CAR_Public/140918.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 186

                             Headlines


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over JUXTAPID
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Suit in Discovery
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Pending in Class Action
ALPHA NATURAL: Deal Approved in Upper Big Branch Class Action
ALPHA NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Emerald Class Action Pending

ALPHA NATURAL: Circuit Court Granted Motion to Dismiss
ALPHA NATURAL: Court Extended Stay in Del. Case Until 2015
ALPHA NATURAL: Proceedings in Nicewonder Litigation to Resume
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Demotes Retirees' Boarding Priority, Suit Says
AMERICAN EQUITY: Class Members Appeal Approval of Settlement

AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Gas-Powered Generators Due to Impact
AMERICAN WOODCRAFTERS: Recalls Bunk Beds Due to Fall Hazard
AMTRAN VIDEO: Recalls JVC 42 Inch Flat Panel Televisions
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Class Must Amend Suit Over Beck's Brewery
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Side by Sides Due to Fire Hazard

ASSURED GUARANTY: Bond Insurer Defendants File Brief in Appeal
ASSURED GUARANTY: Provides Update on Financial Products Suits
BAJCO LLC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Minimum Wages
BANK OF NEW YORK: "Branzan" Suit Removed to District of Colorado
BENETTON TRADING: Recalls United Colors of Benetton Boys Jackets

BG GROUP: Faces "Reddish" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BIG 5 CORP: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. Super. Court
BLACK DIAMOND: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Borelli" Suit Says
BODACIOUS FOOD: "All Natural" Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
BON-TON STORES: Illegally Uses Consumer Reports, "Wirt" Suit Says

BRECKENRIDGE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims
C.J.B. ENTERPRISES: "Gamero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CABRINHA: Recalls Kiteboarding Control System Due to Injury Risk
CALPERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Retirees' Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Strout" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CISCO SYSTEMS: Faces "Raack" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls Inflatable Rubber River Tubes
CREE INC: Recalls LED Light Fixtures Due to Laceration Hazard
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Final Settlement in Merger Suit Approved
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Ruling on Class Action Bid Seen in Q4 2014

CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE: Settlement Approval in Seen in Q4 2014
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Execs Knew of Card's Deceptive Ad, Suit Says
DORN VA: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
DUNECRAFT INC: Faces "EEOC" Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
DUO EPSILON: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DUPONT: Sept. 22-23 Meetings on Medical Monitoring Program Set
ENDOCYTE INC: Faces "Nguyen" Securities Class Action
ENDOCYTE INC: Faces Vivian Oh Trust Securities Class Action
ENERNOC INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Action
EPAI PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime

ESPIRITO SANTO: Faces Class Action Over Tranquilidade Sale
FADA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Barahona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Children's Sunglasses Due to Violation
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Pa. Court
GOODMAN COMPANY: Recalls Air Conditioning and Heating Units

GREAT INNOVATIONS: Recalls Humidifiers Due to Fire Hazard
GREEN SUMMIT: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
HANSEN MEDICAL: Reported $1.2 Million Decrease in Legal Expenses
HARBINGER GROUP: Nominal Defendant in Haverhill Class Action
HARBINGER GROUP: FGL Sees Total Settlement Cost Would Be $9.9MM

HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MOU in Washington Banking Merger Suit
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Marko" Suit in S.D. Illinois Over Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Faces "O'Brien" Suit Over Financial Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hartman" Suit in Missouri Over Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Murphy" Suit in Northern District of Georgia

HOSPITALITY LODGING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
HUNAM INN: Former Bartender Files Minimum Wage Class Action
IDEVICES LLC: Recalls Temperature Probes Due to Ingestion Hazard
INNERWORKINGS INC: Faces "Van Noppen" Securities Class Action
KAISER PERMANENTE: Sued for Dumping Patients With Mental Illness

KELLOGG CO: Dropped From Kashi Consumer Class Action
LA MERIDIANA: Faces "Maestoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LIGGETT GROUP: 11th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Dead Smokers Suits
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Faces "Howard" Securities Class Action
LITHIA MOTORS: 1.3 Million Liability for Unused Vouchers

LIVIE AND LUCA: Recalls Children's Shoes Due to Laceration Hazard
MAGNUM HUNTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Dismissal
MARTIN BROTHERS: Hagens Berman Settles School Lunch Program Suit
MAXIMUS INC: Facing "Norton" Class Action in Idaho
MEDIA COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says

MEL S. HARRIS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
METLIFE INC: "Keife" and "Simon" Plaintiffs Appeal to 9th Circuit
METLIFE INC: "Owens" Suit Seeks Disgorgement of MLIC Profits
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Nov. Final Approval Hearing of "Fauley" Settlement

MICHOACANA VARIETY: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
MOBILEREV LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT wages & Penalties
MORGAN'S FOODS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Say $725,000 Still Due and Payable
NRS INC: Recalls Water Sports Helmets Due to Risk of Head Injury

OMEGA FLEX: Defending Against Hall and Schoelwer Class Suits
ORBEA USA: Recalls Avant Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
OSRAM SYLVANIA: November 14 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
PEOPLES BANCORP: North Carolina Lawsuit to Proceed
PLY GEM: Oct. 29 Final Approval Hearing of Vinyl Clad Settlement

PLY GEM: Discovery on Class Cert. in "Memari" Case Has Closed
PLY GEM: Deceuninck to Indemnify MHE in "Pagliaroni" Class Action
PLY GEM: Damages in Muhler Class Action Not Yet Quantified
PLY GEM: J-Channel Class Action in Early Stages
PLY GEM: Defending Against Waterford Township Class Action

PLY GEM: Wants Stevens and Waterford Township Actions Combined
PNC FINANCIAL: Accused of Age Discrimination in E.D. Pennsylvania
PRECISION COMPLETION: "Hagans" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
QR ENERGY: Illegally Sales Partnership, "Bushansky" Suit Claims
QUANTEM AVIATION: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

ROCKET FUEL: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in N.D. California
ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Defending Against Thwaites and Rudman Suits
RUSSIAN TEA: Illegally Swipes Tips From Employees, Suit Claims
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: To Finalize Settlement in Del. Suit
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Cosmo Transaction Shareholder Suit

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SILVERMAN & BORENSTEIN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Oct. 6 Hearing on Settlement in "Angell" Suit
SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Smith" Representative Agrees to Settlement
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Oct. 6 Hearing on Settlement in "Niras" Suit

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Oct. 6 Hearing on Settlement in "Dedato" Suit
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlement in "Sayles" Suit Awaits Final Okay
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Provides Updates on Lawsuits Involving Shape-ups
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Agreement Reached in "Basaraba" Case
SPRINT CORP: 10th Cir. Denied Petition to Appeal Cert. Order

