CAR_Public/140917.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 185

                             Headlines


ACTION PROFESSIONALS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
ADAMS COMMUNICATION: Faces "Battles" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ADVANCED MARKETING: Illegally Calls Class' Phones, Suit Claims
AIRBNB: Faces Class Action Over Single Room Occupancy Hotel Rooms
ALL-PRO BAIL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMARIN CORPORATION: James Reiss to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
APPLE INC: Judge Trims Claims in "Breaking Bad" Class Action
AUBURN ARMATURE: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over TCPA Violation
BAREBURGER GROUP: "Serech" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BATS GLOBAL: Robbins Geller, Motley and Labaton Sucharow File Suit

BLACK DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $73.4MM in Obtryx Mesh Device Suit
BP PLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Faulty Solar Panel Class Action
CATERPILLAR INC: Accused of Selling Defective Regeneration System
CBS CORPORATION: Simon & Schuster Settles Canada Actions

CENTURY GOLF: Faces "Izzio" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL
CLEAN HARBORS: No Class Certified in Suit Over Safety-Kleen Fees
CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Facing 64 Product Liability Cases
CLEARSPRING LOAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
CLIENT SERVICES: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act

CMT USA: Sued in Illinois Over TCPA Violations
DAVID BOULEY: Faces "Ali" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Bone Cement
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces 53 Professional Liability Lawsuits
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act

DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Has MOU in Tennessee Stockholder Suit
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces Arkansas Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland County Suit in Early Stages
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Defends Use of Real Sports Stars in Video Games
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Young v. CommonWealth REIT Suit Dismissed

EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: 120-Day Stay for Katz v. CommonWealth REIT
EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Laborers Pension Fund v. Portnoy Stayed
ESTATE INFORMATION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
FARMER'S RICE: Faces Class Action in California Over "Flush" Rice
FIG & OLIVE: "Corte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Sued in Mich. Over Misleading Financial Reports
FOREVER 21: Illegally Collects Customer's Information, Suit Says
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Circuit to Address Remaining Paxil Suits
GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Prisoner Call Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixes Mortgage Suit on Additional Offerings

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Leave to Appeal Class Cert. Order Denied
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Sever Forced-Place Insurance Suit Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Denied Leave to Appeal in RALI Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Zynga Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in FireEye Securities Action

GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Sought in Gender Bias Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Credit Derivatives Actions
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Aluminum Storage
GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing Class Actions Over Zinc Storage
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Currencies-Related Litigation Sought

GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in High-Frequency Trading Case
GOMEZ RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Romero" Suit Claims
HARMAN INT'L: No Briefing Yet on Securities Case Dismisal Appeal
HARMAN INT'L: Dismissal of "Russell" Action Under Appeal
HJ HEINZ: Plaintiff's Testimony Not Admissible in Asbestos Suit

HUDSON CITY BANCORP: NJ Court Has Yet to Approve Settlement
HUNAM INN: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
INTEGRYS ENERGY: Facing Class Suit Over Wisconsin Energy Merger
LANNETT CO: Faces Securities Class Action in Pennsylvania
LAWSON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims

LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Opposition Brief Due in Jefferies Deal Suits
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Appeal Heard in "Sykes" Consumer Class Action
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss Haverhill Amended Suit
MARRONE BIO: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Statements
MASIMO CORPORATION: California Junk Fax Class Action Stayed

MASIMO CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Alabama
MELVIN DRAYTON: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL: Accused of Sexually Harassing Female Worker
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appellate Review Sought in Concussion Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players Lose Concussion Settlement Appeal

NAVARRO SECURITY: Faces "Calixto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Asbestos Suit
OMNICELL INC: Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
PALM BEACH LAUNDRY: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Says
PATTERSON STRUCTURAL: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT

PECO: Settlement Nears in 2012 Water Main Flooding Suit
PENN WEST PETROLEUM: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Financials
PFIZER INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Sale of Celebrex
PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces 9 Class Suits Over Merger With Avago
RELIANCE HOME: Faces Class Action Over Water Heater "Buyout" Fee

RO-MI DELI: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT: Judge Approves $50MM Ponzi Scheme Settlement
SAN PIETRO RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Seek Dismissal of "Corban" Action
SCHERR & MCCLURE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bird Food Litigation in Early Stages
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
SENCO BRANDS: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over TCPA Violations
SGRA CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Tentative Settlement Reached in Lawsuits

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Siani" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Bank Faces Sallie Mae Indemnification Claim
SPORT CHALET: Facing Class Actions Over Merger With Vestis
STERICYCLE INC: Defending Against Suits Over Excessive Price Hike
STERICYCLE INC: Filed Answer to Illinois Junk Fax Lawsuit

SUNEDISON INC: Motion for Reconsideration Filed in "Jones" Case
TARGET CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
TURTLE WAX: Faces "Orlick" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Advocacy Group Files Discrimination Suit
UGI CORPORATION: Facing 25+ Class Actions Over Propane Tanks

UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Chaplains' Class Certification Bid
VENTURE DATA: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Sales
VETERANS AFFAIRS: Faces "Watson" Class Suit in South Carolina
VIVUS INC: Briefing of Class Action Appeal Complete
WINDOW GUYS: Faces "Figueredo" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws

YELP INC: Taps Gilbert Serota to Defend Securities Class Actions
ZIONS FIRST: 3rd Cir. to Examine Class Certification Standards

* 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Wilner's 750 Tobacco Smoker Cases
* Courts to Impose Procedural Controls for Mass Copyright Suits
* Siskinds Announces Protocol for LCD Settlement Distribution


                            *********


ACTION PROFESSIONALS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Burkhammer and Lacey Burkhammer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Action Professionals, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06963 (C.D. Cal., September 5, 2014), arise from
the illegal actions of the Defendant with regard to attempts to
unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by the
Plaintiffs, in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Action Professionals, Inc. a full service collection agency,
providing asset recovery services in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3609
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com


ADAMS COMMUNICATION: Faces "Battles" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Battles, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Adams Communication & Engineering Technology
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06873 (N.D. Ill., September 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

Adams Communication & Engineering Technology Inc. is a company
that provides systems, products and services to government and
commercial customers worldwide and in the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      STEVENS LAW, LLC
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 205
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


ADVANCED MARKETING: Illegally Calls Class' Phones, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Spector, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc. dba Precision
Auto Protection, a Florida Corporation; and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-07050-MMM-SS (C.D. Cal., September 9,
2014) seeks damages and other remedies resulting from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently knowingly and
willfully contacting the on his cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Precision Auto Services is a fictitious name owned, controlled and
operated by Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc., with its
principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          David L. Weisberg, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 221
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  david@kristensenlaw.com


AIRBNB: Faces Class Action Over Single Room Occupancy Hotel Rooms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Sabatini, writing for The San Francisco Examiner, reports
that short-term rental service Airbnb has been targeted in a
class-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court
stemming from allegations of illegal short-term stays at a 62-room
single-room occupancy hotel about three blocks from Union Square.

The lawsuit adds fodder to the ongoing debate in San Francisco
over whether to legalize short-term rentals through online
services like Airbnb and how best to regulate them.  The debate
comes at a time when rents and evictions have hit noticeably high
levels and housing is in scarce supply.

Filed by attorneys Mark Hooshmand and Tyson Redenbarger of San
Francisco-based Hooshmand Law Group, the lawsuit argues that
Airbnb has knowingly profited from use of its services in
violation of San Francisco housing codes and seeks damages for the
alleged violations.

The lawsuit specifically focuses on alleged violations at the 62-
unit single room occupancy Sheldon Hotel at 629 Post St. in the
Tenderloin.  Single-room occupancy hotels are housing intended for
lower-income residents.  The class-action complaint was initially
filed on behalf of two long-term Sheldon Hotel tenants, Daniel
McGee and Louis Gamache.

"They live there.  They were concerned with what has happened in
their hotel," said Mr. Redenbarger, adding that the plaintiffs are
afraid the situation could somehow cause them to lose their homes.

Among the claims in the lawsuit is that the plaintiffs suffered
from increased noise and foot traffic from Airbnb guests.

Hotel owner Cameron Ardebilchi blasted Hooshmand, who has filed
lawsuits against him in the past.

"Hooshmand is full of it. He just wants to run up attorney fees,"
Mr. Ardebilchi said.  As for the short-term rental allegations,
Mr. Ardebilchi said that "we used any services that we can use to
get our rooms rented" but when doing so, "we have not broken any
laws."  He declined to go into further specifics, citing the
ongoing litigation.

In general, single-room occupancy hotels are not allowed to rent
rooms for less than seven days, but there are exceptions if units
sat vacant during the winter months.

"The code is very specific of what we can do and can't do and we
follow that code," Mr. Ardebilchi said.

Airbnb spokesman Nick Papas said the company would not comment
specifically on the legal action.

"But anyone who follows our company knows how deeply we care about
making San Francisco a more livable, more affordable city, and we
are constantly striving to better inform our community of hosts
and travelers," he said.

San Francisco officials have said that Airbnb and services like it
are the wave of the future, so the question isn't whether to
legalize them but how best to regulate them.

That question is expected to be hotly debated Sept. 15 when the
Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee
will hold a hearing on legislation that would legalize and
regulate short-term rental services like Airbnb.

Introduced by board President David Chiu, the legislation would
legalize short-term rentals in multiunit buildings if the resident
on the lease lives in the unit for at least 275 days out of the
year.  It also requires a registry of hosts with The City.


ALL-PRO BAIL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. All-Pro Bail Bonds Inc., a California
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-04053 (N.D. Cal., September 5,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation.

All-Pro Bail Bonds Inc. is a California based bail bonds company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Lion Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


AMARIN CORPORATION: James Reiss to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court consolidated class action lawsuits against Amarin
Corporatio plc, appointed lead counsel for the class, and selected
James Reiss to serve as lead plaintiff, Amarin said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

A purported investor of Amarin filed on November 1, 2013, a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Steven Sklar v. Amarin
Corporation plc et al., No. 13-cv-6954 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013) in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Substantially similar lawsuits, captioned Bove v. Amarin
Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-07882 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013),
Bentley v. Amarin Corporation plc, Civ. No. 13-08283 (AT)
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2013) and Siegel v. Amarin Corporation plc, No.
3:13-cv-07210 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2013), were subsequently filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December
9, 2013 the cases filed in the Southern District of New York were
transferred to the District of New Jersey, with all cases then
before the same judge.

The complaints assert claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and allege that Amarin and certain of its current and former
officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding
the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and
the potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial
to that approval. The putative class periods alleged in the
complaints vary from the July 9, 2009-October 15, 2013 period
alleged in the Sklar and Siegel complaints, the July 9, 2009-
October 16, 2013 period alleged in the Bentley complaint, and
August 8, 2012-October 16, 2013 period alleged in the Bove
complaint. The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 24, 2014, the court consolidated the cases, appointed lead
counsel for the class and selected James Reiss to serve as lead
plaintiff.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses and will
vigorously defend against this class action suit, but cannot
predict the outcome. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims. The Company
has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any
significant loss exposure that may arise from this action after
payment by the Company of the associated deducible obligation
under such insurance coverage.

Amarin Corporation plc is a biopharmaceutical company with
expertise in lipid science focused on the commercialization and
development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health.


APPLE INC: Judge Trims Claims in "Breaking Bad" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
provided a bit of both good and bad for the parties to a proposed
class action alleging Apple Inc. cheated fans of the crime drama
"Breaking Bad."

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of
California ruled that plaintiff Noam Lazebnik had sufficient
standing to proceed with a trimmed-down version of his suit
alleging Apple engaged in false advertising in its offer for
viewing the Emmy-winning show's Season 5, its final one, on
iTunes.

But in his Aug. 29 order, the judge also threw out two of
Mr. Lazebnik's claims, ruling that Mr. Lazebnik failed to back up
allegations that the company breached a contract or violated
California's Consumers' Legal Remedies Act.

Mr. Lazebnik contends Apple pulled a fast one on consumers in 2012
by changing the definition of "full season" after he and others
purchased, for $21.99, a "Season Pass" for the final season of the
show, which was produced and marketed by AMC Networks Inc., and
sold through Apple's iTunes platform.

But instead of getting what he understood would be the full 16
episodes of Season 5, Mr. Lazebnik said, he got only eight.  When
he complained, the Cleveland gynecologist said, Apple informed him
that Season 5 included only the first eight, while the last eight
episodes were a separate, "Final Season," to be aired in 2013.
Apple said the final episodes could be had for $22.99.  That was
the first Mr. Lazebnik heard of such a distinction; he felt
cheated and sued, court documents show.

The judge noted that Apple's ads for the season pass made no
specific mention of any bifurcation, and instead described the
offer as including "every episode in (Season 5) and at a better
price than if you were to purchase it one at a time."

Judge Davila allowed the plaintiffs' claim of false advertising
under California's Unfair Competition Law to proceed.  "The test
is whether defendant's representations were likely to deceive a
reasonable consumer," the judge wrote.

About two weeks after Mr. Lazebnik filed his suit on Sept. 6,
2013, Apple offered a refund to customers who were upset their
purchase didn't include the final eight episodes.

Apple is represented by Matthew Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- of
O'Melveny & Myers and Victoria Weatherford -- vweatherford@omm.com
Plaintiffs' counsel are attorneys with the law firms of
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber and Meyer Wilson.


AUBURN ARMATURE: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Craftwood Lumber Company, an Illinois corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Auburn Armature,
Inc., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06868 (N.D. Ill.,
September 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Auburn Armature, Inc. is an electrical products distributor,
manufacturer, and services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Zygmunt Zimmermann, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT ZIMMERMANN
      601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2610
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 452-6509
      E-mail: szimm@zkcf.com


BAREBURGER GROUP: "Serech" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnoldo Umul Serech, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Bareburger Group LLC, Bareburger Inc., East
87 Burgers LLC (d/b/a 1681 First Avenue Bareburger), et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-07181 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate and control several organic fast food
restaurants the trade name Bare Burger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200
      Facsimile: (212)317-1620


BATS GLOBAL: Robbins Geller, Motley and Labaton Sucharow File Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Patterson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
three big law firms have joined forces to pursue legal action
against major US stock exchanges, claiming they handed unfair
advantages to high-frequency traders to the detriment of regular
investors.  The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court of the
Southern District of New York, could test a cornerstone of
securities law: exchanges' immunity from lawsuits seeking damages.

The firms leading the case, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Motley
Rice and Labaton Sucharow, are seeking class-action status for
their suit.  They allege in a 136-page complaint that the biggest
stock exchanges gave preferential treatment to certain customers,
costing regular investors, such as public pension funds, billions
of dollars.

Plaintiffs include the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and the
State-Boston Retirement System.  The complaint alleges stock
exchanges provided high-frequency firms "enhanced trading
information at faster speeds" than other investors received.  The
exchanges also crafted "complex order types" that gave
sophisticated traders advantages, such as the ability to trade in
front of other investors to get a better price.

The judge overseeing the case hasn't ruled on whether to grant the
lawsuit class-action status.  Defendants named in the suit include
US exchange operators BATS Global Markets, the Nasdaq Stock
Market, the Chicago Stock Exchange and the New York Stock
Exchange.

The lawsuit also names Barclays, which isn't an exchange but
operates a private trading venue called a dark pool that is the
target of a civil lawsuit by the New York Attorney General's
office.  The lawsuit could face stiff challenges in court, legal
experts say.  The plaintiffs need to demonstrate clear and
specific damages, a hurdle that could prove difficult, since the
allegations often involve opaque and superfast shifts in market
prices.

"Explaining how to allocate the damages [in this case] could prove
to be impossible," said John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia
University.

The complaint frequently cites former high-frequency trader
Haim Bodek, who made allegations about order-type abuses at
exchanges to the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2011.

The toughest challenge the lawsuit is likely to face is a special
regulatory status exchanges enjoy that shields them from certain
legal challenges.


BLACK DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Borelli, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc. and Does 1
Through 10, Case No. 2:14-cv-02093-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.,
September 9, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
minimum wages required under the Fair Labor Standards Act with
respect to tasks performed for which there was no compensation.

Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc. is a California corporation with
its principal place of business in located in Modesto, in
Stanislaus County.  The true names of the Doe Defendants are not
yet known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harvey Sohnen, Esq.
          Patricia M. Kelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY
          2 Theatre Square, Suite 230
          Orinda, CA 94563-3346
          Telephone: (925) 258-9300
          Facsimile: (925) 258-9315
          E-mail: hsohnen@sohnenandkelly.com
                  pkelly@sohnenandkelly.com

               - and -

          Mary-Alice Coleman, Esq.
          Michael S. Ahmad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN
          1109 Kennedy Place, Suite #2
          Davis, CA 95616
          Telephone: (916) 498-9131
          Facsimile: (916) 304-0880
          E-mail: lawoffice@maryalicecoleman.com
                  mike.ahmad@lawofficemac.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $73.4MM in Obtryx Mesh Device Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a Dallas jury has awarded $73.4 million in the first trial to
go against Boston Scientific Corp. over one of its pelvic mesh
devices.

