for that sort of thing."

"All of the Defendants kept the agreements secret from their
employees.  Only their top executives and human resources and
recruiting personnel involved in the conspiracy communicated about
the agreements orally or in emails among themselves, and they
almost always insisted that the agreements not be committed to
writing," the suit stated.


WEST 54 DELI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Guerra-Alonso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. West 54 Deli, Corp d/b/a 54 Gourmet, Three Brothers NY
Deli, Inc. d/b/a Cascade Cafe, Garden City Deli Corp. d/b/a Garden
City Deli, and Mansoor Saleh, Case No. 1:14-cv-07247 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an American delicatessen
restaurants with three locations within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375


WHARTON COUNTY: Faces "Valle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon Valle, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Wharton County Foods, LLC and Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-02556 (S.D. Tex., September 4, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked over forty during the work week.

Wharton County Foods, LLC is a licensed carrier, hauling grain,
feed, and hay.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is a producer and marketer of shell eggs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Daniel Saenz, Esq.
      WAGNER SAENZ DORITY
      3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste 610
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 554-8450
      E-mail: jsaenz@wsdllp.com


WORLDWIDE PANTS: Former Intern Files Wage & Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Kenneally, writing for The Wrap, reports that CBS and
Worldwide Pants, the production company behind the "Late Show With
David Letterman," have been slapped with a class-action lawsuit by
a woman who claims that she worked as an intern on the show, and
was wrongfully denied wages and overtime pay.

In the suit, filed in the Supreme Court in New York on Sept. 4,
Mallory Musallam says she was employed as a "Late Show" intern
from September to December 2008.  During her time at the show, the
suit says Ms. Musallam "typically worked in excess of forty (40)
hours per week."  During her time there, the suit adds,
Ms. Musallam performed various tasks, including but not limited to
doing research for interview material, delivering film clips from
libraries, running errands, faxing, scanning, operating the
switchboard, and other similar duties.

Unfortunately, the suit claims, "Defendants have maintained a
policy and practice of wrongfully classifying Named Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated that worked on 'The Late Show With David
Letterman' as exempt from minimum wages and overtime
compensation."

CBS says it plans to "vigorously defend against the claims" in the
lawsuit.

"This lawsuit is part of a nationwide trend of class action
lawyers attacking internship opportunities provided by companies
in the media and entertainment industry," the network told TheWrap
in a statement on Sept. 8.  "We pride ourselves on providing
valuable internship experiences, and we take seriously all of our
obligations under relevant labor and employment laws. We intend to
vigorously defend against the claims."

The suit seeks "to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation owed to Named Plaintiff and all similarly situated
persons," a group that the lawsuit claims "is believed to be in
excess of 100 individuals."


XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Upholds Securities Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that the Second Circuit
on Sept. 8 upheld Xerox Corp.'s win in a long-running securities
fraud class action alleging it misrepresented the financial
benefits of a global restructuring program in the late 1990s,
finding that Xerox made sufficient disclosures about the
initiative and one of its major components.

In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel affirmed U.S. District
Judge Alvin W. Thompson's grant of summary judgment to Xerox and
three of its executives, agreeing with the lower court judge that
the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants made any actionable
misstatement or omission.

The plaintiffs sued Xerox and the executives in 1999, claiming
they violated federal securities law by materially misrepresenting
that Xerox's worldwide restructuring initiative was a financial
boon to the company when a component of the initiative called the
Customer Business Organization Reorganization was "causing
significant and ongoing economic distress to the company,"
according to court documents.

"Because we conclude that there is no genuine dispute of material
fact with respect to the sufficiency of Xerox's disclosures about
the successes and failures of this component of its worldwide
restructuring, we affirm the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendants," Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote
for the appellate panel.

Xerox's lead counsel, Sandra C. Goldstein --
sgoldstein@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, praised
the panel's ruling.

"Certainly, the victory is a very satisfying one -- it confirms
that Xerox told the truth, that there were benefits from the
restructuring and that Xerox disclosed the issues with the
reorganization," Ms. Goldstein told Law360, noting that the case
involved the collection of millions of documents worldwide and
dozens of fact and expert depositions.  "We're very happy that the
client had the grit and determination to see the case through to
victory.

"We were preparing for trial and ready to go, and I think that
level of preparedness allowed us to move successfully for summary
judgment," Ms. Goldstein continued.  "This case shows that, in
complex matters, even when they survive motions to dismiss, that
is not a sign that you should take out your checkbook and settle.
It requires developing a very clean factual record and showing
that the undisputed facts disprove the plaintiffs' legal theory,
but it can be done."

Xerox undertook several initiatives in 1998 and 1999 geared toward
lowering costs and making itself more competitive in the global
market, according to court documents.  Those initiatives include a
worldwide restructuring that included 150 specific projects,
including the CBO Reorganization, which focused on improving and
centralizing support to the company's U.S.-based sales force,
court documents said.

According to the plaintiffs, the defendants failed to sufficiently
disclose to the market problems that arose from the CBO
Reorganization.

In his March 2013 ruling, Judge Thompson found that Xerox's
statements about the overall cost savings realized by Xerox's
worldwide restructuring initiative "didn't preclude the entry of
summary judgment in Xerox's favor," concluding there was "no
genuine dispute" that Xerox had made sufficient disclosures
concerning the challenges it experienced with the CBO
Reorganization, according to the appellate opinion.

In addition, Judge Thompson said the plaintiffs failed to
establish loss causation because two alleged corrective
disclosures they cited "did not add any new information to the
market," the opinion said.

The Second Circuit panel rejected all the plaintiffs' challenges
to Judge Thompson's decision.

"In light of Xerox's public statements about its restructuring and
realignment initiatives, we conclude that there is no genuine
dispute as to whether a reasonable investor would have viewed the
undisclosed facts about the CBO Reorganization as having
significantly altered the total mix of information that was
already disclosed by Xerox or otherwise available," Judge Pooler
wrote.

The district court determined that Xerox realized a net cost
savings of $254.5 million from the worldwide restructuring, the
panel noted in the opinion.

"On this record, it would be conjecture to conclude that Xerox's
statements about the cost-savings of the [worldwide restructuring]
-- without a subsequent reference to the costs incurred as a
result of the CBO Reorganization -- were misleading," Judge Pooler
wrote.

Circuit Judges Dennis G. Jacobs and Rosemary S. Pooler and
District Judge Christina Reiss sat on the Second Circuit panel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brad N. Friedman --
bfriedman@milberg.com -- of Millberg LLP, Stanley D. Bernstein of
Bernstein Leibhard LLP and Mark Levine -- mlevine@ssbny.com -- of
Stull Stull & Brody.

Xerox is represented by Sandra C. Goldstein and J. Wesley
Earnhardt -- wearnhardt@cravath.com -- of Cravath Swaine & Moore
LLP.  The individual defendants are represented by Thomas D.
Goldberg -- tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- of Day Pitney LLP, John A.
Valentine -- john.valentine@wilmerhale.com -- of WilmerHale and
Alfred U. Pavlis -- apavlis@fdh.com -- of Finn Dixon & Herling
LLP.

The case is Thomas Dalberth et al. v. Xerox Corp. et al., case
number 13-1658, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


                              *********

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  * * *