SPRINT CORP: Cases Over SoftBank Merger Dismissed in May
STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Certification Issue Under Advisement
SUNJOY INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multi-Purpose Outdoor Shelters
SWIMWEAR ANYWHERE: Recalls Little Marc Jacobs Girls Hooded Jackets
TANDOORY TACO: Faces "Dieckman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TAPRITE FASSCO: Sued by EEOC Alleging Sex Bias and Retaliation
TELIK INC: Reaches Agreement in Suit Over MabVax Merger
TEMPLETON RYE: Tricks "Al Capone" Whiskey Consumers, Suit Claims
TESLA MOTORS: Defending Against Class Action in California
TIMEC COMPANY: Fails to Pay Regular & Premium Overtime, Suit Says

TRULIA INC: Faces Class Actions Over Merger With Zillow
TW TELECOM: Facing Class Action Over Level 3 Merger
UBER Technologies: Atlanta Taxi Drivers File Class Action
UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Tax Preparer Fees
VELOCITY VIII: Dupes Chinese EB-5 Immigration Visa Applicants

VOCERA COMMS: Anticipates Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint
WALTER KIDDE: Recalls Smoke and Combination Smoke/CO Alarms
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: 15% of Notice Recipients Join Class
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard

* Fair Labor Standards Act Class & Collective Actions on the Rise


                            *********


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over JUXTAPID
----------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed in January 2014 against the Company and
certain of the Company's executive officers alleging certain
misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID
and the Company's financial performance in violation of federal
securities laws.  As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate whether the outcome will have a
material adverse effect on its financial statements and as a
result, the Company has not recorded any amounts for a loss
contingency.

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated
to the development and commercialization of innovative therapies
for patients with debilitating rare diseases.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding and no trial date has been scheduled in
the class action Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed on May 1,
2012, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Allscripts said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

"The complaint alleges that on multiple occasions between July
2008 and December 2011, we or our agent sent advertisements by fax
to the plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons,
without first receiving the recipients' express permission or
invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each
alleged violation of the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds
the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional; and
injunctive and other relief. Discovery is proceeding. No trial
date has been scheduled."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions is a global provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity, hosting, outsourcing, analytics, patient
engagement, and population health solutions and services that
empower consumers, physicians, hospitals, governments, health
systems, health plans, retail clinics, retail pharmacies and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Pending in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fully-briefed motion to dismiss is pending and no trial date has
been scheduled in a lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Allscripts
Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and its officers, Allscripts said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

The Company said, "On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against us; Glen Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and
William Davis, our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol
County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012. The plaintiffs later
added Lee Shapiro, our former President, as a defendant. The
plaintiffs allege that we, Mr. Tullman, Mr. Davis and Mr. Shapiro
made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
during the putative class period regarding our progress in
integrating our business with the business of Eclipsys Corporation
following the two companies' August 24, 2010 merger, and that we
lacked a reasonable basis for certain statements regarding those
post-merger integration efforts as well as our operations and
results and projections of future financial performance."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions is a global provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity, hosting, outsourcing, analytics, patient
engagement, and population health solutions and services that
empower consumers, physicians, hospitals, governments, health
systems, health plans, retail clinics, retail pharmacies and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.


ALPHA NATURAL: Deal Approved in Upper Big Branch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the
Upper Big Branch ("UBB") Purported Securities Class Action.

On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf
of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey and
certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally
misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and
that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
The lead plaintiffs sought a determination that this action was a
proper class action; certification as class representatives; an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 3, 2011, the United States
moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the completion of
criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same facts that
allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9, 2012, the court
entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until the
earlier of either the completion of the United States' criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013. The court
extended the stay several times.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint. On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer
to the consolidated amended class action complaint.

In October and December 2013, the parties participated in
mediation. In December 2013, the parties reached agreement on all
material terms of settlement, including a cash payment of
$265,000,000.

In February 2014, the parties reached agreement on definitive
settlement documentation, subject to court approval, and on
February 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved the court for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 19, 2014, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
subject to a final determination following a settlement hearing on
June 4, 2014. On February 25, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, the Company made an initial payment of $30,000,000
into an escrow account and on June 3, 2014, the Company deposited
the remaining $235,000,000 of the settlement amount into the
escrow account. The Company received approximately $70,000,000 of
insurance proceeds in connection with the settlement.

On June 4, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the
settlement and dismissed the class action with prejudice.


ALPHA NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss Emerald Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the
Emerald Purported Securities Class Action.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the "Massey
Acquisition"). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award
of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On
September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to remand.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19,
2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on
November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded
the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on
the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Boone
County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to
dismiss. The motions remain pending.

On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia
Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and
certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.


ALPHA NATURAL: Circuit Court Granted Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on Wrongful
Death and Personal Injury Suits.

Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed
wrongful death suits against Massey and certain of its
subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County
Circuit Court. In addition, as of July 19, 2013, two seriously
injured employees had filed personal injury claims against Massey
and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court
seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric
injuries, and thirty-nine employees had filed lawsuits against
Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit
Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional distress
or personal injuries due to their proximity to the explosion. On
April 19, 2012, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Wyoming
County lawsuits to Boone County.

On October 19, 2011, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that
the cases pending before it be mediated by a panel of three
mediators. These mediations are, per order of the court, strictly
confidential. The Company reached agreements to settle with all
twenty-nine families of the deceased miners as well as the two
employees who were seriously injured. The settlements reached with
the families of the deceased miners have received court approval.
The settlements relating to the two serious injuries did not
require court approval.

On May 4, 2012, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that the
remaining personal injury and emotional distress claims continue
to be mediated through July 6, 2012. Until that date, a stay was
in place for all remaining cases until further order from the
court. The stay was lifted on July 6, 2012 but mediation was
ordered to continue. On July 20, 2012, the stay was reinstated for
discovery-related activities at the request of the United States
Attorney and by agreement of the parties. On August 19, 2013, at
the request of the United States Attorney, the stay was extended
until the earlier of either the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2014.
Mediation efforts in August 2012 successfully resolved all but two
of the personal injury and emotional distress claims. On June 26,
2013, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims alleging the tort of outrage and
negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs' two
remaining claims have been resolved. The Wyoming County lawsuits
were settled and dismissed prior to the court ruling on the
Company's motion to transfer.

On April 5, 2012, the family of one of the deceased miners filed a
class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on
behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the
mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming
as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries,
the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors.

On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in
Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims
relating to the UBB explosion. The Company moved to dismiss both
complaints on July 17, 2013 and October 16, 2013, respectively.

On July 21, 2014, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss. The second motion remains pending.


ALPHA NATURAL: Court Extended Stay in Del. Case Until 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates in a
Delaware Chancery Court Suit.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying
allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his
retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf
of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain
former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside
protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly
eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to
a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey
Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on
the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all
material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an
informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against
Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company
and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated
for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and
February 24, 2011, respectively.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 10 and
13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants
moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the
remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day.

The court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on
February 4, 2014, the court further extended the existing
discovery stay until the earlier of the completion of the United
States' criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or July 15,
2014.

In July 2014, the Company requested that the court extend the stay
until the earlier of the completion of the United States' criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2015.