Jurors in the 95th Judicial District Court in Dallas County found
that the Obtryx transvaginal sling was defectively designed and
that Boston Scientific failed to warn doctors about those defects.

The verdict, which found Boston Scientific grossly negligent,
included $50 million in punitive damages for Felix and Martha
Salazar; she had the device implanted four years ago to treat
urinary leakage.  She suffered nerve damage and now has difficulty
walking, said Tim Goss -- tim@freeseandgoss.com -- principal of
Freese & Goss in Dallas, who represents the Garland, Texas,
couple.

The trial, which lasted two weeks, was the first to go against
Boston Scientific, based in Marlborough, Mass.  The company won
verdicts in two separate cases in Middlesex County, Mass.,
Superior Court during the summer, one of which involved the same
Obtryx sling.

"One big reason is that in the prior trials the jury did not get
to see an exhibit we submitted into evidence where Boston
Scientific was withholding information from doctors regarding a
study that had been done," said Mr. Goss, who represented the
Salazars along with David Matthews of Matthews & Associates in
Houston.  "I really think that's what upset the jury and was a
large part of the punitive damages."

"At Boston Scientific, patient safety is of the utmost importance,
and we dedicate significant resources to deliver safe, high-
quality products," Boston Scientific spokeswoman Kelly Leadem
wrote in an emailed statement.  "We strongly disagree with the
jury's finding and intend to appeal based on the strength of our
evidence."

Jon Strongman, a partner at Kansas City, Mo.'s Shook, Hardy &
Bacon who represented Boston Scientific in the Salazar trial, did
not return a call for comment.

The 2009 study, according to Goss, showed that Boston Scientific
was concerned that long-term erosion and other problems with the
Obtryx device could result in pain and difficulty having sexual
intercourse. He said he also presented jurors with emails showing
that executives hid the study from doctors.

Mr. Goss said he has another case scheduled for trial on Oct. 6 in
Dallas involving a different Boston Scientific transvaginal sling.

The Sept. 8 verdict came as Boston Scientific faced the first
federal bellwether trials over its pelvic mesh devices.  U.S.
District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West
Virginia, overseeing more than 12,000 cases against Boston
Scientific, has scheduled an Oct. 14 date in Florida for four
bellwether cases to be tried at once.  Another eight cases are
scheduled for trial together on Nov. 3 in West Virginia.

Judge Goodwin is presiding over cases filed against five
additional manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon
Inc. unit, which lost a $3.27 million verdict on Sept. 5 in West
Virginia in the first federal trial over its TVT-O sling.  Ethicon
also lost a $1.2 million verdict on April 3 in Dallas over the
same device.  Mr. Goss handled that case, too.

"I think once a jury hears all the facts, they realize the
products should not be on the market," Mr. Goss said.


BP PLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Faulty Solar Panel Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Kira Lerner and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on Sept. 8 refused to throw
out a putative class action alleging units of BP PLC and The Home
Depot Inc. sold faulty solar panels, finding the plaintiffs had
sufficiently shown they may have been misled by the warranty
agreements that came with their purchases.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's ruling kept alive claims of
breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, and unfair
competition, and preserved the class claims, denying each element
of the defendants' bid to have the suit tossed.  The plaintiffs
contend that a component of the panels failed because of a defect,
and that the defendants didn't honor the promises they made when
they sold the panels, according to the suit.

The putative class had amended their original complaint to
sufficiently show that they had relied on statements in the solar
panels' marketing materials that said the panels would
dramatically reduce electric bills forever, the judge found.

"A reasonable consumer could have relied on these statements as
descriptions of the quality and power capabilities of the solar
panels," Judge Illston wrote in the Sept. 8 ruling.

Lead plaintiffs Michael Allagas, Arthur Ray and Brett Mohrman seek
to represent all California residents who purchased solar panels
manufactured by BP Solar or residents who purchased properties on
which the solar panels were installed, according to the suit.

The complaint, originally filed in California state court and
removed to federal court on Feb. 16, alleges that the defect
causes the shoulder joint of the panels to overheat.  As a result,
the heat melts the junction box, burns the cables and the solar
panel, and shatters the glass cover of the solar panel, according
to the suit.

Because BP is no longer in the solar business, it can neither
replace nor repair the panels, the plaintiffs said.  The three
named plaintiffs say they all reported solar panel failures to BP
in 2013, after its solar arm had shut down. In response, the
company offered to reimburse each of the plaintiffs for a little
more than a third of the total cost of removing and replacing the
defective solar panels, according to the complaint.

Judge Illston initially trimmed some warranty claims in April,
finding the plaintiffs had reported problems only after their
warranties had expired, court records show.

The plaintiffs are represented by David M. Birka-White and Mindy
M. Wong of the Birka-White Law Offices.

BP Solar and Home Depot are represented by Matthew T. Heartney --
Matthew.Heartney@aporter.com -- and Alex Beroukhim --
Alex.Beroukhim@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Michael Allegas et al. v. BP Solar International Inc.
et al., case number 3:14-cv-00560, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


CATERPILLAR INC: Accused of Selling Defective Regeneration System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DeCamp Bus Lines, and NW Navigator Luxury Coaches LLC, on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-05596-JBS-JS (D.N.J., September 9, 2014) is brought on behalf
of putative classes of similarly situated persons, who purchased
or leased a vehicle with a 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 Caterpillar C-
13 or C-15 heavy duty on-highway diesel engine.

According to the complaint, Caterpillar's exhaust emission control
system, known as the "Caterpillar Regeneration System," is
defective in material and workmanship causing the vehicle to not
function as required under all operating conditions, on a
consistent and reliable basis, even after repeated emissions
warranty repairs and replacements.

Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located in Peoria, Illinois.  Caterpillar
designed, manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied,
inspected, marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the
MY2007 CAT Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control,
the CRS, to be free of defects in material and workmanship.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Zach S. Bower, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL, LLC
          513 Central Ave., 3rd Floor
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie Kroeger, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          BECKER, HOERNER THOMPSON & YSURSA, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


CBS CORPORATION: Simon & Schuster Settles Canada Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that antitrust suits have
been filed against publishing parties by private litigants in
Canada, purportedly as class actions, under Canadian law,
commencing on February 24, 2012 ("Canada Actions"); and by an
Australian e-book retailer on September 16, 2013, and two former
U.S. e-book retailers in March 2014, each in the United States
Court for the Southern District of New York ("U.S. Actions").
Simon & Schuster executed an agreement settling the Canada Actions
as of May 8, 2014, which is subject to Canadian court approval.
Simon & Schuster intends to defend itself in the U.S. Actions.

CBS Corporation is comprised of the following segments:
Entertainment (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Television
Network, CBS Television Studios and CBS Global Distribution Group;
CBS Films; and CBS Interactive), Cable Networks (Showtime
Networks, CBS Sports Network and Smithsonian Networks), Publishing
(Simon & Schuster) and Local Broadcasting (CBS Television Stations
and CBS Radio).


CENTURY GOLF: Faces "Izzio" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Izzio and Heather Zoeller, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Century Golf Partners Management,
L.P., Case No. 3:14-cv-03194 (N.D. Tex., September 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Century Golf Partners Management, L.P. owns and operates a gulf
facilities that offer catering and banquet services for special
events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth M. Stillman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH M. STILLMAN
      12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 1900
      Dallas, TX 75251
      Telephone: (214) 522-0633
      Facsimile: (214) 526-0849
      E-mail: kstill53@gmail.com


CLEAN HARBORS: No Class Certified in Suit Over Safety-Kleen Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that two customers filed in
October 2010 a complaint, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, alleging
that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended
area service fees. In 2012, similar lawsuits were filed by the
same law firm in California and Missouri. It is Safety-Kleen's
position that it had the right to assess fuel surcharges, that the
customers were contractually obligated or otherwise consented to
the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the
customers when presented with an invoice. A class has not been
certified in any of these cases, and no reserve has been recorded.


CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Facing 64 Product Liability Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Safety-Kleen is named
as a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending in
various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States,
including approximately 64 proceedings (excluding cases which have
been settled but not formally dismissed) as of June 30, 2014,
wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of
Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products.
These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent
used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains
contaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not
effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the
solvent during their use.  In addition, certain claimants assert
that Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user of
potential risks, including an historic failure to warn that
solvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substances
such as benzene.

Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide
coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured
retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for
punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or
excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these
claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of
its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject
to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial
impact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2014.

From December 31, 2013 to June 30, 2014, eight product liability
claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these
claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any
expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for
all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional
lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance
coverage may not be available.


CLEARSPRING LOAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Tabick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Clearspring Loan Services, Inc. a/k/a
Vantium Capital, Inc. a/k/a Strategic Recovery Group, Case No.
1:14-cv-05251 (E.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014) is brought to seek
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hofstatter and Annie Hofstatter, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers v. Client Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05279 (E.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014) is
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CMT USA: Sued in Illinois Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Craftwood Lumber Company, an Illinois corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMT (USA), Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06864 (N.D. Ill.,
September 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

CMT (USA), Inc. distributes and sells, throughout the United
States, woodworking cutting tools branded as CMT Orange Tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Zygmunt Zimmermann, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT ZIMMERMANN
      601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2610
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 452-6509
      E-mail: szimm@zkcf.com


DAVID BOULEY: Faces "Ali" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Syed Mizanur Ali and Mohammed Hassan, on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of other similarly-situated individuals v. David Bouley
LLC, David Bouley Atelier LLC, Bouley Bakery Operating LLC, Bouley
Duane Street LLC, Bouley International, Inc., and David Bouley, in
his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07135
(S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum wage in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Michelin star-rated Bouley
Restaurant and a slew of other high-end food and beverage
establishments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212)257-6800
      Facsimile: (212)257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Bone Cement
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stevens, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
woman is suing a bone cement manufacturer claiming the product was
defective and has caused her to need additional surgery.

Laurie Brocato filed suit against Depuy Orthopedics Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on
July 24.

Brocato claims that within three years from surgery one of her
knees needs to be operated on again due to a failure with the
defendant's product.  The plaintiff also claims that her other
knee has begun to show the same symptoms as the knee that needs to
be reconstructed again, so she fears she will need to have surgery
on both knees again due to the alleged failure of the defendant's
product.

The defendant is accused of failing to comply with federal
requirements for the medical device, failing to use an alternative
product when the defendant knew or should have known of the
product's defect, failing to provide an adequate warning about the
product, and failing to conform to an express warranty.

The plaintiff is seeking an unknown amount in damages for serious
physical injury, harm, economic loss and future medical expenses.

Laurie Brocato is represented by Edward J. Lilly from the firm of
Crull, Castaing & Lilly in New Orleans.

The case has been assigned to Division L Judge Kern A. Reese.

Case no. 2014-07299.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces 53 Professional Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that as of
June 30, 2014, the Company is engaged in 53 professional liability
lawsuits.  Nine lawsuits are currently scheduled for trial or
arbitration during the next twelve months, and it is expected that
additional cases will be set for trial or hearing.

"The ultimate results of any of our professional liability claims
and disputes cannot be predicted with certainty. A significant
judgment entered against us in one or more of these legal actions
could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and
cash flows," the Company said.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term care
services to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily in
the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centers
provide a range of health care services to their patients and
residents that include nursing, personal care, and social
services. In addition to the nursing, personal care and social
services usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company's
nursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensive
rehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.
The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,
Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Sued for Violating Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
United Spinal Association, A nonprofit organization; DC Center for
Independent Living, A nonprofit organization; Geraldine Hassell,
An Individual; Pamela Carreker, An Individual; and Amber Keohane,
An Individual, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. District of Columbia and Vincent C. Gray, In his
official capacity, Case No. 1:14-cv-01528-CKK (D.D.C.,
September 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory A. Mason, Esq.
          Michael J. McManus, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1500 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 230-5138
          Facsimile: (202) 842-8465
          E-mail: gregory.mason@dbr.com
                  michael.mcmanus@dbr.com


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Has MOU in Tennessee Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in
November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st
Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors. This
action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties to stockholders related to its response to certain
expressions of interest in a potential strategic transaction from
Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The complaint asserts
that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately
consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed a motion
seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is not
currently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining
the terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval. The agreement provides that the
Company will adopt and maintain certain corporate governance
procedures for a period of at least three years.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term care
services to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily in
the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centers
provide a range of health care services to their patients and
residents that include nursing, personal care, and social
services. In addition to the nursing, personal care and social
services usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company's
nursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensive
rehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.
The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,
Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Faces Arkansas Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in June
2012, a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime wages as well as
liquidated damages.  The Court conditionally certified a
nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees.  The
Company will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term care
services to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily in
the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centers
provide a range of health care services to their patients and
residents that include nursing, personal care, and social
services. In addition to the nursing, personal care and social
services usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company's
nursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensive
rehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.
The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,
Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Garland County Suit in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in
January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
patients of the Facility over the five-year period prior to the
filing of the complaints. The lawsuit remains in its early stages
and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term care
services to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily in
the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Company's centers
provide a range of health care services to their patients and
residents that include nursing, personal care, and social
services. In addition to the nursing, personal care and social
services usually provided in long-term care centers, the Company's
nursing centers also offer a variety of comprehensive
rehabilitation services, as well as nutritional support services.
The Company's continuing operations include centers in Alabama,
Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Defends Use of Real Sports Stars in Video Games
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that after years
of litigation over Electronic Arts Inc.'s use of real sports stars
in its video games, the company has pinned its legal strategy on a
one-sentence footnote.

EA Games argued on Sept. 11 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit that its portrayal of retired National Football
League stars is protected by the First Amendment.

The catch? The Ninth Circuit squarely rejected that argument last
year in a nearly identical case brought against EA by college
athletes.  That left EA lawyer Alonzo Wickers IV of Davis Wright
Tremaine clinging to a footnote in the court's 2013 ruling that he
argued gives the panel an opening to craft a new standard for the
use of celebrity likenesses in video games.

"We're trying to provide a framework for analyzing these cases
that's adequately protective of expressive works," he said, "and
we don't believe the current [case law] does that."

Judge Marsha Berzon seemed willing to at least entertain Wickers'
idea.  "In other words," Judge Berzon said, "the video game is
more of an expressive work than a greeting card or a T-shirt."

In prior cases, courts have held works that show sufficient
creative input are protected, while mere celebrity likenesses are
not.  Mr. Wickers says those rulings are too constricting.

Sunnyvale attorney Brian Henri, who represents the three retired
NFL players serving as plaintiffs in the case, not surprisingly
took a different view.

"I don't believe there's any open issue left for this court to
decide," he told the panel, comprised of Judges Berzon, Stephen
Reinhardt and Raymond Fisher.

Retired NFL players Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy Joe
Dupree sued EA Games in 2010, alleging the company misappropriated
their likenesses in its video game avatars.  EA Games tried to get
the suit thrown out in 2011 by invoking the anti-SLAPP law, which
shields defendants from lawsuits that target protected speech.
Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California
rejected that argument.  EA Games appealed in 2012, but the case
was stayed while the college athletes' case, Keller v. Electronic
Arts, 10-15387, was pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Keller had followed a similar trajectory.  The lower court denied
EA Games' anti-SLAPP motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
ruling 2-1 last year.  However, in a footnote, the majority said:
"we reserve the question of whether the First Amendment furnishes
a defense other than those the parties raise."

Mr. Wickers says that language gives EA an opening to prevail.  He
proposed creating a second standard for the use of likenesses in
inherently expressive works such as books, films and video games.
He distanced his client's Madden NFL video game from products such
as T-shirts and greeting cards, which prior courts have ruled in
specific instances are not protected forms of expression.

The extensive graphic details that go into the making of a video
game guarantee that it will always be an expressive work,
Mr. Wickers argued.  The Madden NFL game, for example, uses more
than 390,000 data points.

"That doesn't sound very expressive," Judge Berzon said.  "It
sounds like a bunch of data."

Mr. Wickers disagreed.  "We would submit that there's a great deal
of creative expression embodied in that work," he said.

Mr. Henri put little stock in the footnote.  The line simply
acknowledges the U.S. Supreme Court could come up with a new
standard to determine fair use, he said.

There's no question that the "transformative use" test, which asks
whether the work contains enough creative elements that it rises
above the level of a mere celebrity likeness or imitation, is the
governing test in this case, he said.

"It's very clear that EA fails this test," Mr. Henri said.  "The
whole purpose of this game is to have realistic simulation of NFL
players."

Mr. Wickers also raised a new argument on Sept. 11 that he said
was not considered in the Keller opinion.  He claimed EA Games'
depiction of the NFL plaintiffs qualifies as incidental use and is
therefore protected.

"The avatars they complain about were merely a few of the
thousands of virtual athletes in its Madden NFL video game,"
Mr. Wickers' team wrote in its brief.  "Where the use of
plaintiff's name or likeness is incidental in relation to the
defendant's work as a whole, the use is not actionable under the
right of publicity."

Mr. Henri pushed back during the Sept. 11 arguments.

"You can hardly say," he said, "that the use of retired players'
likenesses is incidental to a game that seeks to simulate their
play."


EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Young v. CommonWealth REIT Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that David Young filed on
December 27, 2012, a putative federal securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District Court, titled Young
v. CommonWealth REIT, Civ. No. 1:12-cv-12405-DJC, or the Young
Action. The Young Action was brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common shares between January 10, 2012 and August 8,
2012, and alleged securities fraud claims against EQC and certain
of the Company's former officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company said, "The complaint alleged generally that EQC
violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading representations about our business, operations and
management. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages plus counsel
fees and expenses. On January 22, 2013, we filed a demand for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, or AAA. On
February 25, 2013, Mr. Young filed a motion to appoint him as lead
plaintiff and his counsel as lead counsel, which the Massachusetts
District Court granted on May 20, 2013, all in accordance with
customary procedures for purported class action litigation. On
July 22, 2013, Mr. Young filed an amended complaint. On September
20, 2013, EQC moved to dismiss the Young Action on the grounds
that the claims asserted (1) were subject to binding arbitration
under our bylaws, and (2) failed to state a claim for relief under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. On
June 9, 2014, Mr. Young voluntarily dismissed this action with
prejudice, and the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal.
Shortly thereafter, the parties notified the AAA of the dismissal,
and the matter was withdrawn from arbitration."


EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: 120-Day Stay for Katz v. CommonWealth REIT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Jason Matthew Katz, a
purported shareholder of EQC, filed on March 7, 2013, a complaint
in the Maryland Court, titled Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No.
24-C-13-001299, or the Katz Action. The Katz Action purports to
bring claims individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against EQC and certain of the Company's former Trustees.
The complaint alleges claims of breach of fiduciary duty and seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, rescission of the March 2013
Equity Offering, restitution and damages, including counsel fees,
expenses and, if applicable, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

On April 1, 2013, the Company filed a demand for arbitration with
the the American Arbitration Association for the Katz Action.
Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, as amended from time to
time, on April 19, 2013, Mr. Katz filed a petition to stay
arbitration, and the parties completed briefing on Mr. Katz's
petition on September 16, 2013.

On January 21, 2014, the Maryland Court granted the parties' joint
stipulation and motion to consolidate the Katz Action with the
Central Laborers Action, and consolidated the actions under the
caption Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-C-13-001299, or the
Consolidated Maryland Action. On February 19, 2014, the Maryland
Court denied the pending petition to stay arbitration and
petitions for order to arbitrate, and ordered the parties to
arbitrate the claims asserted in the Consolidated Maryland Action.

On June 12, 2014, Mr. Katz filed his opening brief in support of
his motion to stay entry of judgment and to revise, alter, amend,
or vacate the Maryland Court's February 19, 2014 decision. On June
30, 2014, the Maryland Court granted the parties' joint request to
stay this action for 120 days, pending the outcome of the special
litigation committee's investigation of the claims asserted in the
Shareholder Actions.


EQUITY COMMONWEALTH: Laborers Pension Fund v. Portnoy Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Commonwealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Central Laborers'
Pension Fund, or Central Laborers, a purported shareholder of EQC,
filed a complaint in the Maryland Court, titled Central Laborers
Pension Fund v. Portnoy, Case No. 24-C-13-001966, or the Central
Laborers Action. The Central Laborers Action purports to bring
claims individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of EQC against EQC and certain of the Company's
former trustees. The complaint alleges, among other things, claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and waste of
corporate assets. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution and damages, including counsel fees and
expenses.  On April 17, 2013, Central Laborers filed an amended
complaint, adding plaintiff William McGinley, a purported
shareholder of EQC, and requesting a declaration that EQC's
shareholders may remove trustees without cause.

The Company filed a demand for arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association on April 25, 2013. The Company and its
former trustees filed petitions for an order to arbitrate and for
a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Arbitration
Act on May 8, 2013 and May 16, 2013, respectively. On May 31,
2013, Central Laborers and Mr. McGinley filed a second amended
complaint, adding plaintiff Howard Ginsberg, a purported
shareholder of EQC.

Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, as amended from time to
time, the parties completed briefing on the pending petitions on
June 17, 2013. On January 21, 2014, the Maryland Court granted the
parties' joint stipulation and motion to consolidate the Katz
Action with the Central Laborers Action and consolidated the
actions under the caption Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 24-
C-13-001299, discussed above.  On June 30, 2014, the Maryland
Court granted the parties' joint request to stay this action for
120 days, pending the outcome of the special litigation
committee's investigation's investigation of the claims asserted
in the Shareholder Actions.


ESTATE INFORMATION: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dalah Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Estate Information Services, LLC, d/b/a EIS
Collections, Case No. 1:14-cv-05257-MKB-JMA (E.D.N.Y.,
September 9, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FARMER'S RICE: Faces Class Action in California Over "Flush" Rice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to CBSLA.com, if you have eaten sushi in California in
the past four years, you could be part of a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit suggests sushi enthusiasts throughout California for
years have been fed rice that may have been tainted.

Areas such as Los Angeles, where there is a tremendous sushi
demand, may be particularly exposed to what is called "flush," or
unnatural rice ingredients.

Attorney Brian Kabateck discussed flush with CBS2's Elsa Ramon.

"The rice is adulterated with what's called flush in this
industry," Mr. Kabateck said.  "And flush in the industry is
anything that is not supposed to be in the rice."

In the lawsuit, Farmer's Rice Cooperative is accused of selling
the tainted rice to thousands of grocery stores across California.

Particularly, the names New Variety, New Rose and Imperial Rose
are associated with the bad rice.

The complaint alleges the company would "allow substances, such as
insects, rodents and their soiling, bird remains and black mold to
be present in its processed rice."

Later, the complaint claims that restaurant and store owners were
led to believe they were buying U.S. No. 1 Extra Fancy rice.

What they received, however, according to the complaint, was not
edible.

"Disposing flush rice by blending it with food-grade rice unfairly
allowed defendants to obtain a profit from rice that could not be
legally sold for human consumption," the complaint states.

Mr. Kabateck also suggested the blend sold to restaurants and
stores, in fact, contained more inedible than edible rice.

"This rice, although they claim it's sushi grade, is as little as
15 percent sushi grade, and it's adulterated with other inferior
rices," Mr. Kabateck said.

The Farmer's Rice Cooperative rejected the accusations on Sept. 9,
saying: "We believe the charges are baseless and look forward to
the opportunity to vindicate ourselves in court."

For more information on how you may be involved in the lawsuit,
you can contact Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP at (213) 217-5000,
located at 644 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90017.


FIG & OLIVE: "Corte" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Corte, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Fig & Olive Founders LLC, Fig & Olive USA Inc.,
Fig & Olive Holding LLC, Fig & Olive Fifth Avenue LLC, Fig & Olive
Inc., Fig & Olive Thirteen Street LLC, F&O Scarsdale LLC, F&O
Chicago LLC, John Doe Corp. 1 d/b/a Fig & Olive, John Doe Corp. 2
d/b/a Fig & Olive, Laurent Halasz, Pascal Lorange, Sebastian
Gault, Jean Pierre Halasz and Luis Ramirez, Case No. 1:14-cv-07186
(S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant own and operate a chain of restaurants and Olive Oil
stores throughout the United States under the trade name Fig &
Olive.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Sued in Mich. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin G. Lubbers, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flagstar Bancorp Inc., Alessandro P.
Dinello, and Paul D. Borja, Case No. 2:14-cv-13459 (E.D. Mich.,
September 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects,
and performance.

Flagstar Bancorp Inc. operates as the holding company for Flagstar
Bank, which provides various financial products and services to
individuals and businesses in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
              fmcconville@pomlaw.com


FOREVER 21: Illegally Collects Customer's Information, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Estanboulian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Forever 21 Retail, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
06971 (C.D. Cal., September 7, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
currently is utilizing a policy whereby the Defendant's cashiers
both request and record credit card numbers and personal
identification information from customers using credit cards at
the point-of-sale.

Forever 21 Retail, Inc. operates retail stores throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fishcer Avenue Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Circuit to Address Remaining Paxil Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that since closing the question about GSK's corporate citizenship
last year, the Third Circuit opened the narrower question about
where the remaining cases over its antidepressant drug Paxil would
be heard.  That issue was before the appeals court on Sept. 10.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held
that GlaxoSmithKline is a corporate citizen of Delaware, not
Pennsylvania, which effectively preserved GSK's ability to remove
to federal court cases filed against it in Pennsylvania state
courts.

Many of the cases alleging that Paxil caused birth defects in
infants born to mothers who took it while pregnant were first
filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, then removed to
federal court by GSK, then remanded when a district judge held
that GSK was a Pennsylvania company.

After the Third Circuit issued its opinion declaring GSK a
Delaware company, GSK sought again to remove cases to federal
court, although the one-year window for removal on the basis of
diversity had passed since the cases were filed.

District judges have split on the issue of whether the
pharmaceutical giant could "re-remove" to federal court the cases
that had earlier been remanded to state court.

GSK, represented by Lisa Blatt -- Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- of
Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., argued to the Third Circuit
on Sept. 10 that its timely initial removal motion -- made within
the 30-day general statutory window -- is a placeholder to which
it may now relate back.

"This court, in USX v. Adriatic [Insurance], held that after an
intervening change in the law, amended notice can relate back
seven years," Ms. Blatt said.  That opinion was issued in 2003.
Judge Patty Shwartz, though, noted that in USX, the case was still
pending in the district court when the change to the law took
place.

Earlier in the argument, Judge D. Brooks Smith had told
Ms. Blatt's opposing counsel, Howard Bashman, that the relating-
back theory "is a legal fiction."

"That's, as I understand it, one of the main arguments that GSK is
making," Mr. Bashman responded.

Referring to the section of law at issue -- Section 1446(b) of
Title 28 of the U.S. Code -- Ms. Blatt had said in her brief,
"GSK's second removal is timely under the first paragraph because
the second removal relates back to GSK's timely initial removal."

"What they're asking this court to recognize is a loophole," said
Mr. Bashman, who is representing the plaintiff in a Paxil case, to
the Third Circuit panel.

Ms. Blatt, however, pointed to the Third Circuit's 1993 opinion in
Doe v. American Red Cross, to which both sides cited as the
primary authority on the issue of re-removal, and said, "On
opening the floodgates," Doe happened 20 years ago and allowed for
re-removal, but it has only been used three times since then.
"Their argument is basically that a case, once remanded, can never
be re-removed and Doe says, 'No. No, as long as you have a
definitive source from a higher court, you're beyond the bar of
1447," Ms. Blatt said, summarizing her take on the plaintiffs'
argument and referring to the other section of 28 U.S.C. at issue.
However, Mr. Bashman told the court that Doe clearly barred
re-removal of a case on the same grounds under 1447(d); that a
second removal must satisfy one of the two parts of 1446(b); and
that the second paragraph of 1446(b) requires that if there is new
case law, the suit is not to be treated as though it was
originally removable, but, rather, that it has become removable.

Two district court judges last year had certified the question of
re-removability to the Third Circuit, which took up the question
in January over the objections of GSK.

"This case presents a unique issue of civil procedure that
involves a split of authority and has the potential to arise in
future disputes.  A decision on this issue will also immediately
affect the eight other Paxil cases removed to federal court," said
U.S. District Chief Judge Christopher Conner of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania previously in his December certification
for interlocutory appeal in the case captioned Miller v. GSK.
That is the case on which the Third Circuit granted appeal.

U.S. District Senior Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania is the other judge who certified interlocutory
appeal.

Third Circuit Senior Judge Jane R. Roth was also on the three-
judge appellate panel.


GLOBAL TEL-LINK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Prisoner Call Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a company that provides phone service to prison inmates has lost
its bid to dismiss a putative class action over its rates in
Newark federal court, but the case has been stayed while the
plaintiffs pursue an administrative remedy with the Federal
Communications Commission.

Nevertheless, the judge has allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with
limited discovery in the case.

Global Tel-Link of Reston, Va., buys phone time for three-tenths
of a cent per minute but resells it for 30 cents per minute to
people who receive calls from inmates, according to the suit.  The
company is the exclusive provider of phone service for state
prison inmates in New Jersey and the state's 40 percent cut of
those phone fees comes to more than $4 million per year, the suit
says.  Two affiliates of that company, Inmate Telephone Service
and DSI-ITI, which provide similar services to county jail inmates
in New Jersey, are also named as defendants.

The suit, filed in August 2013, brings claims under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and the Federal Communications Act, as well as
the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. In November 2013, the
FCC issued regulations capping rates for inmate calling services
at 21 cents per minute.

Global Tel-Link and other prison phone service companies
challenged the new FCC regulations and that case is pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  In light of that
case, Global Tel-Link moved for dismissal of the New Jersey suit,
arguing that the FCC has primary jurisdiction to decide if the
company's terms are reasonable.  The plaintiffs, for their part,
said there was no need to refer the case to the FCC because that
agency had already resolved the issue of whether the company's
rates are unreasonable.

In a Sept. 8 ruling, U.S. District Judge William Martini of the
District of New Jersey agreed that the FCC has primary
jurisdiction over certain issues in the case, but he entered a
stay rather than dismissing it.

Notwithstanding the stay, however, Judge Martini also issued an
order the same day allowing the plaintiffs to move for specific,
limited discovery that cannot be obtained through the plaintiffs'
own efforts in absence of a court order; that is not likely to be
duplicative of discovery likely to be produced in the
administrative proceedings with the FCC; and where there is a
reasonable chance that the items sought will be lost before the
end of the administrative proceedings.

The named plaintiffs in James v. Global Tel-Link are a former
state prison inmate and six relatives of inmates.  The suit says
family, friends and lawyers who wish to receive calls from inmates
are required to make a minimum deposit of $25, of which 20 percent
goes to an administrative fee.  Users of the service are not
provided with a written contract and are not advised of the terms
and conditions that apply to their accounts, the plaintiffs
allege.  When making a call, users hear how much money is left in
their accounts but cannot obtain an itemized statement of charges,
the suit claims.

AT&T obtained the exclusive contract for inmate phone service in
New Jersey in 2002 and it sold the contract to Global Tel-Link
later in the same year, the suit claims.  The plaintiffs include
Mark Skladny and his parents, Barbara and Milan Skladny.  When
Mark Skladny was moved from one penal institution to another
during his incarceration, his parents had to open new accounts
with the defendant each time he moved, incurring fees to close one
account and open another, the suit says.

Judge Martini noted that the Federal Communications Act allows
plaintiffs to file a suit or make a complaint to the FCC if they
feel a communications service is charging fees that are unjust or
unreasonable. While the plaintiffs were within their authority
when they brought their suit in court, Judge Martini said, the
issue of whether the company's fees and policies are unjust and
unreasonable is "better left for the FCC."  Pursuing an
administrative complaint with the FCC won't cause the plaintiffs
to lose their rights to pursue damages in court, Judge Martini
said.  Cases requiring analysis of abstract terms such as
"reasonable" are well-suited for an administrative agency, Judge
Martini said.

Responding to the plaintiffs' claim that the FCC had already
resolved the question of whether the defendants violated the new
regulations, Judge Martini said the most important issue was
whether the company violated the FCA before the new regulations
were enacted.

Judge Martini declined to accept the plaintiffs' request for a
stay only on the FCA cause of action, while discovery continued on
the case's other causes of action.

"The overhanging uncertainty about the FCC's determination could
make discovery on the other causes of action more contentious than
necessary," Judge Martini said.  Therefore, the case will be
stayed until the FCC rules on the reasonableness of the
defendant's charges and practices, or the plaintiffs drop the FCA
claim, Judge Martini said.

Because the court has no mechanism to refer a case to the FCC, and
because the plaintiffs suggested at oral argument that they would
not seek the FCC's determination on reasonableness of the charges
and practices in question, Judge Martini directed the plaintiffs
to file an administrative complaint within 90 days of the D.C.
Circuit's decision in the pending appeal.  If the plaintiffs fail
to do so, the defendants may petition the court to dismiss the FCA
count for lack of prosecution, Judge Martini said.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, James Plaisted --
jplaisted@walderhayden.com -- of Walder Hayden in Roseland, N.J.,
said of the ruling, "Our preference is to pursue the case
completely, and so the delay wasn't our preference, but it's not
significant in the overall scheme of things."

Global Tel-Link is represented by Philip Sellinger --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- and Aaron Van Nostrand --
vannostranda@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig in Florham Park,
N.J. Sellinger could not be reached and Van Nostrand declined to
comment.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixes Mortgage Suit on Additional Offerings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman Sachs
employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on
December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various
mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates
issued by various securitization trusts established by the firm
and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007.  The complaint generally
alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements
for the certificates violated the federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included
in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings.

On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended complaint
relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings
(additional offerings).

On July 10, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the additional offerings.

On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class
action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one
of the additional offerings and thereafter moved to further amend
its amended complaint to add claims with respect to two of the
additional offerings. On March 27, 2014, the district court
largely denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the original
offering, but denied the separate plaintiff's motion to add the
two additional offerings through an amendment.