ALPHA NATURAL: Proceedings in Nicewonder Litigation to Resume
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates in the so-
called Nicewonder Litigation.

In December 2004, prior to the Company's acquisition of Nicewonder
in October 2005, the Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation
("ACTF"), a division of the West Virginia State Building and
Construction Trades Council, brought an action against the West
Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
("WVDOH") and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI"), which became
the Company's wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a result of the
Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States District Court in the
Southern District of West Virginia. The plaintiff sought a
declaration that the contract between NCI and the State of West
Virginia related to NCI's road construction project was illegal as
a violation of applicable West Virginia and federal competitive
bidding and prevailing wage laws and sought to enjoin performance
of the contract, but did not seek monetary damages.

On September 30, 2009, the District Court issued an order that
dismissed or denied for lack of standing all of the plaintiff's
claims under federal law and remanded the remaining state claims
to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia for
resolution. On May 7, 2010, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
entered summary judgment in favor of NCI. On June 22, 2011, the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court
order granting summary judgment in favor of NCI, and remanded the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Following
remand, ACTF filed a motion for summary judgment, which the
Circuit Court denied on November 9, 2011. ACTF challenged the
order denying its summary judgment motion to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals.

On June 21, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
issued an opinion finding that ACTF has standing to pursue its
claims and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, West Virginia for further proceedings. NCI's portion of
the highway project under the contract is complete.

The case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
West Virginia. A settlement between NCI and ACTF was agreed upon
in early January 2013, prior to the scheduled trial date, January
14, 2013. The Company does not expect to incur any out-of-pocket
expenditures in connection with that settlement. The trial
proceeded among the remaining parties.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported
class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of
Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI
Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee
Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represents the
plaintiff in the ACTF litigation, and the complaint's allegations
raise issues similar to those in the ACTF litigation.

On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled
that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as
the awarding and implementation of the contract were in violation
of West Virginia law. The Company is reviewing the Court's ruling
and evaluating its implications in relation to the NCI Employee
Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses
to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court
declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a
more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia will therefore
resume.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Demotes Retirees' Boarding Priority, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cher Thompson, Individually; Shirley Trent; Linda Igoe; Theresa
Martin; Cheryl Adams; Donna Holzberger; Pamella Mitchner; Simon
Parsons; Margaret Lorraine Wolford; Faith Manno Balsier; Carolyn
Schwartz; Rodney Jordan; Sarah Woodruff Watkins; Carol Shields;
Pamela Kisela; Carol Reichert; Sandra Wood; Natasha Alexanderia
Popovich; Yvette Marie Reidy; Jose Luis Caldas; Patricia Bias;
Nancy Johnson Blasingame; Mary Sears; Kathleen Frederick Wood;
Joann Mondrus; Scott Wessel; Sandra Kay Berry; and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group, a
Delaware corporation, as successor in interest to AMR Group d/b/a
American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2014-CH-14588 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., September 10, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, who have retired or have otherwise separated
from American Airlines prior to January 2, 2014, including their
survivors, who were accorded D2 boarding priority for pass
benefits as part of their retirement or separation packages.

The Plaintiffs contend that they have each received written notice
from American Airlines that the benefits to which they are
entitled to receive in accordance with the terms of their
retirement and separation agreements are being diminished
beginning on September 10, 2014.  The D2 boarding priority is
being demoted to a newly implemented boarding priority designation
denoted as "D2R," the Plaintiffs assert.

The demotion of the Class Members to "D2R" status places them
behind at least 500,000 people, including current employees and
their spouses/domestic partners/registered companions and eligible
children and reduces by 50% their entitlement to buddy passes in
the D3 priority, the Plaintiffs aver.

American Airlines Group, a Delaware Corporation, is successor-in-
interest to AMR Group, doing business as American Airlines is a
major U.S. airline that operates an extensive international and
domestic network which systematically and regularly conducts
business in and throughout one of its major hubs located in
Chicago, Illinois, in the Cook County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert B. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE ROBERT B. WILLIAMS
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2119
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-9400
          Facsimile: (312) 444-9400
          E-mail: rbw@ilworkerscomp.com

               - and -

          Nancy Richter, Esq.
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 510
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-7848


AMERICAN EQUITY: Class Members Appeal Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that
the Company is a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack,
et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et
al., in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity,
et al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re:
American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint
filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving
allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims.

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us," the Company said.  "The allegations generally attacked the
suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over
the age of 65. The plaintiffs sought rescission and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq."

On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for
settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the settlement
was mailed to the members of the class on October 7, 2013 and
settlement claim forms were due from members of the class on or
before December 6, 2013.

On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of
the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a
final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is
fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted
on behalf of the class.

On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was entered dismissing the
case on the merits and with prejudice. On February 28, 2014, a
member of the class filed an appeal of the District Court's
approval of the terms of the settlement agreement with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"We recorded an estimated litigation liability of $17.5 million
during the third quarter of 2012 related to the Los Angeles Case,"
the Company said. "We increased our estimated litigation liability
for this matter to $21.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2013
following the passage of the deadline for submission of claims by
class members in the lawsuit and based upon information available
at that time. However, we decreased the liability by $2.3 million
in the first quarter of 2014 as additional information became
available concerning the nature and magnitude of the claims
received. In addition, during the first quarter of 2014, we paid
$7.8 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The
estimated litigation liability at June 30, 2014 is $11.1 million.
While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal
and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that
will ultimately result from the completion of the claims process,
the $11.1 million litigation liability represents our best
estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation."

The Company specializes in the sale of individual annuities
(primarily deferred annuities) and, to a lesser extent, also sells
life insurance policies.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Gas-Powered Generators Due to Impact
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Honda Motor Co. Inc., of Torrance, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 8,100 gas-powered generators.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The rear frame support can fail during lifting, posing an impact
hazard.  The owner's manual can have missing or duplicated pages,
which could cause consumers not to receive important operating or
safety information.

The firm has received two reports of incidents in Canada involving
rear frame support failures.  No injuries have been reported.  The
firm also received two reports of owner's manuals with errors.

The recall involves the 2014 Honda gasoline-powered EU7000isN AT
generator.  The recalled model is a 7,000-watt generator.  It is
red with a black metal frame, folding handles and two wheels on
the side opposite the handles.  The generator measures about 33
1/2 inches long by 26 1/2 inches wide by 27 1/2 inches tall with
the handles folded.  "Honda," "FI" and "EU7000is" are printed on
the side of the generator.  "Honda" is also on the front of the
generator above the control panel.  The full model name "EU7000isN
AT" is on the UPC label near the fuel level indicator on the top
of the generator.  Recalled generators have a serial number in the
range EEJD-1000001 to EEJD 1006288.  The serial number is on the
inside of the side cover that is to the right of the control
panel.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/fkJh56

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at Honda
Power Equipment dealers nationwide from June 2014 through July
2014 for about $4,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled generators
and contact a Honda Power Equipment dealer to schedule a free
repair of the rear frame support and replacement of the owner's
manual.  American Honda is contacting all registered customers
directly.