The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,
approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all
purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue in the complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Leave to Appeal Class Cert. Order Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action was
filed on September 30, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.), and two
former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of
notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson
Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts
federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks
unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. The
defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's claim
of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of
plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21,
2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and
fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants'
petition for leave to appeal from the district court's January 22,
2014 order granting class certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Sever Forced-Place Insurance Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has moved to sever the claims
against it and certain other defendants in a force-placed
insurance action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Group Inc., Litton Loan Servicing L.P., Ocwen Financial
Corporation and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a former
subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class
action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the
procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance
arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance
as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair
practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. An amended
complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an additional
plaintiff and RICO claims. On January 21, 2014, Group Inc. moved
to sever the claims against it and certain other defendants.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Denied Leave to Appeal in RALI Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in
a securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in New
York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  As to the
underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in
connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through
certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federal
securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit
Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC),
Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of
their officers and directors.

On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in
connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes
only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from
the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days
after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court
granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the
previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine
offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional
offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings
but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and
scope covered by the previous class definition.

On May 28, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants' petition
for leave to appeal from the December 27, 2013 order granting
class certification.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.57 billion principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings included in the
amended complaint. On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 28, 2013, the district
court entered a final order and judgment approving a settlement
between plaintiffs and ResCap, RALI, RFC, RFSC and their officers
and directors named as defendants in the action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Zynga Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on August 1, 2012 in the
California Superior Court, County of San Francisco. In addition to
the underwriters, the defendants include Zynga Inc. (Zynga) and
certain of its directors and officers. The consolidated amended
complaint, filed on April 29, 2013, generally alleges that the
offering materials for the March 2012 $516 million secondary
offering of Zynga common stock by certain of Zynga's shareholders
violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission.
On June 12, 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer, seeking to have
the claims dismissed. GS&Co. underwrote 14,824,358 shares for a
total offering price of approximately $178 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in FireEye Securities Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on June 20, 2014 in the
California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition to
the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye)
and certain of its directors and officers. The complaint generally
alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with the
offering materials for the March 2014 $1.15 billion offering of
FireEye common stock, asserts claims under the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission.
GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Sought in Gender Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on September 15,
2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by three female former
employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female
employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments,
mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a
class consisting of all female employees employed at specified
levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July
2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On May 19, 2014, plaintiffs moved for class certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Credit Derivatives Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the numerous defendants in
putative antitrust class actions relating to credit derivatives,
filed beginning in May 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints
generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws
by conspiring to forestall the development of alternatives to
over-the-counter trading of credit derivatives and to maintain
inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives trading. The
complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants moved to
dismiss on May 23, 2014.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Aluminum Storage
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Group Inc. and its
subsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power) and Metro
International Trade Services LLC (Metro), are among the defendants
in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1,
2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege violation of
federal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in
connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities. The
complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief
as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages.

Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on March 12,
2014, and the Goldman Sachs defendants moved to dismiss on April
23, 2014.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing Class Actions Over Zinc Storage
-----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Group Inc. and its
subsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power), Metro
International Trade Services LLC (Metro), and Goldman Sachs
International (GSI) are among the defendants named in putative
class actions, filed beginning May 23, 2014 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, based on alleged
violations of the federal antitrust laws in connection with the
management of zinc storage facilities.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Currencies-Related Litigation Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in
several putative antitrust class actions relating to trading in
the foreign exchange markets, filed since December 2013 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount.  On February 13, 2014, the cases were
consolidated into one action.

On February 28, 2014, Group Inc. was named in a separate putative
class action containing substantially similar allegations, which
was not consolidated but is coordinated with the other proceeding
for pretrial purposes; that complaint was amended on April 30,
2014.  On May 30, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the complaints
in both actions.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in High-Frequency Trading Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Group Inc. is among
the numerous securities exchanges, broker-dealers and purported
high-frequency trading firms named as defendants in a number of
putative securities class actions relating to high-frequency
trading filed since April 18, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants violated the provisions of the federal
securities laws prohibiting market manipulation and insider
trading. The complaints seek, among other things, equitable and
other injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory
damages, restitution and disgorgement.


GOMEZ RECYCLING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Romero" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Romero, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Gomez Recycling Inc., and Felipe Gomez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06907 (N.D. Ill., September 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Gomez Recycling Inc., is an Illinois based recycling company owned
by Felipe Gomez.

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


HARMAN INT'L: No Briefing Yet on Securities Case Dismisal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal
of a securities class action against Harman International
Industries Incorporated but no briefing schedule has been set,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.

"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.

"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.
On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

"On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained
before Judge Richard W. Roberts.

"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss.

"On January 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dismiss,
without prejudice, the In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a notice of
appeal but no briefing schedule has been set."

Harman International believes it is a worldwide leader in the
development, manufacture and marketing of high quality, high-
fidelity audio products, lighting solutions and electronic
systems.  It also believes it is a leader in digitally integrated
audio and infotainment systems for the automotive industry.  Its
Aha(R), AKG(R), AMX(R), Becker(R), BSS(R), Crown(R), dbx(R),
DigiTech(R), Harman/Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), JBL
Professional, Lexicon(R), Logic 7(R), Mark Levinson(R), Martin(R),
Revel(R), Selenium(R), Soundcraft(R), Studer(R) and yurbuds(R)
Powered by JBL brand names are well known worldwide for premium
quality and performance.


HARMAN INT'L: Dismissal of "Russell" Action Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
The Russell Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of its class action lawsuit against Harman International
Industries Incorporated but no briefing schedule has been set, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014.

Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of our
officers and directors alleging violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on behalf of
all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman International
Industries Retirement Savings Plan (the "Savings Plan"),
compensatory damages for losses to the Savings Plan as well as
injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive trust,
restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended complaint
alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present defendants failed
to prudently and loyally manage the Savings Plan's assets, thereby
breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing
the Savings Plan to invest in our common stock notwithstanding
that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for
the Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaint
further claimed that, during the Class Period, defendants failed
to monitor the Savings Plan's fiduciaries, failed to provide the
Savings Plan's fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the Savings
Plan's participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and our
businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contended
that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of
interest and to serve the interests of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with undivided loyalty. As a
result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint
asserted that the Savings Plan had "suffered substantial losses,
resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the
Savings Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008.
The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on
September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22,
2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
The Russell Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal but no briefing
schedule has been set.

Harman International believes it is a worldwide leader in the
development, manufacture and marketing of high quality, high-
fidelity audio products, lighting solutions and electronic
systems.  It also believes it is a leader in digitally integrated
audio and infotainment systems for the automotive industry.  Its
Aha(R), AKG(R), AMX(R), Becker(R), BSS(R), Crown(R), dbx(R),
DigiTech(R), Harman/Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), JBL
Professional, Lexicon(R), Logic 7(R), Mark Levinson(R), Martin(R),
Revel(R), Selenium(R), Soundcraft(R), Studer(R) and yurbuds(R)
Powered by JBL brand names are well known worldwide for premium
quality and performance.


HJ HEINZ: Plaintiff's Testimony Not Admissible in Asbestos Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that testimony given in an asbestos products-liability
lawsuit by a maintenance worker at a ketchup bottling plant is
inadmissible in a workers' compensation lawsuit, the Ohio Supreme
Court has ruled.

Plaintiff Donald Burkhart died from mesothelioma, a cancer in the
linings of the lungs, stomach and other organs related to asbestos
exposure.  In a deposition, Mr. Burkhart testified regarding his
exposure to asbestos from various manufacturers.  After his death,
his wife, Mary Lou Burkhart, filed a workers' compensation claim
against his employer H.J. Heinz Co. for allegedly exposing him to
asbestos from his work in a boiler room with pile insulation
containing asbestos.  Mr. Burkhart worked for Heinz for 40 years
until his retirement in 1986.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell opined that Mr. Burkhart's deposition
testimony was not admissible in the workers' compensation case
because the products-liability defendants did not have the same
motive as H.J. Heinz to develop Mr. Burkhart's testimony.

"Each asbestos manufacturer sought to disprove that [Burkhart] had
been exposed to asbestos that it had produced, and none had an
incentive to dispute that he had not been exposed to asbestos at
H.J. Heinz," Justice O'Donnell wrote.

Under Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(B)(1), testimony from a witness
who is not available is not precluded as hearsay if the defendant
or a defendant's "predecessor-in-interest had the opportunity to
examine the declarant in the prior proceeding" and had a motive
similar to the defendant's motive "in the present proceeding to
develop the former testimony by direct, cross, or redirect
examination," the court said.

Hearsay testimony is not admissible from earlier court proceedings
unless it was developed by the defendant or another party with
which the defendant is in privity through a legal "right, title,
interest or obligation," Justice O'Donnell continued.  Otherwise,
it's unfair to impose liability on the basis of a witness'
testimony that the defendant did not question, he said.
While some federal courts have found that privity is not required
to establish a predecessor-in-interest relationship, "we view the
requirement that the examiner have had a similar motivation to be
a further restriction in the admissibility of former testimony,
not an expansion of the common law rule that permits the admission
of former testimony against parties unrelated to the prior
action," Justice O'Donnell wrote.

In dissent, Justice Paul Pfeifer said he would have adopted the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's standard for what
constitutes a predecessor in interest from the 1978 decision in
Lloyd v. American Export Lines Inc.: "If it appears that in the
former suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine about
the same matters as the present party would have, was accorded an
adequate opportunity for such examination, the testimony may be
received against the present party.'"


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: NJ Court Has Yet to Approve Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the announcement
of the merger with Wilmington Trust Corporation ("WTC"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of M&T Bank Corporation ("M&T"), eighteen
putative class action complaints have been filed in the Court of
Chancery, Delaware against Hudson City Bancorp, its directors,
M&T, and WTC challenging the Merger.  Six putative class actions
challenging the Merger have also been filed in the Superior Court
for Bergen County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey (the "New
Jersey Court").

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Hudson
City Bancorp directors breached their fiduciary duties to Hudson
City Bancorp's public shareholders by approving the Merger at an
unfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed sales
process, and that Hudson City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleading
and incomplete Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with the
proposed transaction. All 24 lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek an accounting of
damages sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of all of the actions.

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other
named defendants, and all the plaintiffs have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants from
all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the New
Jersey Court. Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&T
agreed to make available additional information to Hudson City
Bancorp shareholders.  The additional information was contained in
a Supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as an
exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013. In
addition, under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has
reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

If the New Jersey Court approves the settlement contemplated by
the MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with prejudice. The
settlement will not affect the Merger consideration to be paid to
Hudson City Bancorp's shareholders in connection with the proposed
Merger. In the event the New Jersey Court approves an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the settlement,
such fees and expenses shall be paid by Hudson City Bancorp, its
successor in interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


HUNAM INN: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hunam Inn, Inc. d/b/a Cobalt/30 Degrees, Donald Eric
Little, and David Perruzza, Case No. 1:14-cv-01522 (D.D.C.,
September 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation.

Hunam Inn, Inc. owns, operates and controls a food and beverage
establishment known as Cobalt/30 Degrees, located at 1639 R St.
NW, Washington, DC 20009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth C. Gauvey, Esq.
      THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC
      111 South Calvert Street, Suite 2700
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 385-5264
      Facsimile: (866) 487-1154
      E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com


INTEGRYS ENERGY: Facing Class Suit Over Wisconsin Energy Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrys Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in June 2014 and
July 2014, the Company and its board of directors, along with
Wisconsin Energy Corporation (Wisconsin Energy), were named
defendants in six class action lawsuits brought by purported
Integrys Energy Group shareholders challenging the proposed
merger. Three lawsuits were filed in Brown County, Wisconsin:
Rubin, et al. v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; and Albera, et al. v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al. In addition, two lawsuits were
filed in Cook County, Illinois: Taxman v. Integrys Energy Group,
Inc., et al. and Curley v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.,
and one was filed in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin: Amo v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al.

"The complaints allege, among other things, that our board members
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value
to be received by our shareholders and that Wisconsin Energy aided
and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek,
among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from consummating
the proposed merger and (b) to rescind the merger agreement. We
believe the claims asserted in each lawsuit have no merit and
intend to defend the actions vigorously," the Company said.

The Company is a diversified energy holding company with regulated
natural gas and electric utility operations (serving customers in
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), an approximate 34%
equity ownership interest in ATC (a federally regulated electric
transmission company), and nonregulated energy operations.


LANNETT CO: Faces Securities Class Action in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that purchasers
of Lannett Company stock are suing after they claim the company
violated federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public.

David Schaefer claims he and others who purchased or otherwise
acquired Lannett securities between Sept. 10, 2013, and July 16
are seeking to recover damages caused by Lannett Company, Arthur
P. Bedrosian, Martin P. Galvan and G. Michael Landis, according to
a complaint filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the
company was fixing, maintaining and controlling prices of Digoxin
in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws.

Lannett was allegedly allocating and dividing customers and
territories with competitors relating to the sale of Digoxin in
violation of Connecticut antitrust laws.

Mr. Schaefer claims the company's anticompetitive practices
subjected Lannett to heightened regulatory scrutiny, including
possible investigation by the Connecticut Office of the Attorney
General and, as a result, Lannett's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

"On July 16 . . . the company issued a press released and filed a
Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that the company received
interrogatories and a subpoena from the State of Connecticut
Office of the Attorney General concerning its investigation into
pricing and customer/territorial division of Digoxin," the
complaint states.

As a result of this news, Lannett stock fell $8.05, more than 17
percent, according to the suit.

Mr. Schaefer claims as a result of the defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the "precipitous decline in the market value of
the company's securities," he and other class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

"The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable," the complaint states.  "Throughout the
class period, Lanett securities were actively traded on the NYSE.
While the exact number of class members in unknown to plaintiff at
this time and can be ascertained only through discovery, plaintiff
believes that there are hundreds or thousands of members in the
proposed class."

Mr. Schaefer is seeking class certification and compensatory
damages with pre- and post-judgment interest.  He is being
represented by Michael D. Donovan and Noah Axler of Donovan Axler
LLC; and Jeremy A. Lieberman, Francis P. McConville and Patrick V.
Dahlstrom of Pomerantz LLP.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case
number: 2:14-cv-05008


LAWSON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Gonzalez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lawson Industries, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-
02220 (M.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess
of 40 hours per week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lawson Industries, Inc. is a foreign manufacturer of windows and
doors doing business within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0432
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmuth@wfclaw.com


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Opposition Brief Due in Jefferies Deal Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that seven putative
class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a putative
class consisting of Jefferies Group LLC stockholders in New York
and Delaware concerning the merger transaction whereby Jefferies
became our wholly-owned subsidiary.  Three were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York: (1) Howard Lasker IRA v.
Jefferies Group, Inc. et al. (Index No. 653924/2012), filed on
November 14, 2012 in New York County; (2) Lowinger v. Leucadia
National Corp. et al. (Index No. 653958/2012), filed on November
15, 2012 in New York County; and (3) Jiannaras v. Jefferies Group,
Inc., et al. (Index No. 702866/2012), filed on November 16, 2012
in Queens County.  Four were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware: (1) Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement
System v. Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8054-CS), filed on November 21,
2012; (2) Laborers' District Council Pension and Disability Trust
Fund No. 2 et al. v. Campbell et al. (C.A. No. 8059-CS), filed on
November 26, 2012; (3) Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
v. Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8096-CS), filed on December 11, 2012;
and (4) Gelfand v. Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8228-CS), filed on
January 17, 2013 (collectively, the "Actions").

The Company said, "The class actions, filed on behalf of Jefferies
shareholders prior to the merger, name as defendants Jefferies,
the members of the board of directors of Jefferies, the members of
our board of directors and, in certain of the actions, certain
merger-related subsidiaries.  The Actions seek, among other
things, equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages."

"The New York actions were consolidated and have been stayed
through pretrial discovery in deference to the Delaware actions,
which also have been consolidated.  The consolidated Delaware
action alleges that the members of Jefferies board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
transactions by engaging in a flawed process, agreeing to sell
Jefferies for inadequate consideration pursuant to an agreement
that contains improper deal protection terms, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the merger transactions,
and further that we aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties (the Court has since dismissed the former
Jefferies independent directors from the action).  The action also
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty against Messrs. Handler and
Friedman in their capacities as officers of Jefferies, and against
Messrs. Handler, Friedman, Cumming and Steinberg, collectively, as
purported controlling shareholders of Jefferies.  On May 30, 2014,
the court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to certify the
class.  On July 22, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment.  The plaintiffs' opposition brief is due on
August 21, 2014.  We are unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation or to estimate the amount of or range of any reasonably
possible loss."

Leucadia National Corporation is a diversified holding company
engaged through its consolidated subsidiaries in a variety of
businesses, including investment banking and capital markets
(Jefferies Group), beef processing (National Beef Packing
Company), manufacturing (Conwed Plastics and Idaho Timber), oil
and gas exploration and production (Juneau Energy and Vitesse
Energy), energy projects (Lake Charles Clean Energy and Oregon
LNG) and asset management (Leucadia Asset Management).  It also
owns equity interests in businesses which are not consolidated,
including Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, (commercial mortgage
banking and servicing), Garcadia, (automobile dealerships),
HomeFed Corporation (real estate), Linkem S.p.A. (wireless
broadband services provider in Italy) and Harbinger Group Inc.
(diversified holding company).