AMERICAN WOODCRAFTERS: Recalls Bunk Beds Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Woodcrafters, of High Point, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,900 bunk beds.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bed's side mattress support rails can break, posing a fall
hazard.

American Woodcrafters has received two reports of bed support
rails breaking, in which children fell from the bed and sustained
bruising.

The recall involves Cottage Retreat II bunk beds with a side
ladder.  The white finish beds were sold in twin over twin, and
twin over full combinations.  American Woodcrafters, Made in
Indonesia and SKU number 6310-9771 are printed on a label attached
to the inside of one of the four rails.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/xOw1Uy

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold
exclusively at Havertys stores nationwide and online at havertys
from Sept. 2011 through March 2014 for between $600 and $1,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the beds and contact
Havertys to arrange for the free installation of free replacement
rails.  American Woodcrafters and Havertys are contacting their
customers directly.


AMTRAN VIDEO: Recalls JVC 42 Inch Flat Panel Televisions
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
AmTRAN Video Corporation, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 27,000 JVC 42 inch flat panel televisions.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The neck of the stand can crack and cause the television to tip
over unexpectedly, posing a risk of impact injury to the consumer.

JVC has received 16 reports of cracked television stand necks.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves JVC 42-inch, Emerald Series Full HD 1080P LED
flat panel televisions, model EM42FTR and serial number beginning
with "T".  The flat panel televisions are black with "JVC" printed
in the lower center of the television front.  Model and serial
numbers are located on the bottom left on the back of the
television.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/2RjQPC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BJ's
Wholesale, Costco Wholesale, Sam's Club, Walmart, and other retail
stores nationwide, online at Walmart.com, Costco.com, and other
internet retailers from February 2014 through Aug. 2014 for
between $370 and $470.

Consumers using the stand assembly (neck and base) should
immediately detach it, place the television in a safe location and
contact AmTRAN Video for a replacement stand neck.  Consumers with
wall-mounted televisions should request the replacement neck in
case the stand assembly is needed for future use.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Class Must Amend Suit Over Beck's Brewery
---------------------------------------------------------
Drinkers of Beck's beer must amend claims that Anheuser-Busch
markets the St. Louis, Mo.-brewed beer as a German import, reports
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

Francisco Rene Marty and others hope to represent a class against
Anheuser-Busch for allegedly keeping consumers in the dark when it
moved Beck's brewery operations to St. Louis in 2012.  Prior to
that change, Beck's had been brewed in Germany where it originated
in 1873.

In its motion to dismiss, A-B noted that the challenged label
states uses phrases like "Originated in Germany," "German
Quality," and "Brewed Under the German Purity Law of 1516."

None of those statements make any representation concerning the
location where Beck's is brewed, and indeed the labels on cans or
bottles of Beck's say "Product of USA, Brauerei Beck & Co., St.
Louis, MO," the company argued.

The bottom of every carton says "BRAUEREI BECK & CO., BECK'S (C)
BEER, ST. LOUIS, MO," A-B added.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John O'Sullivan noted in a September 5, 2014
opinion that he examined the products and found "that the 'Product
of USA' disclaimer as printed on the actual cans and bottles
themselves is difficult to read."

"More importantly, the 'Product of USA' disclaimer is blocked by
the carton," he added.  "A consumer would have to either open the
cartons of twelve-pack bottles and twelve-pack cans or lift the
bottle from the six-pack carton in order to see the 'Product of
USA' disclaimer."

As for the carton label, "a reasonable consumer may not
necessarily look at the underside of the carton in deciding
whether to purchase a product," the 45-page decision states.

O'Sullivan also found that the "German Purity Law" and "German
Quality" statements may be misleading.  He nevertheless dismissed
the case for alleging only past injury.

"The amended complaint fails to allege facts showing that the
plaintiffs will likely face a real or immediate threat of future
injury," the ruling states.

O'Sullivan found no allegation in the amended complaint "that the
plaintiffs will purchase Beck's again in the future if
appropriately labeled and there are no express allegations either
that the plaintiffs have stopped purchasing Beck's or that they
have continued to purchase Beck's despite the alleged
misrepresentations."

"The amended complaint does allege that the plaintiffs were
'willing to pay a premium for Beck's Beer because of [the
defendant's] representations and omissions, and would not have
purchased, would not have paid as much for the products, or would
have purchased alternative products in absence of these
representations and omissions,'" he added.  "The only logical
inference from this allegation is that the plaintiffs no longer
purchase Beck's.  Because there are no allegations in the amended
complaint that the plaintiffs would purchase Beck's in the future,
the undersigned finds that the plaintiffs have failed to plead a
'real and immediate threat of future injury,' . . . and thus have
failed to plead standing to seek injunctive relief."

The plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint by Sept. 19.

The case is Francisco Rene Marty, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch
Companies, LLC, Case No. 13-23656, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Side by Sides Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Arctic Cat, Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,600 Arctic Cat Wildcat Trail and
Wildcat Trail XT Side by Side.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Oil can leak from the oil cooler lines, posing a fire hazard.

Arctic Cat has received 60 reports of oil leaking and one report
of fire.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves all 2014 Arctic Cat Wildcat Trail and Wildcat
Trail XT side-by-side utility vehicles with Vehicle Identification
Numbers (VIN) 000001 through 316232.  The VIN is located on the
frame tube near the driver's side front wheel.  These units were
sold in red, green, lime green, team arctic green and mat black.
The words "Arctic Cat" and "Wildcat Trail" appear on the sides of
these vehicles and on the hood.

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively at Arctic Car dealers nationwide from Dec. 2013
through July 2014 for about $11,400 to $12,400.

Consumers should stop using the recalled side-by-side utility
vehicles immediately and contact an Arctic Cat dealer to schedule
a free repair.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Bond Insurer Defendants File Brief in Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in July 2008,
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM") and various other
financial guarantors were named in complaints filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, City and County of San
Francisco by a number of plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiffs'
counsel filed amended complaints against AGM and Assured Guaranty
Corp. ("AGC") and added additional plaintiffs.

These complaints alleged that the financial guaranty insurer
defendants (i) participated in a conspiracy in violation of
California's antitrust laws to maintain a dual credit rating scale
that misstated the credit default risk of municipal bond issuers
and created market demand for municipal bond insurance, (ii)
participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of
business that damaged each insurer's financial condition (thereby
undermining the value of each of their guaranties), and (iii)
failed to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on
their financial condition.

In addition to their antitrust claims, various plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent
misrepresentation.

At hearings held in July and October 2011 relating to AGM, AGC and
the other defendants' demurrer, the court overruled the demurrer
on the following claims: breach of contract, violation of
California's antitrust statute and of its unfair business
practices law, and fraud. The remaining claims were dismissed.

On December 2, 2011, AGM, AGC and the other bond insurer
defendants filed an anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation") motion to strike the complaints under California's
Code of Civil Procedure.