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Appeal Heard in "Sykes" Consumer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries and officers are named as defendants
in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris &
Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The named
defendants also include the Mel Harris law firm, certain
individuals and members associated with the law firm, and a
process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees.  The
action arises out of the law firm's obtaining default judgments
against approximately 124,000 individuals in New York City Civil
Court with respect to consumer debt purchased by the Company's
subsidiaries.

"We asserted that we were an investor with respect to the subject
purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of the amounts
received from debt collections, but otherwise had no involvement
in any alleged illegal debt collection activities," the Company
said.

"The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently obtained
the default judgments in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary
Law (alleged only as to the law firm) and seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and others similarly situated.  Defendants' motions to dismiss
were denied in part (including as to the claims made against us
and our subsidiaries) and granted in part (including as to certain
of the claims made against our officers) (the "Dismissal
Decision").  In September 2012, the Court issued a decision
granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class (the "Certification Decision").  Neither the
Dismissal Decision nor the Certification Decision addresses the
ultimate merits of the case.

"At a November 2012 status conference, the parties advised the
Court of their intention to attempt to resolve the dispute through
mediation.  Those efforts were not successful and the parties
advised the Court.  On March 28, 2013, the Court entered its
certification order, certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of "all
persons who have been or will be sued by the Mel Harris defendants
as counsel for the Leucadia defendants in actions commenced in New
York City Civil Court and where a default judgment has or will be
sought" and a Rule 23(b)(3) class of "all persons who have been
sued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for the Leucadia
defendants in actions commenced in New York City Civil Court and
where a default judgment has been obtained." (the "Certification
Order").

"On July 19, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit granted our leave to appeal the District Court's
March Certification Order.  In connection with the appeal, the
District Court has granted a stay of the proceedings pending the
Court of Appeals' decision. The appeal was heard on February 7,
2014.

"Determinations of both the probability and the estimated amount
of loss or potential loss are judgments made in the context of
developments in the litigation.  We review these developments
regularly with our outside counsel.  Because we determined that we
would be willing to resolve this matter with plaintiffs for $20.0
million, we accrued a litigation reserve for this contingency in
that amount.  In arriving at this reserve amount, we considered a
number of factors, including that (i) while the damages sought are
indeterminate, payment of this reserved amount would not resolve
the case at this time, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome
of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals respecting
class certification), (iii) there are significant factual issues
to be determined or resolved, (iv) relevant law is unsettled and
untested legal theories are presented, (v) we have numerous
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, (vi) there are no adverse
rulings by the Court on the merits of plaintiffs' claims and (vii)
several important litigation milestones, such as the completion of
discovery and the filing of summary judgment motions, have not yet
occurred.

"We also note that the plaintiffs in the action -- the class
members certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
-- have alleged certain categories of damages under each of the
statutes underlying their claims.  These damages include (i)
statutory damages, which are capped under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act at $0.5 million for the class, and (ii) actual
damages.  While not fully described in the complaint, it appears
that plaintiffs' claim for actual damages includes not only
incidental costs incurred in connection with the default judgments
(including, for example, subway fares to the courthouse and bank
fees), costs relating to emotional distress and costs related to
reputational damage allegedly arising as a result of the long-term
effects of the default judgments, but also the full amount of the
debt that class members paid (whether owed or not) following entry
of the default judgments.  The amount of debt collected to date
totals approximately $90.0 million.  If the plaintiffs are
successful in proving their claims and in proving actual damages,
plaintiffs' damages may be subject to prejudgment interest and
trebling under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act."

Leucadia National Corporation is a diversified holding company
engaged through its consolidated subsidiaries in a variety of
businesses, including investment banking and capital markets
(Jefferies Group), beef processing (National Beef Packing
Company), manufacturing (Conwed Plastics and Idaho Timber), oil
and gas exploration and production (Juneau Energy and Vitesse
Energy), energy projects (Lake Charles Clean Energy and Oregon
LNG) and asset management (Leucadia Asset Management).  It also
owns equity interests in businesses which are not consolidated,
including Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, (commercial mortgage
banking and servicing), Garcadia, (automobile dealerships),
HomeFed Corporation (real estate), Linkem S.p.A. (wireless
broadband services provider in Italy) and Harbinger Group Inc.
(diversified holding company).


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Moves to Dismiss Haverhill Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiff Haverhill
Retirement System ("Haverhill")  filed on May 2, 2014, an amended
putative class action and derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint")
entitled Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al. in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery")
against Harbinger Capital Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners
Master Fund I, Ltd., Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd.,
Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P.
(collectively, the "Harbinger Funds"), the members of the board of
directors of Harbinger Group, Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominal
defendant Harbinger, as well as Leucadia. The Complaint alleges,
among other things, that the directors of Harbinger breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchase
of preferred securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds
that are exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the
Harbinger Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the
special committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in
connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the
Harbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of
unjust enrichment against Leucadia.  On April 1, 2014, the
Chancery Court denied Haverhill's motion for expedited proceedings
associated with the complaint originally filed by Haverhill on
March 26, 2014.  Haverhill filed an amended complaint on May 2,
2014.  On May 16, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 2, 2014, defendants filed briefs in
support of those motions.  Haverhill's brief in opposition to the
motions to dismiss is due on September 5, 2014.

Leucadia National Corporation is a diversified holding company
engaged through its consolidated subsidiaries in a variety of
businesses, including investment banking and capital markets
(Jefferies Group), beef processing (National Beef Packing
Company), manufacturing (Conwed Plastics and Idaho Timber), oil
and gas exploration and production (Juneau Energy and Vitesse
Energy), energy projects (Lake Charles Clean Energy and Oregon
LNG) and asset management (Leucadia Asset Management).  It also
owns equity interests in businesses which are not consolidated,
including Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, (commercial mortgage
banking and servicing), Garcadia, (automobile dealerships),
HomeFed Corporation (real estate), Linkem S.p.A. (wireless
broadband services provider in Italy) and Harbinger Group Inc.
(diversified holding company).


MARRONE BIO: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joann N. Martinelli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G.
Marrone, Donald J. Glidewell, and James B. Boyd, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02055 (E.D. Cal., September 5, 2014), alleges that throughout the
Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. provides bio-based pest management
and plant health products for the crop protection, water
treatment, and other target markets in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184

         - and -

      Edward N. Gewirtz, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: chona@bgandg.com


MASIMO CORPORATION: California Junk Fax Class Action Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on January 2, 2014, against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the
Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of
the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The
complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if
the court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus
interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the
Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a
related petition filed by the Company with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District
Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by
the FCC on the petition. The Company believes it has good and
substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that
the Company will prevail.

Masimo Corporation is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures and markets noninvasive patient monitoring
products.


MASIMO CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that an amended putative
class action complaint was filed on January 31, 2014, against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant,
Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the
University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amended
complaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaint
alleges product liability and negligence claims in connection with
pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided at the request
of study investigators for use in the trial. A previous version of
the complaint also alleged a wrongful death claim, which the court
dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney fees, and
injunctive and other relief. The Company believes it has good and
substantial defenses to the remaining claims, but there is no
guarantee that the Company will prevail.

Masimo Corporation is a global medical technology company that
develops, manufactures and markets noninvasive patient monitoring
products.


MELVIN DRAYTON: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Butler, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Melvin
Drayton Plastering, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Melvin
Drayton, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-62037 (S.D. Fla.,
September 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Melvin Drayton Plastering, Inc. is a plastering, drywall, and
insulation contractor doing business within the State of Florida.

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


MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL: Accused of Sexually Harassing Female Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores J. Dominguez v. The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Inc.,
Wayne Thomas, Individually, and Kenardo Robinson, Individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07269-RA (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014) seeks
damages to redress the injuries that the Plaintiff has suffered as
a result of being sexually harassed, discriminated against on the
basis of gender, and retaliated against by her the Defendants.

The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Inc. is a New York domestic not-
for-profit business corporation, with its principal place of
business located in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are
employees, officers or managers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward J. Kennedy, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
          E-mail: ekennedy@tpglaws.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Appellate Review Sought in Concussion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that all three judges on the appellate panel summoned by objectors
to the settlement in the NFL concussion case wanted to know why
their review had been sought at this point -- before the trial
judge has held the fairness hearing scheduled for November.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit panel heard
arguments on Sept. 10, about two months after U.S. District Judge
Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted
preliminary approval to a settlement between the National Football
League and the former players who suffered head injuries while
they played for the league.

Steven Molo of MoloLamken in New York represents seven players who
object to the settlement.  They sought appellate review under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which allows for an appeal
of an order granting or denying class certification.  The
threshold issue in the case was whether Judge Brody's July order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement and granting
conditional certification of the class for settlement purposes
would even trigger the Third Circuit's right to review.

Mr. Molo told the court that part of the reasoning behind 23(f)
was to keep parties from wasting time and money in litigation.
"How is this not an invitation to an exquisite example of such
waste when we are being asked to review something that even the
district court has not yet had an opportunity to examine in
depth?" Judge D. Brooks Smith asked.

"You're asking us to review a record that is barren of the kind of
facts that even the district court should have" for weighing class
certification and settlement approval, Judge Smith said.

Where there are significant issues, Mr. Molo said, the appeals
court can review.  In this case, he said, significant issues have
been raised to Judge Brody twice -- in the form of a motion to
intervene and an objection following the preliminary approval of
the settlement.  The judge had declined to answer them at either
time, Mr. Molo said.

"Why isn't the right thing for us to do to let her examine them at
the time she planned to examine them in a final way?" Judge Kent
A. Jordan asked.  "Why now? Why do you want to do this right now,
on this record, instead of waiting until she gives what, in her
mind, is the final certification?"

Beyond the objection he said had already been raised to the
district court, Mr. Molo noted that the class members' health, in
some cases, is rapidly deteriorating.

In the time between the preliminary approval in July and the
fairness hearing scheduled for November, the rights of the class
members are being determined, Mr. Molo said, with the appointment
of class counsel, procedures and timelines.

"You and any other objector can shoot at it at the fairness
hearing," Judge Smith said.  "You want two bites at the apple."
"No.  I want one bite at the apple," Mr. Molo said.

"The class, as certified, is doomed," the players argue in their
petition to the Third Circuit.  "Additionally, the notice is
materially false and the claims process is improperly complex and
exclusionary in violation of due process.  Rather than incur the
substantial expense and inevitable delay of a fairness hearing and
ensuing opinion, we ask that those problems be addressed now."
Samuel Issacharoff, a New York lawyer who is on the class counsel
team, emphasized that the appeals court wouldn't have authority to
review an order unless it is final.

"You're being asked to preempt the district court," he said.
Judge Thomas L. Ambro was also on the panel.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Retired Players Lose Concussion Settlement Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric M. Johnson, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court on Sept. 11 rejected an appeal by seven retired National
Football League players who argued a recent settlement between the
league and thousands of former players stemming from a lawsuit
over concussions does not go far enough.

The appeal, filed in July in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, came about two weeks after U.S. District Judge Anita
Brody granted preliminary approval to a settlement that removed a
$675 million cap on awards to former players who were part of the
groundbreaking head injury lawsuit.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say 20,000 retired players could be
covered under the agreement.

Circuit Court Judge Thomas Ambro said in an order denying the
appeal that the court would issue an opinion at a later date.

The seven players, including Sean Morey, who coaches at Princeton
University, said the settlement did not offer enough to those who
had yet to see the worst of their symptoms appear, and did not
cover all diagnoses suffered by players with head trauma.

The other players are Roderick Cartwright, Sean Considine,
Alan Faneca, Ben Hamilton, Jeff Rohrer, and Robert Royal.

The appeal was unusual, partly because retired players who have
joined the lawsuit are due to vote on the settlement in November.
The seven players say appealing the settlement after final
approval would be a costly waste of time.

A three-judge circuit court panel expressed skepticism during a
one-hour hearing on Wednesday that they had jurisdiction to
intervene before the settlement was made final, the New York Times
reported.

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE, a degenerative disease
brought on by repeated head trauma, is one of the most common
brain disorders affecting former players, the appeal said.

A growing body of academic research shows collisions on the field
can lead to CTE, which can lead to aggression and dementia.


NAVARRO SECURITY: Faces "Calixto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evy Calixto, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Navarro
Security Group, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Louis
Sorrentino and Joseph M. Dibbs, Individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-
62036 (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over
40 in one or more work week.

Navarro Security Group, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is
engaged in the business of providing unarmed Officers, armed
Officers, K-9 Officers, and Security Officers with medical
training and certifications.

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


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Asbestos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a plaintiff with a history of smoking was not able to
demonstrate that asbestos was a substantial contributing factor to
his lung cancer because his treating physician from the Department
of Veterans Affair did not provide a report detailing asbestos'
role in his cancer, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.

The physician could have been subpoenaed even though federal
regulations sharply curb the ability of V.A. personnel to testify
as experts, the court said.  As a result, the court reasoned, the
plaintiff's widow was not deprived of her constitutional rights to
enforce a federal cause of action under the Federal Employers
Liability Act and the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act in
a state tort action alleging asbestos claims.

Nor was she deprived of her constitutional rights to seek a
meaningful, timely remedy for her injury and her right to a jury
trial, Justice Terrence O'Donnell wrote.

Plaintiff Cleo Renfrow claims that her husband, who died in
January 2011, developed lung cancer after being exposed to
asbestos while working as a brakeman for Norfolk Southern Railway
Co. from 1968 to 1992.  Gerald Renfrow also smoked 1 1/2 packs of
cigarettes every day for a half-century.

The physician retained by Ms. Renfrow is not a "competent medical
authority" as required by Ohio law.  While plaintiffs expert
Dr. Laxminarayana Rao is board-certified in internal and pulmonary
medicine, the physician did not treat Mr. Renfrow.  Instead,
Mr. Renfrow was treated by the V.A., which would not authorize his
doctor to write a written report on whether asbestos exposure was
a substantial contributing factor to his lung cancer.

Ms. Renfrow's counsel did not subpoena the treating physician
because of precedent holding that federal employees may not be
compelled to obey subpoenas contrary to instructions from their
agencies.

Justice O'Donnell said that Ms. Renfrow's lawyer still could have
issued a subpoena because the 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen stands for the narrow
"proposition that a court may not hold a federal employee in
contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena when he acts in
accordance with a validly enacted agency regulation -- not that a
federal official need not comply with a state-issued subpoena,"
Justice O'Donnell said.

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger concurred in judgment only, and
Justices Paul Pfeifer and Justice William O'Neill wrote separate
concurrences.  Justice O'Neill noted that the case is not over yet
until "all possible means of securing an opinion from the V.A.
doctors have been exhausted."


OMNICELL INC: Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
During November 2012, an Omnicell Inc. electronic device
containing medication dispensing cabinet log files from three
health system customers was stolen from an Omnicell employee's
locked vehicle.

The Company said, "The files on this device contained certain
protected patient health information related to medication
dispensing transactions from our medication dispensing cabinets
over a one to three-week period, downloaded by the employee while
troubleshooting software for the hospitals. This loss resulted in
a putative class action complaint being filed against us and
certain of our customers in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey in March 2013 alleging breach of state
security notification laws, violations of state consumer fraud
laws, fraud, negligence and conspiracy relating to the theft of an
Omnicell electronic device containing medication dispensing
cabinet log files, including certain patient health information,
described above and subsequent notification of this unauthorized
disclosure of personal health information."

"In December 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the
plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff failed to
file an appeal of the court's decision by the January 27, 2014
deadline," Omnicell said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.


PALM BEACH LAUNDRY: Does Not Pay Employees Properly, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbert Pierre, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Palm Beach Laundry and Linen Service, Inc. a Florida Profit
Corporation, and Louis Moya, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-81150
(S.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for worked more than 40 hours
per week.

Palm Beach Laundry and Linen Service, Inc. is a Florida
corporation that is in the business of laundry and linen services,
retail sale of linen supplies, and linen rentals to both
commercial and personal customers.

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


PATTERSON STRUCTURAL: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Carnero, Rene Martinez, Miguel Varela, and Juan Carlos v.
Patterson Structural Moving and Shoring LLC, Urway Home
Renovations LLC and Antonio Padilla, Case No. 2:14-cv-02064-EEF-
DEK (E.D. La., September 9, 2014) seeks to recover an amount equal
to the statutory minimum wages and overtime for all uncompensated
work performed by the Plaintiffs for the Defendants.