On July 9, 2013, the court entered its order denying in part and
granting in part the bond insurers' motion to strike. As a result
of the order, the causes of action that remain against AGM and AGC
are: claims of breach of contract and fraud, brought by the City
of San Jose, the City of Stockton, East Bay Municipal Utility
District and Sacramento Suburban Water District, relating to the
failure to disclose the impact of risky financial transactions on
their financial condition; and a claim of breach of the unfair
business practices law brought by The Jewish Community Center of
San Francisco.

On September 9, 2013, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the anti-SLAPP
ruling on the California antitrust statute. On September 30, 2013,
AGC, AGM and the other bond insurer defendants filed a notice of
cross-appeal.

On July 7, 2014, the bond insurer defendants, as cross-appellants,
filed their opening brief in the Court of Appeal of the State of
California First Appellate District, Division 2.

The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses. The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, that may arise from these lawsuits.


ASSURED GUARANTY: Provides Update on Financial Products Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Assured Guaranty Ltd., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on lawsuits
relating to "Former Financial Products Business".

During 2008, nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in
federal court alleging federal antitrust violations in the
municipal derivatives industry, seeking damages and alleging,
among other things, a conspiracy to fix the pricing of, and
manipulate bids for, municipal derivatives, including guaranteed
investment contracts ("GICs"). These cases have been coordinated
and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as MDL 1950, In re
Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-2516
("MDL 1950").

Five of these cases named both Assured Guaranty Municipal Holdings
Inc. ("AGMH") and AGM: (a) Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A.; (b) Fairfax County, Virginia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.;
(c) Central Bucks School District, Pennsylvania v. Wachovia Bank,
N.A.; (d) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A.; and (e) Washington County, Tennessee v.
Wachovia Bank, N.A. In April 2009, the MDL 1950 court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss on the federal claims, but granted
leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The
Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
on October 9, 2013, lists neither AGM nor AGMH as a named
defendant or a co-conspirator. The complaints in these lawsuits
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and other costs. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these
lawsuits.

Four of the cases named AGMH (but not AGM) and also alleged that
the defendants violated California state antitrust law and common
law by engaging in illegal bid-rigging and market allocation,
thereby depriving the cities or municipalities of competition in
the awarding of GICs and ultimately resulting in the cities paying
higher fees for these products: (f) City of Oakland, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (g) County of Alameda, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; (h) City of Fresno, California v.
AIG Financial Products Corp.; and (i) Fresno County Financing
Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp. When the four plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint in September 2009, the plaintiffs
did not name AGMH as a defendant. However, the complaint does
describe some of AGMH's and AGM's activities. The consolidated
complaint generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. In April 2010, the MDL 1950 court
granted in part and denied in part the named defendants' motions
to dismiss this consolidated complaint.

In 2008, AGMH and AGM also were named in five non-class action
lawsuits originally filed in the California Superior Courts
alleging violations of California law related to the municipal
derivatives industry: (a) City of Los Angeles, California v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (b) City of Stockton, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (c) County of San Diego, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; (d) County of San Mateo, California v. Bank of
America, N.A.; and (e) County of Contra Costa, California v. Bank
of America, N.A. Amended complaints in these actions were filed in
September 2009, adding a federal antitrust claim and naming AGM
(but not AGMH) and Assured Guaranty US Holdings Inc. ("AGUS"),
among other defendants. These cases have been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.

In late 2009, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
six additional non-class action cases filed in federal court,
which also have been coordinated and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with MDL 1950: (f) City of Riverside, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.; (g) Sacramento Municipal Utility District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (h) Los Angeles World Airports v. Bank
of America, N.A.; (i) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton
v. Bank of America, N.A.; (j) Sacramento Suburban Water District
v. Bank of America, N.A.; and (k) County of Tulare, California v.
Bank of America, N.A.

The MDL 1950 court denied AGM and AGUS's motions to dismiss these
11 complaints in April 2010. Amended complaints were filed in May
2010. On October 29, 2010, AGM and AGUS were voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District case
only. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek or sought
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from the
remaining lawsuits.

In May 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named in
five additional non-class action cases filed in federal court in
California: (a) City of Richmond, California v. Bank of America,
N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010, N.D. California); (b) City of Redwood
City, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18, 2010,
N.D. California); (c) Redevelopment Agency of the City and County
of San Francisco, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on
May 21, 2010, N.D. California); (d) East Bay Municipal Utility
District, California v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on May 18,
2010, N.D. California); and (e) City of San Jose and the San Jose
Redevelopment Agency, California v. Bank of America, N.A (filed on
May 18, 2010, N.D. California). These cases have also been
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. In September 2010, AGM and
AGUS, among other defendants, were named in a sixth additional
non-class action filed in federal court in New York, but which
alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in addition to
federal antitrust law: Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a
Jefferson's Ferry v. Bank of America, N.A. (filed on September 21,
2010, E.D. New York), which has also been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with MDL 1950 for
pretrial proceedings.

In December 2010, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in a seventh additional non-class action filed in federal court in
the Central District of California, Los Angeles Unified School
District v. Bank of America, N.A., and in an eighth additional
non-class action filed in federal court in the Southern District
of New York, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. These
cases also have been consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial
proceedings. The complaints in these lawsuits generally seek
unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and
other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may arise from these
lawsuits.

In January 2011, AGM and AGUS, among other defendants, were named
in an additional non-class action case filed in federal court in
New York, which alleges violation of New York's Donnelly Act in
addition to federal antitrust law: Peconic Landing at Southold,
Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. This case has been consolidated with
MDL 1950 for pretrial proceedings. The complaint in this lawsuit
generally seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses. The Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

In September 2009, the Attorney General of the State of West
Virginia filed a lawsuit (Circuit Ct. Mason County, W. Va.)
against Bank of America, N.A. alleging West Virginia state
antitrust violations in the municipal derivatives industry,
seeking damages and alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to
fix the pricing of, and manipulate bids for, municipal
derivatives, including GICs. An amended complaint in this action
was filed in June 2010, adding a federal antitrust claim and
naming AGM (but not AGMH) and AGUS, among other defendants. This
case has been removed to federal court as well as transferred to
the S.D.N.Y. and consolidated with MDL 1950 for pretrial
proceedings. AGM and AGUS answered West Virginia's Second Amended
Complaint on November 11, 2013. The complaint in this lawsuit
generally seeks civil penalties, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses. The Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of
loss that may arise from this lawsuit.