Patterson Structural Moving and Shoring is a Louisiana Limited
Liability Company domiciled and doing business in New Orleans,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  Urway Home Renovations is a Louisiana
Limited Liability Company domiciled and doing business in Slidell,
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.  Antonio Padilla is a resident of
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Patterson is a company that specializes in home elevations, and
negotiates contracts to elevate homes using the work of the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to complete the projects.
Urway is a company that works together with Patterson in the
elevations of homes.  Mr. Padilla worked with Patterson and Urway
on the projects where the Plaintiffs were employed.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea M. Agee, Esq.
          Luz M. Molina, Esq.
          STUART H. SMITH LAW CLINIC AND
          CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          Campus Box 902
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 861-5501
          Facsimile: (504) 861-5532
          E-mail: amagee@loyno.edu
                  molina@loyno.edu


PECO: Settlement Nears in 2012 Water Main Flooding Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Vargas, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that more than two years after a 48-inch water main ruptured and
flooded a large portion of Southwest Center City, residents and
business owners could finally be seeing some relief.

Special master David Fineman, who was assigned by Common Pleas
Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein to figure out how to distribute
$500,000 -- the city's liability -- to people and businesses with
claims totaling $1.7 million, filed his recommendations on
Sept. 12, and if approved by the court next month, checks will
soon be in the mail.

The settlement was made possible by Peco's agreeing to accept
$240,000 -- about 28 percent for its original claim of $870,000 --
as payment in full.  Peco's claim was larger than those of all the
other aggrieved parties combined.  The deal makes it possible for
the other claimants to receive a larger slice of the $500,000 pie.

The news was welcomed by some of the other claimants.

"It didn't seem like Peco was going to budge," said Bruce Amos,
whose basement kitchen on 21st Street was flooded, resulting in
$29,462 in damage.

Mr. Amos and the other claimants are now in line to receive about
60 percent of their claims, an outcome he called "fantastic."

"Everyone walks away with something," Mr. Amos added.

After the main ruptured at 21st and Bainbridge Streets in
July 2012, more than 100 residents and business owners spent days
dredging mud out of their properties, and afterward filed
individual claims with the city.

But the city's risk management office pointed out that state law
sets the liability limit at $500,000 per incident -- setting off a
scramble.

Early in the process, Verizon withdrew its $3,000 claim, but Peco
insisted on being compensated as much as possible for damage to
its lines.  That led to a series of meetings among residents and
officials to figure out a way to either get Peco to reduce its
claim or to find more money.

The case ended up in Judge Bernstein's hands, and he appointed
Mr. Fineman to sort through the claims and make a recommendation.

Mr. Fineman, whose hourly rate is more than $500, charged a
discounted $225 and is seeking $19,611 in compensation, which will
be taken from the pot.

In addition to the recommendations, Mr. Fineman also urged the
legislature to increase the $500,000 cap, established in 1980.  In
today's money, that is equivalent to $1.3 million.

Two area legislators have introduced bills to address the cap, but
both proposals are stuck in committees.  City officials said at a
hearing that they were against increasing the cap because it could
result in higher costs for the cash-strapped city.

Attorneys for some of the victims in June suggested legislation
for City Councilman Kenyatta Johnson, who represents the district,
to introduce that would create a special victims fund.

Mr. Johnson said he was reviewing such legislation and "exploring
what our options are."  His staff is drafting an ordinance that
would transfer $400,000 from the city's grant revenue fund to pay
those parts of the claims that were not reimbursed.

A hearing on the report will be held in City Hall on Oct. 15,
after which Judge Bernstein will decide whether to follow the
recommendations -- and put the compensation checks in the mail.


PENN WEST PETROLEUM: Sued in SDNY Over Misleading Financials
------------------------------------------------------------
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 5, 2014), alleges that during the Class
Period, the Defendants filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission materially false and misleading financial statements,
which understated operating costs and overstated capital
expenditures and royalty expenses as the Company improperly
classified certain operating expenses.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PFIZER INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Sale of Celebrex
------------------------------------------------------------
Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health and Welfare Fund, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Pfizer,
Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No.
2:14-cv-00464-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va., September 9, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a proposed Class that has paid for or reimbursed for
painkiller Celebrex and continues to pay or reimburse for Celebrex
at supra-competitive prices.

The class seeks to hold Pfizer accountable for its strategic
manipulation of the patent review, regulatory and judicial
processes in violation of federal antitrust law.

Central Pennsylvania and Regional Health and Welfare Fund
maintains its principal place of business at in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation.  G.D. Searle
LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New
York.  Searle is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Pfizer.
Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. is a private limited company
organized and existing under the laws of Singapore, with its
principal place of business in Tuas South Avenue 6, Singapore.
PAP is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Barrett E. Pope, Esq.
          Brittany B. Falabella, Esq.
          Brittany Joy Berlauk, Esq.
          DURRETTECRUMP PLC
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775-6911
          E-mail: wdurrette@durrettecrump.com
                  hpope@durrettecrump.com
                  bfalabella@durrettecrump.com
                  bberlauk@durrettecrump.com

               - and -

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Eric L. Young, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          39 West Main Street
          Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth G. Arthur, Esq.
          R. Bryce Duke, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          E-mail: elizabeth@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  bryce@hilliardshadowenlaw.com


PLX TECHNOLOGY: Faces 9 Class Suits Over Merger With Avago
----------------------------------------------------------
PLX Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the announcement
of the Merger Agreement with Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.)
Manufacturing Inc. on June 23, 2014, nine putative class action
lawsuits have been filed by shareholders against the Company, its
directors and/or Avago challenging the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement.

Four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Cox v. PLX Technology
Inc. et al.; Ellis v. PLX Technology Inc. et al.; Golden v. PLX
Technology, Inc. et al.; and Abdallah v. PLX Technology, Inc. et
al. (the "California Actions"). On July 17, 2014, the parties
lodged stipulated requests to consolidate the California actions
under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig. and
appoint lead plaintiff and counsel. That same day, the parties
lodged a stipulated request to stay the California Actions pending
resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  Those stipulations await court approval.

Five lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Varghese v. PLX Technology, Inc. et al.; Feinstein v.
PLX Technology, Inc. et al.; Price v. PLX Technology et al.; Cox
v. Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A), Inc. et al.; and Cohn v.
Salameh et al. (the "Delaware Actions"). On July 21, 2014, the
court granted a stipulated order consolidating the Delaware
Actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consol. appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel,
and designating the complaint filed in Cox as the operative
complaint for the consolidated action.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by seeking to sell the Company for an inadequate
price, pursuant to an unfair process, and by agreeing to
preclusive deal protections in the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs
also allege that the Company, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P.,
Parent and the Purchaser aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary
breaches. Plaintiffs finally allege that the 14D-9 recommendation
statement filed by the Company contains false and misleading
statements and/or omits material information necessary to inform
the shareholder vote. The complaints seek, among other things,
equitable relief to enjoin the consummation of the proposed
transaction contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

PLX Technology, Inc. a Delaware corporation established in 1986,
designs, develops, manufactures and sells integrated circuits that
perform critical system connectivity functions.


RELIANCE HOME: Faces Class Action Over Water Heater "Buyout" Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shiona Thompson, writing for AM900, reports that a Burlington
homeowner, flooded in the massive deluge last month, got an
additional shock when she opened up her bill from Reliance Home
Comfort.

Stephanie McManus is being charged 655 dollars for her rental
water heater that was ruined by the flood waters in her basement
and is refusing to pay this "buyout" fee.  Ms. McManus is
wondering why people would pay thousands of dollars to rent a
water heater over the years if you have to replace it, if damaged.

Reliance marketing director Chris Cory says water heater rental
terms that customers agree to when they sign up state customers
are responsible for losses or damages other than normal wear and
tear.  He likens it to a rental car -- if there is a loss while
the rented property is in their possession, the customer is
responsible for it.

Ms. McManus, who is a lawyer, plans to gather others affected like
her to launch a class action suit against Reliance.


RO-MI DELI: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Isabel Lopez-Zhunio, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Ro-Mi Deli Inc., Jimmy Mariano and Sandi
Scopelliti, Case No. 1:14-cv-07182 (S.D.N.Y., September 5, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive
damages for retaliation, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ro-Mi Deli Inc., Jimmy Mariano and Sandi Scopelliti own and
operate a restaurant, with a principal place of business at 664
Columbus Avenue, Thornwood, New York 10594-1909.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mr. Angel Cruz, Esq.
      MALDONADO & CRUZ, PLLC
      181 East 161 Street-Lobby Suite
      Bronx, NY 10451
      Telephone (718) 828-6050
      Facsimile (917) 473-6542
      E-mail: acruzesq@gmail.com


ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT: Judge Approves $50MM Ponzi Scheme Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn approved a settlement on
Sept. 10 between the trustee overseeing the liquidation of Scott
Rothstein's defunct law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt, and the U.S.
attorney's office, clearing the way for distribution of $50
million to victims.

The settlement, negotiated by restitution receiver Michael
Goldberg of Akerman, also was approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Raymond Ray in Fort Lauderdale.

The ruling calls for Mr. Goldberg to distribute $16.6 million in
cash, $4 million to $8 million in assets including Mr. Rothstein's
wife's jewelry and his Fort Lauderdale mansion, and $12.3 million
from "collateral sources."  Additionally, Mr. Goldberg will
distribute $28 million in cash held by the U.S. attorney's office.
He said he plans to hold additional auctions to sell assets.  Mr.
Rothstein's holdings were frozen during a four-year battle between
the bankruptcy trustee and federal prosecutors over who should
control distribution of the funds.

Judge Cohn ordered Mr. Goldberg and the U.S. attorney's office to
file a distribution schedule and list qualifying victims within 14
days.

Mr. Rothstein is serving a 50-year sentence and surrendered his
law license for masterminding a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme from his
labor and employment firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler.


SAN PIETRO RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Jaime Bermejo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. San Pietro Restaurant, Inc., and Gerardo Bruno, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07288-WHP (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014) alleges that
the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, is
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interests and
attorneys' fees and costs.

San Pietro is a New York domestic business corporation with a
principal place of business in New York.  Gerardo Bruno is the
Chief Executive Officer of San Pietro, and is an owner,
shareholder, director, supervisor, managing agent or proprietor of
San Pietro.  The Company's primary business is the sale of food
and drink for consumption, and is a "restaurant" within the
meaning of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
                  pcooper@jcpclaw.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Seek Dismissal of "Corban" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. intended to file a motion to dismiss a
consolidated amended class action complaint, the company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the
court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to
file a consolidated amended complaint.

Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21,
2014, seeks to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or
entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company
between July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that Sarepta and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic
candidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta intended to
file a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on or
before August 18, 2014.

Given the relatively early stages of the proceedings in the
purported claims, at this time, no assessment can be made as to
the likely outcome of these claims or whether the outcomes would
have a material impact on the Company, Sarepta said.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development
of unique RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of rare and
infectious diseases.  The Company is focused on advancing the
development of its Duchenne muscular dystrophy ("DMD") drug
candidates, including its lead product candidate, eteplirsen, for
which the Company is currently conducting an ongoing open label
extension study following completion of its initial Phase IIb
clinical trials. The Company is also developing therapeutics for
the treatment of infectious diseases.


SCHERR & MCCLURE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Scherr & McClure, P.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-05248
(E.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bird Food Litigation in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in connection with
the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a
voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a
defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June
27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California as In re
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-
JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law
claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food
products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending
government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of
all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
certain bird food products. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages
(actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble);
reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly
conferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

"The Company intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action.
Given the early stages of the action, the Company cannot make a
determination as to whether it could have a material effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
and the Company has not recorded any accruals with respect
thereto."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its subsidiaries are engaged in
the manufacturing, marketing and sale of consumer branded products
for lawn and garden care.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Sept. 9 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock in its April 18, 2013, initial
public offering or on the open market from April 18, 2013 through
August 13, 2014.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
SeaWorld shareholders under the federal securities laws.

To join the SeaWorld class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-335.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jstern@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Sea World failed to disclose in its IPO
documents that it (a) had improperly cared for and mistreated its
Orca population which adversely impacted trainer and audience
safety; (b) continued to feature and breed an Orca that had killed
and injured numerous trainers; and (c) consequently created
material uncertainties and risks existing at the time of IPO that
could adversely impact attendance at its family oriented parks.
The lawsuit claims that when details of the Company's improper
practices were revealed by the documentary film Blackfish,
SeaWorld misled investors by claiming the decrease in attendance
at its parks was caused by Easter holiday and other factors. The
complaint asserts that the decline in attendance was really caused
by the mounting negative publicity from the improper practices at
SeaWorld that were revealed by the Blackfish film.

On August 13, 2014, the price of SeaWorld Stock dropped by $9.25
per share, or 32.9%.  This drop followed SeaWorld's announcement
of earnings for the second quarter of 2014, where it revealed that
revenues fell year over year and acknowledged for the first time
that its earnings difficulties were related to negative publicity
it has received in connection with its treatment of animals.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 10, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-337.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jstern@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


SENCO BRANDS: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Craftwood Lumber Company, an Illinois corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Senco Brands,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06866 (N.D. Ill.,
September 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Senco Brands, Inc. manufactures and distributes worldwide air-,
battery- and gas-powered tools and also manufactures and
distributes fasteners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Zygmunt Zimmermann, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT ZIMMERMANN
      601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2610
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 452-6509
      E-mail: szimm@zkcf.com


SGRA CORP: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Isidoro Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. SGRA Corp. (d/b/a King's Pizza & Pasta), and
Salvatore Oppedisano, Case No. 1:14-cv-05225 (E.D.N.Y., September
5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SGRA Corp. is an Italian Restaurant owned by Salvatore Oppedisano,
located at 916 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, New York 11238.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES
      60 East 42nd St, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: lfranco@faillacelaw.com


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Tentative Settlement Reached in Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement in principle has been reached to resolve
legal proceedings involving Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., and
formal settlement documents are being circulated for review and
comment, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Four lawsuits (the "Cases") have been filed against the Company in
the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke
Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").

Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.

The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.

Case 1 is a putative class action brought by the owners of
allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.  Case 1 was originally
filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction,
Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was
voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new representative
plaintiff.

Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe
against the Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie
holdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the Company
failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the products'
susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments.

Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance company
for the builders and developers against the Company claiming the
insurance company expended funds to correct problems allegedly
caused by the Company's products.

Case 4 is a putative class action brought, like Case 1, by owners
of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.  In Case 4, Haseko
Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the Ocean Pointe
development, brought a third party complaint against the Company
alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable are
actually the fault of the Company. Similarly, Haseko's sub-
contractors on the Ocean Pointe development brought cross-claims
against the Company seeking indemnity and contribution for any
amounts for which they may ultimately be found liable.

None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought,
although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1
seeks punitive damages.  Cases 1 and 4 have been consolidated.

In December 2012, the Court granted the Company summary judgment
on the claims asserted by the plaintiff homeowners in Cases 1 and
4, and on the third party complaint and cross-claims asserted by
Haseko and the sub-contractors, respectively, in Case 4.

In April 2013, the Court granted Haseko and the sub-contractors'
motion for leave to amend their cross-claims to allege a claim for
negligent misrepresentation. The Company continues to investigate
the facts underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including,
among other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the
severity of any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected;
the responsibility of the general contractor, various
subcontractors and other construction professionals for the
alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the
costs of repair, if needed.  At this time, the likelihood that the
Company will be found liable under any legal theory and the extent
of such liability, if any, are unknown.  Management believes the
Cases may not be resolved for an extended period in the absence of
agreement to settle the Cases and other related legal proceedings.
The Company is defending itself vigorously in connection with the
Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies.  On April 19, 2011, an
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al.,
Civil No. 11-00254 ACK.  In this action, Plaintiff National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National
Union"), which issued certain Commercial General Liability
insurance policies to the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the
Cases with respect to its obligations to defend or indemnify the
Company, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the
Company's strap tie holdown products.  By Order dated November 7,
2011, all proceedings in the National Union action have been
stayed.  If the stay is lifted and the National Union action is
not dismissed, the Company intends vigorously to defend all claims
advanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's
Fund"), another of the Company's general liability insurers, sued
Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), a third insurance
company from whom the Company purchased general liability
insurance, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the
"Fireman's Fund action").  The Company has intervened in the
Fireman's Fund action and the parties have agreed to a stay of
proceedings pending resolution of the underlying Ocean Pointe
cases.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit against
National Union, Fireman's Fund, Hartford and others in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and
County of San Francisco (the "San Francisco coverage action").  In
the San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generally
that the separate pendency of the National Union action and the
Fireman's Fund action presents a risk of inconsistent
adjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court has
jurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercise
jurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and all
disputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among the
Company and its liability insurers; and that the San Francisco
coverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of the
underlying Ocean Pointe Cases. The San Francisco coverage action
has been ordered stayed pending resolution of the Cases.

Based on recent mediation, a tentative settlement in principle has
been reached to resolve all of these legal proceedings, including
Cases 1, 2, 3 and 4; the National Union action; the Fireman's Fund
action; and the San Francisco coverage action. Formal settlement
documents are being circulated for review and comment.