BAJCO LLC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Heuberger, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Bajco, LLC, Bajco 100, LLC, Bajco Florida, LLC, Bajco
Global Management, LLC, Bajco Gulf Holdings, Inc., Bajco Gulf,
LLC, Bajco Michiana, LLC, Bajco Michiana II, LLC, Bajco Michiana
III, LLC, Bajco New York, LLC, Bajco North, LLC, Bajco PA, LLC and
Bajco Williamsport, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01472 (S.D. Ind.,
September 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay delivery drivers' minimum wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate approximately 51 Papa John's
franchise stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kathleen M. Sweeney, Esq.
      SWEENEY HAYES LLC
      141 East Washington Street, Suite 225
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 491-1050
      Facsimile: (317) 491-1043
      E-mail: ksween@gmail.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: "Branzan" Suit Removed to District of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Energy Corporation of America removed the class action
lawsuit styled Branzan Alternative Investment Fund, LLLP v. Bank
of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., et al., Case No.
14CV33263, from the District Court for the City and County of
Denver, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The Colorado District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-02513-MJW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts two allegedly direct claims for breach of
contract against BNY Mellon Trust and two allegedly indirect
theories (as purported third-party beneficiary and in the nature
of a derivative action) against Energy Corporation of America.
The Plaintiff also seeks an accounting from both Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David von Gunten, Esq.
          VON GUNTEN LAW LLC
          2696 S. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 302
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: (303) 504-0055
          Facsimile: (303) 504-0044
          E-mail: dcvglaw@msn.com

               - and -

          Vincent T. Gresham, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF VICENT T. GRESHAM
          2870 Peachtree Road, #204
          Atlanta, GA, 30305
          Telephone: (404) 281-2762
          Facsimile: (404) 866-3847
          E-mail: Gresham05@comcast.net

Defendant Energy Corporation of America is represented by:

          John V. McDermott, Esq.
          Lawrence W. Treece, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Felder, #38333
          Matthew C. Arentsen, #45021
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
          410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202-4432
          Telephone: (303) 223-1100
          Facsimile: (303) 223-1111
          E-mail: jmcdermott@bhfs.com
                  ltreece@bhfs.com
                  jfelder@bhfs.com
                  marentsen@bhfs.com

Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., is
represented by:

          Katherine Allison White, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2300
          Denver, CO 80202-5596
          Telephone: (303) 292-2400
          Facsimile: (303) 296-3956
          E-mail: whiteka@ballardspahr.com


BENETTON TRADING: Recalls United Colors of Benetton Boys Jackets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Benetton Trading U.S.A. Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 93 Boy's hooded jacket with a waist
drawstring.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The jackets have a drawstring at the waist that could become
snagged or caught in small spaces or vehicle doors, posing
significant entanglement hazard to children.  In Feb. 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.
In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves United Colors of Benetton boy's jackets made
of 100% cotton.  They are navy with a brown drawstring at the
waist and a zipper and five brown buttons front closure.  The
hooded jackets have snap buttons on each of the two side pockets
and on the neck closure.  They were sold in boy's sizes S through
XL.  United Colors of Benetton is printed on the sewn-in green
label at the center back neck of the jackets.  Style number
2GQ1534Q0 is on the white label located inside the jacket near the
waist.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/BpJ7rj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Benetton stores nationwide and online at
benetton.com and zappos.com from Jan. 2014 through March 2014 for
about $90.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or contact Benetton for a full
refund.


BG GROUP: Faces "Reddish" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Reddish, on behalf of himself and other employees similarly
situated v. The BG Group, LLC. a Florida limited liability
company, Steven R. Greenberg, and Ivy F. Greenberg, Case No. 9:14-
cv-81158 (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The BG Group, LLC is engaged in the business of demolishing
buildings and other structures for the benefit of their customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
      Peter Joseph Marshall Bober, Esq.
      BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
      1930 Tyler Street
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 922-2298
      Facsimile: (954) 922-5455
      E-mail: samara@boberlaw.com
              peter@boberlaw.com


BIG 5 CORP: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Duran, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Big 5 Corp., a Delaware corporation; Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC557154 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., September 10, 2014) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged failure to comply with California's wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' compensation schemes
did not fairly or lawfully compensate the Plaintiff for all hours
worked.

Headquartered in El Segundo, California, the Corporate Defendants
are corporations that specialize in retail sales of sporting goods
and accessories.  Big 5 Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big
5 Sporting Goods Corporation.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are unknown to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
          Shane C. Stafford, Esq.
          Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
          SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP
          19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 622-5444
          Facsimile: (949) 622-5448
          E-mail: rshanberg@ssfirm.com
                  sstafford@ssbfirm.com
                  abartz@ssbfirm.com


BLACK DIAMOND: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "Borelli" 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-at-01115 (E.D. Cal., September 9, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Black Diamond Aggregates, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing services in the field of trucking and hauling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harvey Sohnen, Esq.
      Patricia M. Kelly, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY
      2 Theatre Square, Suite 230
      Orinda, California 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


BODACIOUS FOOD: "All Natural" Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge refused on Sept. 9 to toss a proposed class action alleging
a cookie company misled customers by falsely claiming to use "all
natural" ingredients, finding the court doesn't need to defer to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because the agency never
defined the term.

In an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by Bodacious Food
Co., U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas rejected the
argument that the primary jurisdiction doctrine should preclude
him from hearing the case, finding the FDA has repeatedly declined
to promulgate regulations governing the use of the word "natural"
as it applies to food products.

"The FDA is free to promulgate regulations governing the term
'natural' but has not done so," Judge Dimitrouleas wrote. "Judges
have experience interpreting terms in conjunction with parties'
disputes, and the prospect of interpreting the term 'all natural'
does not fall outside of that conventional experience."

Plaintiff Linda Dye filed suit in May, claiming Bodacious' use of
the term "natural" in labeling on the company's line of
Geraldine's Cookies products violates Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
because the cookies contain synthetic or genetically modified
ingredients like sugar, canola oil, corn starch, dextrose and
citric acid.

Judge Dimitrouleas disagreed with arguments that the complaint
failed to meet the $5 million jurisdictional dollar amount
required for diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, saying Bodacious' supposed evidence refuting
the plaintiff's claim of having met the threshold had not been
properly filed with the court.

Bodacious told the court it would provide confidential sales
figures "for review in a separate correspondence to ensure that
the confidential nature of same is maintained," but Judge
Dimitrouleas said all submissions to the court must be filed on
the docket.

"Unless a motion to seal is properly filed pursuant to the local
rules and is granted by the court, all filings on the docket will
remain public," Judge Dimitrouleas wrote.  "Thus, it does not
appear to a legal certainty that plaintiff's class claim is really
for less than $5 million."

In rejecting arguments that Dye lacked standing to pursue
injunctive relief, Judge Dimitrouleas said it is plausible a
consumer might be misled by the statement "all natural" and
falsely conclude items like synthetic or genetically modified
sugar and cornstarch are not actually artificial ingredients.
Bodacious had argued the inclusion of all ingredients on the box
warranted dismissal of the case.

The Florida statute doesn't require a plaintiff to show an ongoing
practice or irreparable harm to obtain injunctive relief, Judge
Dimitrouleas said, but rather grants standing to "anyone
aggrieved" by an unfair or deceptive act.

Judge Dimitrouleas also said the complaint sufficiently stated
unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty claims, finding
it specifically alleged that Linda Dye purchased Geraldine's
Italian Wedding Cookies for $3.79 from a Publix Super Markets Inc.
store in Palm Beach Gardens containing both the labeling and
ingredients in question.