If the tentative settlement in principle is documented in a final,
enforceable agreement and its conditions are satisfied, the
Company will incur no uninsured liability in any of these legal
proceedings. The Company cannot predict when, if ever, any
settlement will be finalized, and an unfavorable outcome could
result in uninsured liability that substantially exceeds the
amount of such tentative settlement in principle. It is not
possible to reasonably estimate the amount or range of any such
possible excess.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Siani" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Siani, individually and, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-06972 (C.D.
Cal., September 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording
equipment in order to record the telephone conversations of the
Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a major U.S. airline and the world's
largest low-cost carrier, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
             ml@kazlg.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Sina Rezvanpour, Esq.
     RKR LEGAL, APC
     245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (866) 502-0787
     Facsimile: (866) 502-5065
     E-mail: sr@rkrlegal.com


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Bank Faces Sallie Mae Indemnification Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae.   The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, National Association, banking subsidiary of
Southwest Bancorp Inc., and sold to Sallie Mae.  Plaintiff claims
that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in
order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto
lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan,
Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California
usury law and the California Business and Professions Code.
Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has
stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action.

On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiff's request to
certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiff to
amend its filing to redefine the class.  Plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion on June 23, 2014.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Bank SNB is not named
in the action but in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae
provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted
against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the "Notice").  Sallie Mae
asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification
and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement
dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to
which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB.  Bank SNB has
substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification
or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends
to vigorously defend against any such claims.


SPORT CHALET: Facing Class Actions Over Merger With Vestis
----------------------------------------------------------
Sport Chalet, Inc., on June 30, 2014, publicly announced it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Vestis Retail Group, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Vestis"), and Everest Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vestis
("Merger Sub").

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer (the "Offer") to purchase all of the outstanding shares of
the Class A Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share, of the
Company (the "Class A Shares") and the Class B Common Stock, $0.01
par value per share, of the Company (the "Class B Shares" and
together with the Class A Shares, the "Common Stock") at a price
per share of $1.20, net to the seller, in cash without interest,
less any applicable withholding taxes, and subject to adjustment
as described below. If the shares of Common Stock tendered into
the Offer, together with the shares to be acquired by Merger Sub
pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement and the Top-Up Option (as
described in the Merger Agreement) do not constitute at least 90%
of each of the Class A Shares and the Class B Shares on a fully
diluted basis (as calculated pursuant to the Merger Agreement),
the price per share of all Common Stock subject to the Offer will
automatically be reduced to $1.04, net to the seller, in cash
without interest, less any applicable withholding taxes. On August
3, 2014, the Company entered into Amendment No. 1 (the "Merger
Agreement Amendment"), to the Merger Agreement to change the
definition of Initial Offer Expiration Time from midnight, New
York City time, at the end of August 1, 2014 to midnight, New York
City time, at the end of August 15, 2014.

Between July 9 and July 15, 2014, four plaintiffs filed purported
class action lawsuits against Sport Chalet, its directors, Everest
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Purchaser") and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vestis Retail Group, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent") in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Sport Chalet
by Parent and Purchaser (the "Proposed Transaction") in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, captioned Barry Lieberman v. Sport Chalet, Inc. et al.,
Case No. BC551232 (July 9, 2014), Enrique Grossmann v. Sport
Chalet, Inc. et al., Case No. BC551440 (July 11, 2014), David Stec
v. Sport Chalet, Inc. et al., Case No. BC551574 (July 14, 2014),
and Graeco Inc. v. Sport Chalet, Inc. et al., Case No. BC551746
(July 15, 2014). Versa Capital Management, LLC was also named as a
defendant by the plaintiffs in the Barry Lieberman, David Stec and
Graeco Inc. cases.

The plaintiff in each case alleges that the Sport Chalet directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Sport Chalet stockholders, and
that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by
seeking to sell Sport Chalet through an allegedly flawed process
and for inadequate consideration. Each plaintiff also alleges that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the
contents of the tender offer solicitation/recommendation materials
on Schedule 14D-9. Each of the lawsuits seeks, among other things,
equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the
Proposed Transaction, rescission of the Proposed Transaction (to
the extent it has already been implemented) and attorneys' fees
and costs.

"We intend to defend the suits vigorously.  We are not able to
evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can we
estimate a range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable
outcome at the present time. If resolved unfavorably to us, this
litigation could have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition," Sport Chalet said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014.

Sport Chalet, Inc. is a premier, full-service specialty sporting
goods retailer offering a broad assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel, and footwear.


STERICYCLE INC: Defending Against Suits Over Excessive Price Hike
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company was served
on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an
individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other
"similarly situated" customers.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other
charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit
as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate
damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a
settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of
a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False
Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under
seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of the Company. The
complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states
and the District of Columbia.

On September 4, 2013, the Company filed its answer to Plaintiff-
Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally denying the
allegations therein.

Also, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have
issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made
on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided
whether to join the Illinois action.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
the Company was served with class action complaints filed in
federal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and
Utah and in state court in California. These complaints asserted
claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to the Company's settlement with the State
of New York.

On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(MDL) granted the Company's Motion to Transfer these related
actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized
pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, the Company filed
answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the
MDL action, generally denying the allegations therein.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of
these lawsuits," the Company said.

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these class action
complaints, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are
unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its
nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the class action
proceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, there
are no comparable class action proceedings against other
defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates. We
review our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly,
and we will disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss
or range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to
make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of
reasonably possible losses is material to our financial
statements."

The Company is in the business of providing regulated and
compliance solutions to healthcare and commercial businesses.


STERICYCLE INC: Filed Answer to Illinois Junk Fax Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 2, 2014, the
Company was served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-
cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for himself and on behalf of
all other "similarly situated" persons.

"The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and
others similarly situated in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention
Act of 2005. The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a
class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages
and injunctive relief. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the
complaint, generally denying the allegations therein," the Company
said.

The Company is in the business of providing regulated and
compliance solutions to healthcare and commercial businesses.


SUNEDISON INC: Motion for Reconsideration Filed in "Jones" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc., et al. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit was filed on December 26, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones,
purportedly on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of
SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4,
2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserted
claims against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employees
and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint
alleged that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally
asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure to
the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's
stock and that the company's stock should not have been made
available as an investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint
also alleged that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material
facts regarding SunEdison's operations and performance, which had
the effect of artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raised substantially the same claims and was based
on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changed the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.

On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The
SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was
fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court granted
the SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its
order denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and
stated that it would revisit the issues raised in the motion to
dismiss after the parties supplement their arguments. Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.

On June 28, 2011, Mr. Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal
from the action, and the court subsequently entered an order
withdrawing Mr. Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. The
parties each have continued to file additional notices of
supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27,
2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their
pending motion to dismiss, and Mr. Acosta joined in the SunEdison
defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012.

"On March 24, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss but
the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a
motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court
decision in a case that could have implications in this matter.
That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district
court, based on that Supreme Court decision. We believe that we
continue to have good reason for a dismissal and intend to
vigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

SunEdison is a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energy
solutions and a global leader in the development, manufacture and
sale of silicon wafers to the semiconductor industry.


TARGET CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Webb, writing for St. Paul Pioneer Press, reports that Target
is asking a federal judge in St. Paul to dismiss a multibillion-
dollar complaint filed by groups of banks stemming from last
year's massive data breach.

The banks claim Target was negligent in its handling of shoppers'
credit and debit card information, which allowed hackers to steal
sensitive information about some 100 million U.S. consumers.  The
banks are seeking class-action status in the case.

But in a response filed Sept. 2, Minneapolis-based Target argued
the banks' costs aren't its responsibility.  Target argues that as
a retailer, it is two steps removed from the banks and credit
unions that issued the cards -- and therefore, not liable under
the law.

The legal back-and-forth is taking place before U.S. District
Judge Paul Magnuson in St. Paul, where more than 100 Target
breach-related lawsuits from around the country have been
consolidated.

In its response, Target's attorneys wrote that when a customer
swipes a card at a store, the merchant gets "authorization and
payment for the transaction not from the bank that issued the
card, but rather from a payment processor and/or a merchant bank."

Meanwhile, the bank "obtains authorization and payment under its
separate contract with a payment card company such as Visa or
MasterCard," Target's attorneys said, adding, "Issuing banks and
merchants have no direct dealings with one another in the payment
card transaction process.

That two-steps-removed relationship, Target argues, means it isn't
legally responsible, and that the banks' effort to bring a class-
action lawsuit should be dismissed.

Banks also argued that Target violated a state law banning
retailers from storing sensitive card information after a
transaction was complete.  Target suggests it didn't store such
information -- that the data was stolen in real time, as shoppers
swiped their cards.

"Cyber criminals are fully capable of stealing payment card data
that was never stored by a merchant for future use, and that is
exactly what occurred here," Target argued.

The filing did provide a bit more detail on the data breach, which
occurred during last year's busy holiday season.  Some 40 million
U.S. shoppers had credit and debit-card data stolen, and another
70 million Target shoppers had other personal information stolen.

Target's lawyers wrote that hackers stole credentials from a
third-party vendor to gain access to its computer network.

Then "hackers deployed custom point-of-sale malware to Target's
registers, which collected credit and debit card information 'in
real time' when customers swiped their cards at Target registers
between Dec. 2, 2013 and Dec. 15, 2013," the Target filing said.


TURTLE WAX: Faces "Orlick" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Orlick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Turtle Wax, Inc., and Turtle Wax Auto Appearance
Centers II, L.L.C., d/b/a Turtle Wax Car Wash, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06908 (N.D. Ill., September 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants own and operate Turtle Wax Car Wash shop with its
principle place of business located at 625 Willowbrook Ct.,
Willowbrook, IL 60527.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chen Kasher, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHEN KASHER
      1642 E. 56th Street, Suite 714
      Chicago, IL 60637
      Telephone: (773) 853-3062
      E-mail: chenkasher@gmail.com

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: ((201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Advocacy Group Files Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that an advocacy
group for the blind filed a discrimination suit against Uber
Technologies Inc. on Sept. 9, claiming the company's drivers have
refused to pick up blind customers with service dogs.

Drivers have ignored, shouted at and sped away from blind
customers accompanied by guide dogs, according to the complaint
filed in the Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs allege
on one occasion an Uber driver locked a passenger's service dog in
the trunk of a sedan.  In other cases, blind passengers have been
forced to pay cancellation fees after they were passed over by
Uber drivers, according to lawyers with Disability Rights
Advocates and TRE Legal Practice.

"We brought this action because we've been receiving many
complaints from many different blind individuals about the
discrimination they've experienced," said Michael Nunez of
Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit legal center with an
office in Berkeley.

Uber says it deactivates the account of any driver who refuses to
transport a service animal.  The company's smartphone app also
includes features for visually impaired riders.

"The Uber app is built to expand access to transportation options
for all, including users with visual impairments and other
disabilities," a company representative wrote in an emailed
statement.

Mr. Nunez's team filed the suit on behalf of the National
Federation of the Blind of California and Michael Hingson, a blind
public speaker from Victorville.

Plaintiffs have accused Uber of violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act and state civil rights laws.  As a result, blind
riders "face unexpected delays, they must arrange alternate
transportation that is sometimes more costly, and they face the
degrading experience of being denied a basic service that is
available to all other paying customers," Mr. Nunez's team wrote.

Mr. Nunez said his goal is to work out a settlement through which
Uber will agree to accommodate service animals.

"We're hoping that we will be able to resolve this matter as
expediently as possible," he said.  But so far Uber has refused to
come to the table, Mr. Nunez said.  In prelitigation talks, Uber
has taken the position it's not legally obligated to accommodate
blind riders because it is not a transportation provider, the suit
alleges.

Uber has made that argument before, claiming it is in the business
of software, not transportation.  But that line hasn't worked on
the California Public Utilities Commission, which imposed
regulations on the company in September.

Even without the transportation label, Uber is still required to
accommodate people with disabilities, according to Lawrence Organ
of the California Civil Rights Law Group, who is not involved with
the case.  Silicon Valley startups may be more vulnerable to
discrimination suits, Mr. Organ said, because they tend not to
have strong policies in place to conform with civil rights laws.

"They don't know what to do," Mr. Organ said, "and so they kind of
think that they don't have to do anything."


UGI CORPORATION: Facing 25+ Class Actions Over Propane Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission issued an
administrative complaint against AmeriGas Partners L.P. and its
subsidiaries ("Partnership") and UGI Corporation alleging that
AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (the "General Partner"), and one of its
competitors colluded in 2008 to persuade its common customer,
Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept the propane cylinder fill
reduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds.  The complaint does not
seek monetary remedies.  The Partnership and UGI filed their
Answer to the complaint April 18, 2014, and believe that they have
good defenses to the FTC's claims.

Following the issuance of the FTC's administrative complaint
described above, more than 25 class action lawsuits have been
filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI
Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and
indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded in 2008 to reduce the fill
level and combined to persuade its common customer, Walmart
Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in
increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in
violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws.  The claims
seek treble  damages,  injunctive  relief, attorneys' fees and
costs on behalf of the putative classes.

"We believe these lawsuits will eventually be consolidated by a
multidistrict litigation panel.  We are unable to reasonably
estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation.  We
believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to
vigorously defend against them," UGI said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

UGI Corporation ("UGI") is a holding company that, through
subsidiaries and affiliates, distributes and markets energy
products and related services.  UGI conducts a domestic retail
propane marketing and distribution business through AmeriGas
Partners, L.P.


UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Chaplains' Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of
Protestant Navy chaplains, who allege the service has a culture of
denominational favoritism that infringes their constitutional
rights, was unable to persuade a federal judge to bless their bid
for class certification.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia
ruled the case brought by 65 current and former chaplains and a
group of nondenominational evangelical Christian churches did not
meet legal requirements for class status, predominantly by failing
to show common issues of law or fact.

Instead, Judge Kessler wrote in her Sept 4. opinion in In re: Navy
Chaplaincy, the case consists of individual anecdotes without
"significant proof of any specific unconstitutional policy or
practice that applied to them across the board as a class and
produced a common legal injury."  She buttressed that conclusion
by citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukes
decision, which rejected the notion of an unstated corporate
culture that permitted bias against women to manifest into a class
of victims of "one common discriminatory practice."

The chaplains contend that the Navy operates with a "pervasive
culture of hostility, animosity and prejudice" towards members of
nonliturgical faiths, such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals
and charismatic faiths, and a bias in favor of the more mainstream
liturgical Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians.

The plaintiffs accused the service of following unwritten rules
that led to the use of quotas to limit entry to the corps of
chaplains, as well as denial of promotions and the imposition of
transfers and removals -- all designed to ensure dominance of the
liturgical chaplains.  They allege the Navy violated their First
and Fifth Amendment rights and the federal Religious Freedom and
Restoration Act.

But Judge Kessler characterized the Navy's chaplaincy as an entity
with an unequivocally stated policy of non-discrimination, as well
as a decentralized structure of 500 duty stations around the world
where local commanders are responsible for religious programs --
all arguing against a culture of bias.

Judge Kessler criticized the plaintiffs for dragging out the case,
which originated in 1999 and has generated more than 20 federal
district court and appeals court opinions, and suggested their
primary focus is not the interests of specific class members to
obtain relief, but rather fundamental reform of the Navy's hiring
and retention policies for chaplains.

"Plaintiffs have repeatedly subordinated the proposed class
members' interests in prompt adjudication of their claims to their
campaign for institutional reform," she wrote.


VENTURE DATA: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated v. Venture Data, LLC, Case No.
5:14-cv-00123-JPB (N.D. W. Va., September 9, 2014) arises from
alleged unsolicited telephone sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          125 Summer St., Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
                  ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol St.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


VETERANS AFFAIRS: Faces "Watson" Class Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Watson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Robert A. McDonald, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Timothy McMurry, in his official
capacity as the Medical Director of William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA
Medical Center; Ruth Mustard, RN in her official capacity as the
Associate Director for Patient Care/Nursing Services of William
Jennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center; David L. Omura, in his
official capacity as the Associate Director of William Jennings
Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center; Jon Zivony, in his official capacity
as the Assistant Director of William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA
Medical Center; and Sue Panfil, in her official capacity as the
Privacy Officer of William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center,
Case No. 3:14-cv-03594-TLW (D.S.C., September 9, 2014) seeks
relief pursuant to right to Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley D. Hewett, Esq.
          D. Michael Kelly, Esq.
          Walton James McLeod, IV, Esq.
          MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP
          PO Box 8113
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 461-2154
          Facsimile: (803) 252-7145
          E-mail: bhewett@mklawgroup.com
                  mkelly@mklawgroup.com
                  wmcleod@mklawgroup.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. Rosinski, Esq.
          DOUGLAS J. ROSINSKI LAW OFFICE
          701 Gervais Street, Suite 150-405
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 256-9555
          Facsimile: (888) 492-3636
          E-mail: djr@djrosinski.com


VIVUS INC: Briefing of Class Action Appeal Complete
---------------------------------------------------
Vivus Inc., a current officer and a former officer were defendants
in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California. The action, filed in November
2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,
for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The Court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's Amended Class
Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by
order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with
prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants the same
day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the parties are awaiting
word on whether the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oral
argument, VIVUS said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company with two therapies approved
by the FDA: Qsymia for chronic weight management and STENDRA for
erectile dysfunction. STENDRA is also approved by the European
Commission, or EC, under a trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatment
of erectile dysfunction in the EU.