"Defendant has raised no argument warranting dismissal of
plaintiff's claims," Judge Dimitrouleas wrote.  "Although it is
unclear whether any deceptive acts, unfair practices,
misrepresentations, unjust enrichment, or breaches of warranties
will be proven based on the words 'all natural' on cookie boxes
or, alternatively, if plaintiffs will fail to establish liability
as the litigation proceeds, the allegations, if true, state valid
causes of action at this pleading stage."

Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to a request
for comment from Law360.

Linda Dye is represented by Michael Thomas Fraser of The Law
Offices of Howard W. Rubinstein PA, and by Michael J. Pascucci and
Joshua H. Eggnatz of The Eggnatz Law Firm PA.

Bodacious Food Co. is represented by Scott M. Teich --
steich@qpwblaw.com -- of Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA.

The case is Linda Dye v. Bodacious Food Co., case number 9:14-cv-
80627, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


BON-TON STORES: Illegally Uses Consumer Reports, "Wirt" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie E. Wirt, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01755 (M.D. Pa.,
September 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by using a consumer
report to make an employment decision without, beforehand,
providing the person who is the subject of the report a copy of
the report and a summary of rights under the FCRA a sufficient
amount of time to dispute the report before the adverse action is
taken.

The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. owns and operates department stores
throughout the northern United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
      LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
      1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 320-6660
      Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
      E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com

         - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
      Land Title Building, 100 South Broad Street, 19th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      E-mail; jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
              jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


BRECKENRIDGE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Landreth, James Chamberlain, Mike Childress, et al. v.
Breckenridge Enterprises, Ltd. LP, a/k/a Breckenridge Enterprises
Ltd. d/b/a Jag Industrial Services, Inc. a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 5:14-cv-04075 (N.D. Iowa, September 9, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for worked
more than 40 hours per week.

Breckenridge Enterprises, Ltd. LP is a corporation that provides
construction services primarily as a contractor to the oil and
natural gas industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. McCafferty, Esq.
      KENNEY & MCCAFFERTY, PC
      3031 C. Walton Road, Suite 202
      Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
      Telephone: (610) 940-0327
      Facsimile: 940 0284
      E-mail: cafstar@aol.com

         - and -

     Jay Madison Smith, Esq.
     SMITH & MCELWAIN LAW OFFICE
     505-5th Street, Ste. 530, PO Box 1194
     Sioux City, IA 51102
     Telephone: (712) 255-8094
     Facsimile: 255 3825
     E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com


C.J.B. ENTERPRISES: "Gamero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Gamero v. C.J.B. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Carl's Van Rentals,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23327 (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

C.J.B. Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a retail, van rental
service and maintains an office in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


CABRINHA: Recalls Kiteboarding Control System Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Adventure Sports Inc dba Pryde Group Americas of Miami, announced
a voluntary recall of about 1,700 Cabrinha Kiteboarding 1X and
Overdrive 1X Control Systems.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The RecoilTM spring on the control mechanism can jam, leading to a
loss of control, which poses a risk of injury.

Cabrinha has received two reports of the spring jamming.  No
injuries have been reported.

The 1X and the Overdrive 1X control systems are both comprised of
a light-weight control bar to control and depower the kite, a set
of flying lines and a harness loop/quick release (QR) mechanism.
Both products have an orange and black EVA grip and a new
QuickLoopTM harness loop/QR.  The RecoilTM spring mounted along
the depower mainline is used to maintain the position of the trim
adjusters.  The 1X control system (model number KS51XCSFX) is a
fixed length and is available in two sizes: 45 cm and 55 cm.  The
Overdrive 1X (model number KS5CSSDODO) is adjustable between two
bar lengths and comes in sizes: 48-56 cm and 57-62 cm.  Model
numbers are located on a cloth tab attached to the bungee line
restrainers at the end of the bars.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/7noG73

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sea &
Sky Sports, Scratch Kiteboarding, Watersports West, Wind Over
Water and Wind Stalkers Kite Boarding and other specialty
watersports stores and websites worldwide in Aug. 2014 for about
$570

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled control
system and contact any Cabrinha authorized dealer for a free
repair part.  A list of authorized dealers can be found at
cabrinhakites website.


CALPERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Retirees' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Tom Zanki, writing for Law360, report that a
California judge on Sept. 10 rejected the California Public
Employees' Retirement System bid to end a putative class action
alleging CalPERS delays benefit payments and withholds interest
when it does pay, ruling plaintiffs aren't required to exhaust
their administrative remedies because no class-based remedies are
available.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel, after hearing
oral arguments, made final her tentative ruling overruling
CalPERS' demurrer to the suit filed by nine named plaintiffs who
were issued delayed disability, death, retirement and other
benefits.  Judge Strobel rejected CalPERS' argument that the suit
must fail because the plaintiffs haven't exhausted their
administrative remedies, because CalPERS' board of administration
does not provide for class relief.  Judge Strobel did sustain the
demurrer to one of the named plaintiffs, Christopher Cervelli,
ruling his claims are time-barred.

Jeffrey Rieger -- jrieger@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP,
representing CalPERS, urged Judge Strobel to overturn her
tentative ruling, arguing that each of the plaintiffs brings
claims relating to different benefits and necessitating different
defenses, and that such individualized treatment means the class
claims must fail -- and individual claims must first head to
administrative relief.

"If it was this easy to allege a class, to just say everybody is
the same and we don't have to go through the administrative
remedies, the administrative remedy defense would be useless," he
said.  "Each plaintiff has to show those benefits were wrongfully
withheld."

Judge Strobel disagreed, however, and said that the alleged
withholding is enough at the pleadings stage and that if
individual issues predominate in the case, the matter can be
resolved at the class certification stage.

"You need the glue that hangs the class together, and here the
glue is plaintiffs' theory that the lump sums are wrongfully
delayed or withheld payments that uniformly CalPERS hasn't paid
civil code interest on," she said.  "That's their theory, their
theory might be wrong, but that's a common interest theory that
holds the class together for pleading."

In the suit, filed in March 2013, the plaintiffs, including a
retired police officer and a retired city attorney, allege that
CalPERS often holds or delays paying participants in a host of
benefit plans for months and even years, and doesn't pay the
legally mandated interest on those payments when they are finally
issued. This is despite the fact that the agency earned a 7.7%
investment return on money it holds in trust for them from 1992 to
2012, according to the complaint.

CalPERS manages about $290 billion in assets, providing benefits
to some 1.6 million retirees of California's school system and
state and local government, according to an agency report released
in July.  Another 1.3 million participate in its health plans.

The complaint seeks damages and interest and alleges CalPERS
violated its constitutional and statutory duties to prioritize its
members' interest, as well as alleging breach of contract.

On Sept. 10, Mr. Rieger argued that the suit must fail because
there is no way to offer class-wide relief on the asserted claims.

"I can't even imagine what the class relief would look like here;
does it just say, CalPERS, audit all of your payments, discover
any error you might find, and issue a payment when interest is
due?" he said.  "That can't be it, you'd have to turn the system
upside down."