WINDOW GUYS: Faces "Figueredo" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynier Figueredo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. The Window Guys Of
Florida, Inc., Calixto Perez, Jr. and Eduardo Martinez, Case No.
9:14-cv-81149 (S.D. Fla., September 5, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants maintain and operate an office and operations in
Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashley Marie Dewelde, Esq.
      William Thomas Brady , Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM BRADY, P.A.
      800 Brickell AVe
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (786) 556-0362
      E-mail: adewelde16@gmail.com
              wbrady@wbradylaw.com


YELP INC: Taps Gilbert Serota to Defend Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Yelp Inc.
has tapped Arnold & Porter to fight claims the company misled
investors about the nature of its reviews.

Partner Gilbert Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- will
defend the company against two securities class actions filed in
the Northern District of California, according to notices
submitted on Sept. 11.  The suits accuse Yelp of making companies
pay to suppress criticism on the consumer review website and
mobile platforms, and then hiding that practice from shareholders.
Yelp management's misstatements artificially inflated stock
prices, according to the plaintiffs lawyers, allowing insiders to
cash out for more than $81 million.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd filed the first case in early August.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg followed with a similar suit three weeks
later.

Yelp has had to fight a spate of defamation and false advertising
suits related to its screening of online reviews.  In those cases,
as well as in intellectual property cases, Yelp has tended to rely
on Cooley, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Durie Tangri.

Mr. Serota, who works in Arnold & Porter's San Francisco office,
specializes in securities litigation, according to his online bio.
His team includes counsel Marjory Gentry and associate Ryan Keats.


ZIONS FIRST: 3rd Cir. to Examine Class Certification Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a suit alleging mass-market fraud on the part of Zions First
National Bank and its subsidiaries gave the Third Circuit a chance
to examine the standards for class certification.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied certification of the class because
the plaintiffs hadn't satisfied the commonality and predominance
requirements, saying they hadn't established classwide injury
since they hadn't given the court proof that the bank had
defrauded all the class members.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, arguing that the district court had held them to a
standard of proof that was too high and failed to properly weigh
the expert witnesses offered to the court.

Because the plaintiffs proceeded under a "complete sham" theory,
they had to prove that all of the companies -- mostly
telemarketing companies -- involved were shams at the class
certification stage and they failed to do that, the bank argued.

"Help me with a practical result," Chief Judge Theodore McKee said
to the bank's lawyer, Jason Snyderman -- Snyderman@BlankRome.com
-- of Blank Rome.  "It could be quite possible that if you're
right here, what would come of this would be the Google map to
telemarketers in terms of how to commit fraud."

Judge Sanchez had made a factual finding that one of the companies
involved was legitimate, Mr. Snyderman had told the court earlier.
And, he said, if one company is legitimate, it is likely that the
other companies would be able to offer similar evidence of their
legitimacy.

"That is the kind of existential leap that boggles my mind,"
Judge McKee said.

If a case has 10 defendants and one of them offers proof that it's
not a sham company, then, Judge McKee wondered, chances are that
the other nine companies are legitimate, too?

"I don't understand the logic of that," the judge said.

Using a similar illustration for his question about the map to
fraud, Judge McKee asked, if a telemarketing company sets itself
up with 5 percent of its business as legitimate and the other 95
percent "is really there just to hose down the people it calls,
get their account numbers, do identity theft, but it's got 5
percent legitimate, how do we get around the practical problem
you're arguing?"

Mr. Snyderman responded that if someone sets up a company "to have
5 percent legitimacy and 95 percent fraud . . . the court should
find after doing rigorous analysis there's no uniform evidence to
go across the whole class and there's no individual issues that
don't predominate over the common ones -- class certification just
wouldn't be appropriate."

In his brief to the court, Mr. Snyderman had said, "Well-settled
Third Circuit precedent holds that individual issues generally
predominate over common issues when liability for fraud is based
on varied oral representations, like those alleged here, such that
class certification should be denied.  See In re LifeUSA Holding;
Johnston v. HBO Film Management." He cited those cases, both from
2001, to McKee during argument.  "Because the alleged
telemarketing fraud involved hundreds of thousands of alleged oral
misrepresentations, class certification was properly denied,"
Mr. Snyderman said in the brief.

"Maybe In re LifeUSA and Johnston . . . [have] language we need to
get control of," Judge McKee said.

For the plaintiffs' part, Howard Langer --
hlanger@langergrogan.com -- of Langer, Grogan & Diver emphasized
to the appeals court that he isn't focusing on how each of the
potential class members acted, rather, "We're focusing on what was
going on, what was sold, so to speak. . . . Mr. Reyes was told he
was going to get a government grant, in our complaint we say other
people were told they were getting called by the Social Security
Administration, another person was told it was the Army calling
him to follow up on his pension."

Some of the potential class members had no contact with the
telemarketers, though, Judge Patty Shwartz pointed out, asking
Langer to address a point that had been raised repeatedly by the
third member of the appellate panel, Judge D. Brooks Smith.

"I'm having a hard time figuring out how your argument relates to
the denial of certification. It sounds to me like you're arguing
the merits," Judge Smith had said.

"If we show that the bank was operating with this subsidiary as a
[Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] enterprise,
which is our allegation, we will resolve in one stroke a major
element of every person's claim," Mr. Langer said.


* 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Wilner's 750 Tobacco Smoker Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Sept. 10
upheld the dismissal of 750 tobacco smoker cases filed by a
Jacksonville law firm.

Citing numerous errors in an 84-page opinion, Judge Gerald Tjoflat
traced the problem to the 2008 case filings by the Wilner Firm.
It didn't have the time or resources to fully investigate all the
claims filed on behalf of 4,432 individuals, according to the
court record.

"Problem after problem cropped up," Judge Tjoflat wrote for the
unanimous panel.  "There were personal injury claims filed on
behalf of deceased smokers, wrongful death claims filed by
'survivors' of smokers who were still living, cases filed as a
result of 'clerical errors,' multiple cases filed for the same
person, cases filed for people the law firm had no contact with,
claims that had already been adjudicated by another court, cases
filed for people who didn't want to pursue a lawsuit and claims
filed long after the relevant limitations period had run."

In 1996, attorney Norwood Wilner tried one of the first successful
smoker cases against a tobacco company.  As a result, he was
inundated with clients after the Florida Supreme Court disbanded a
statewide class action carrying the name of Dr. Howard Engle and
opened the door to a new round of individual lawsuits in 2006.

After Mr. Wilner's en masse filings in 2008, the tobacco
defendants moved his state court cases to federal court in the
Middle District of Florida.  In the ensuing years, the district
court, through a master docket, weeded out hundreds of cases.
More than 700 were dismissed and 500 were consolidated, leaving
about 2,700 cases, Judge Tjoflat noted.

                         '588 Mistakes'

"For [Wednes]day's purposes, we only focus on two of these
problems: the predeceased personal injury plaintiffs and the
decedent-smokers who died more than two years before Engle was
filed," Judge Tjoflat said.  "These cases all suffered from
various patent defects.  As any lawyer worth his salt knows, a
dead person cannot maintain a personal injury claim."

Of the 750 cases considered on Sept. 10, 588 were personal injury
cases, 160 were for loss of consortium, and two were wrongful
death claims.

The district court reasoned the personal injury cases could not be
amended.  Also, the procedural substitution of a personal
representative for the dead smokers was disallowed "because they
had not shown that Mr. Wilner's 588 mistakes were understandable,"
the district court said.

Even if plaintiffs counsel could have substituted plaintiffs and
amended the claims, it was too late.

"Because we find the court's decision to deny leave to amend to be
eminently reasonable, we need not consider whether a personal
injury claim brought on behalf of a deceased individual has any
legal effect, such that it can later be amended," Judge Tjoflat
said.

He also noted a lack of responsiveness from Mr. Wilner's firm.

"Common sense dictates that a lawyer who filed over 500 defective
pleadings and who later seeks the court's leave to fix his
mistakes must establish that he is entitled to it," he said.
Mr. Wilner told the court his firm collected 3,000 clients by 1998
and stayed in contact with most of them while the Engle class
action was being adjudicated in Miami.  Some clients were lost or
their whereabouts were unknown by the Engle filing deadline.

Faced with a deadline, Mr. Wilner "elected to list all claimants
of unknown status under the name of the injured or deceased party
who had first contacted me or my firm," the court said.

Judge Tjoflat said, "That's it.  We are not told what the Wilner
Firm did to keep up with its clients during the decade or so that
Engle was winding through the state court."

On the loss of consortium claims, Mr. Wilner asked to change 25
cases to wrongful death or survivor damages.  The other 135 cases
were dismissed without comment, and only now does Mr. Wilner
question them, Judge Tjoflat said.  To the extent that plaintiffs
counsel suggest the dismissal of the 135 was "inadvertent or came
as a surprise to them, we reject both contentions outright," the
judge wrote.

As for the 25, the district court held any amendment would be
futile because the Engle class did not bring loss of consortium
claims. Thus, the claims were untimely when they were filed, he
said.


* Courts to Impose Procedural Controls for Mass Copyright Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's Sid Venkatesan and Randy Wu, in
an article for Law.com, wrote that recent years have seen an
astonishing rise in the number of "Mass Doe" copyright lawsuits,
alleging copyright violation against unknown "John Doe" defendants
based on their alleged downloading of files through the BitTorrent
file-sharing system.  According to a recent study by professor
Matthew Sag at Loyola Law School, Mass Doe suits now account for
fully half of all copyright lawsuits filed in federal courts.
Such lawsuits may be meritorious attempts by lawful rights-holders
seeking to prevent unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works
over the Internet or through peer-to-peer software applications
(as in John Wiley & Sons v. Does [S.D.N.Y. 2012]).  Other Mass Doe
lawsuits, however, are brought by so-called copyright trolls and
target hundreds of thousands of defendants.  They seek early,
nuisance-value settlements that are less than the cost of an
individual defendant fighting off a potentially embarrassing claim
of copyright infringement (such as for alleged copying of
pornographic material).

Perhaps in reaction to the public outcry in response to Mass Doe
suits, U.S. courts have started to impose enhanced procedural
controls around such lawsuits.

How They Work

Mass Doe lawsuits often are targeted at allegedly unauthorized
copying over BitTorrent.  BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file-
sharing system that allows users to simultaneously upload and
download content by working together in "swarms."  Each user in a
swarm is identified by its Internet protocol (IP) address.
Copyright piracy monitoring groups may monitor the IP addresses
participating in a swarm that is sharing copyrighted content.

A plaintiff that tracks allegedly copyrighted content being shared
over BitTorrent may sue the participants based on their IP
addresses, naming them as "Doe" defendants to be named after
discovery.  Plaintiffs in Mass Doe suits may target several
thousand defendants in each such lawsuit to conserve resources
such as filing fees.  During discovery, the plaintiff will
subpoena the Internet service providers (ISPs) for the personal
information of the subscriber for each IP address.  With this
information, the plaintiff may send a letter to each subscriber,
offering to settle for a few thousand dollars -- just below the
costs of a bare-bones defense.  Defendants have a strong incentive
to settle because statutory damages for willful copyright
infringement can be as high as $150,000 by statute, setting aside
the cost of legal defense.  There is also the embarrassment factor
when these lawsuits are aimed at pornographic content.

The structured approach of copyright trolling makes it a hugely
profitable enterprise.  For example, Prenda Law, a notorious
copyright trolling organization that courts have lambasted as a
"porno-trolling collective," reportedly made around $15 million in
less than three years.

Courts Take Action

U.S. courts recently have used various procedural tools to stymie
copyright trolls.  Greater attention has been brought to three
areas: permissive joinder analysis under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19, personal jurisdiction and adequately pleading in a
Mass Doe complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

Permissive Joinder Is Becoming More Difficult: U.S. courts
historically have been split on whether anonymous Doe defendants
may be joined permissively in a single action.  Some courts have
reasoned that any one defendant in a BitTorrent swarm facilitates
the participation of all later users.  However, recent case law
may be trending away from that view.  For example, in 2013 Judge
Stephanie Rose of the Southern District of Iowa ruled in Killer
Joe Nevada v. Does that "participation in a specific swarm is too
imprecise a factor" to support joinder, and required the plaintiff
to show contemporaneous participation in the swarm before an IP
address may be joined.  Judge Rose joined other courts that noted
the logistical problems that would arise from potentially
thousands of defendants participating in a single litigation
(e.g., Hard Drive Productions v. Does [N.D. Cal. 2011]).

The trend of more restrictive joinder got a big boost in May 2014,
when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the
"contemporaneous" requirement for establishing joinder among
BitTorrent participants in AF Holdings v. Does.  The D.C. Circuit
concluded that otherwise, simply being part of the same swarm is
like playing at the same blackjack table at different times.
Given that this is the first appellate decision to articulate a
test for permissive joinder, the D.C. Circuit's decision may be
seen as influential in other circuits.

Personal Jurisdiction: AF Holdings also demonstrates that judges
may scrutinize claims of personal jurisdiction more closely.  The
D.C. Circuit found that the plaintiff AF Holdings must "have at
least a good faith belief that such discovery will enable it to
show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendants."  This may be a challenge at the outset of a case
since knowing a defendant's IP address does not itself identify
the specific geographic location of the defendant.  Plaintiff AF
Holdings presented no evidence that the defendants lived in the
District of Columbia or downloaded the copyright work there, and
therefore the D.C. Circuit denied the discovery requests on the
grounds that AF Holdings had not established personal jurisdiction
over all of the Doe defendants.  The court further warned that
plaintiffs may not "improperly use court processes by attempting
to gain information about hundreds of IP addresses located all
over the country in a single action, especially when many of those
addresses fall outside of the court's jurisdiction."

Motions to Dismiss: In January 2014, Judge Robert Lasnik of the
Western District of Washington in Elf-Man v. Cariveau dismissed a
copyright lawsuit based on the fact that the plaintiff alleged
only that each defendant pays for the Internet service that was
used to download and/or distribute the copyrighted movie.  The
court found that simply identifying the IP account holder says
very little about who actually participated in the BitTorrent
swarm; it could very well be a family member, guest or even a
third party interloper who did.  The court also rejected the
notion that the IP account holder indirectly infringed the
copyright by failing to "secure, police and protect the use of
their Internet service against illegal conduct," because the
plaintiff did not adequately allege that the IP account holder had
the requisite intent to induce infringement.

Conclusion

These decisions may presage a general trend of tighter judicial
controls over Mass Doe lawsuits, whether initiated by a copyright
troll or not.  There are surely many meritorious claims of
copyright infringement that may be addressed efficiently using
Mass Doe lawsuits, and both copyright holders and defendants would
be advised to keep track of these changes in the law.

Sid Venkatesan is an IP partner and former engineer specializing
in intellectual property disputes for Internet and entertainment
companies in the Silicon Valley office of Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe.  He edits Orrick's leading trade secrets and Northern
California IP blogs.  Randy Wu is an associate in Orrick's IP
group and a recent graduate of Stanford Law School.


* Siskinds Announces Protocol for LCD Settlement Distribution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds of London, Ontario and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman of
Vancouver, BC on Sept. 10 announced court approval of a protocol
for the distribution of settlement funds in the Canadian LCD
price-fixing class action.  The class action alleges price-fixing
in the market for liquid crystal display (LCD) panels used in
televisions, computer monitors and laptop computers.  The class
action was undertaken in 2007 by Siskinds, CFM and Siskinds
Desmueles of Quebec City.

Settlements totalling $37.6 million have been reached with five
defendant groups.  The settled defendants do not admit any
wrongdoing or liability.  The Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec
courts approved the settlements and a protocol for distribution of
settlement funds.  The class action is continuing against the
other five defendant groups.

"The settlements represent a huge victory for Canadian consumers
and businesses," said Charles Wright --
charles.wright@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP in London.  "The
court-approved protocol we are announcing [Wednes]day is an
invitation to eligible Canadian families and businesses to recoup
costs that should never have been billed in the first place."

Persons who purchased LCD products (regardless of the manufacturer
or brand) during the 1998 to 2006 period are eligible to claim
settlement benefits.  Individuals can claim for a maximum of two
undocumented purchases per household.  Claims can be filed online
at www.lcdclassactioncanada.com on or before December 9, 2014.
More information about the settlements, the distribution of
settlement funds and the claims process can be found online at
www.lcdclassactioncanada.com or by calling the claims
administrator at 1-866-432-5534.

"We are proud of what we have achieved thus far on behalf of class
members," said Mr. Wright.  "In concert with our colleagues in
Vancouver and Quebec City, we will continue to pursue the class
action against the remaining defendants in this case."

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm based in London, with an
office in Toronto. Siskinds LLP has earned worldwide recognition
for its work in plaintiff-side class action litigation.

CFM is a boutique law firm based in Vancouver specializing in
class actions, aviation accident litigation and product liability
litigation, on behalf of plaintiffs.

Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l. is an affilate of Siskinds LLP and
has offices in Montreal and Quebec City.


                              *********

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  * * *