Judge Strobel, however, said that while the plaintiffs would later
need to show a workable trial plan and address these issues, as a
matter of law the pleadings are sufficient, and made final her
ruling.

The plaintiffs are represented by John Michael Jensen of the Law
Offices of John Michael Jensen.

CalPERS is represented by Jeffrey R. Rieger of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Mary Kesterson et al. v. California Public Employees;
Retirement System et al., case number BC502628 in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Strout" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Strout, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Chipotle Texas, L.L.C.,
Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC and Chipotle Services,
LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-02585 (S.D. Tex., September 9, 2014), seeks
recover unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      440 Louisiana St., Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002-1637
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net

         - and -

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center, 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net


CISCO SYSTEMS: Faces "Raack" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin D. Raack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
5:14-cv-04090 (N.D. Cal., September 9, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cisco Systems, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture and worldwide
sales of equipment based on internet protocol technology such as
routers and switches.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      THIERMAN LAW FIRM
      7287 Lakeside Dr
      Reno, NV 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
              mark@thiermanlaw.com


COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls Inflatable Rubber River Tubes
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Coleman Company Inc., of Wichita, Kan., announced a voluntary
recall of about 20,500 rubber tubes.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Contact with the tube can cause skin irritation.

Coleman has received 24 reports of consumers with skin irritation
after contact with the tube.

The recall involves Sevylor brand River Racer inflatable rubber
tubes.  The recalled tubes are black, 36 inches in diameter and
about 15 inches tall.  Each tube seats one person.  The tubes have
the Sevylor logo and name, and the River Racer logo and name
printed in blue on the outer side.  Model number 2000014090 is
located on the inner side of the tube below the bottom left corner
of the English language warning.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/CiL33W

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart stores nationwide and online at Walmart.com
from Jan. 2014 through July 2014 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tubes and
contact Coleman for a free replacement tube.


CREE INC: Recalls LED Light Fixtures Due to Laceration Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cree Inc., of Durham, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of 10,000
LED High-Bay Luminaires.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The glass lens on the fixture can break, posing a laceration
hazard.

The firm has received 15 reports of the tempered glass lens
breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves CXB Series LED high-bay indoor light fixtures
with model numbers CXB-23L-40K-U-1-HC and CXB-23L-40K-U-1-JP.  The
light fixtures are used in airport, industrial, municipal, and
retailer settings, are silver colored, have a tempered glass lens
and measure about 16 inches x 18 inches x 7 inches.  The affected
products can be identified by the manufacturing lot number found
underneath the UPC label on the rim of the fixture.  Only products
with a manufacturing lot number starting with these codes are
included in the recall:

AG45, AG48, AG49, AG50, AG51, AG52
AH01, AH02, AH03, AH04, AH05, AH06, AH07, AH08, AH09, AH10, AH11,
AH12,
AH13, AH14, AH15, AH16, AH17, AH18
L1H01, L1H02, L1H03, L1H04, L1H05, L1H06, L1H07, L1H08, L1H09,
L1H10,
L1H11, L1H12, L1H13, L1H14, L1H15, L1H16, L1H17, L1H18

The Cree logo, model number and 23000 lumens are printed on UL
label on the rim of the fixture.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/7dooRT

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
wholesale electrical distributors and lighting contractors to
businesses from Jan. 2014 through April 2014 for approximately
$350.

Stop using the light fixtures immediately and contact Cree for
free replacements.  Cree is contacting purchasers directly.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Final Settlement in Merger Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP (formerly Inergy, L.P.) said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014,
that five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood
Merger were filed, four in federal court in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i) Abraham
Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01528, filed
May 23, 2013); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners,
LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599, filed May 30, 2013); (iii)
Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No.
4:13-cv-01660, filed June 7, 2013), subsequently replaced as named
plaintiff in this action by Linda Giaimo; and (iv) Steven Elliot
LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01763, filed
June 17, 2013), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v.
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL, filed
June 27, 2013).

The Crestwood Merger refers to the October 7, 2013 merger of the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary with and into Legacy Crestwood,
with Legacy Inergy continuing as the surviving legal entity.

All of the cases named Legacy Crestwood (since merged into the
Company), Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood Holdings LLC,
the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC,
the Company, Inergy Midstream, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC
(formerly NRGM GP, LLC), and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as
defendants.  All of the suits were brought by purported holders of
common units of Legacy Crestwood, both individually and on behalf
of a putative class consisting of holders of common units of
Legacy Crestwood.  The lawsuits generally allege, among other
things, that the directors of Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC
breached their fiduciary duties to holders of common units of
Legacy Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction with inadequate
consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an inadequate
process.  The lawsuits further allege that the Company, Inergy
Midstream, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub,
LLC aided and abetted the Legacy Crestwood directors in the
alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits sought, in general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining
the merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated,
rescission or an award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of
plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, (iv) the accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for all
damages caused by the defendants, and (v) such further equitable
relief as the court deems just and proper.  The four federal
actions also asserted claims of inadequate disclosure under
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and the Elliot case also named Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as an
alleged aider and abettor.

The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a motion for
expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that motion and
then filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the action without
prejudice, which has been granted by the Court), such that the
Hawley action has now been dismissed. The plaintiff in the Elliot
action filed a motion for expedited discovery, which was denied by
the Court.

The plaintiffs in the Knoll, Podell, Cooper, and Elliot actions
filed an unopposed motion to consolidate these four cases, which
the Court granted and captioned the consolidated matter as In re
Crestwood Midstream Partners Unitholder Litigation, Lead Case No.
4:13-cv-01528 (the Consolidated Action). The plaintiffs entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on September 24, 2013 to
settle the Consolidated Action whereby the defendants denied
liability. A final settlement was approved by the Court on May 16,
2014, and the settlement did not have a material impact to our
consolidated financial statements.

Crestwood Equity Partners LP (the Company or Crestwood) is a
publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware limited partnership that
provides midstream solutions to customers in the crude oil,
natural gas liquids (NGLs) and natural gas sectors of the energy
industry. We are engaged primarily in the gathering, processing,
storage and transportation of natural gas and NGLs, the marketing
of NGLs, and the gathering, storage and transportation of crude
oil.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Ruling on Class Action Bid Seen in Q4 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP (formerly Inergy, L.P.) said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014,
that prior to the completion of the acquisition of Arrow Midstream
Holdings, LLC, on November 8, 2013, a train transporting over
50,000 barrels of crude oil produced in North Dakota derailed in
Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada on July 6, 2013. The derailment
resulted in the death of 47 people, injured numerous others, and
caused severe damage to property and the environment.  In October
2013, certain individuals suffering harm in the derailment filed a
motion to certify a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court for
the District of Megantic, Province of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of
all persons suffering loss in the derailment.

In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended motion to
name Arrow and numerous other energy companies as additional
defendants in the class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs have named
at least 53 defendants purportedly involved in the events leading
up to the derailment, including the producers and sellers of the
crude being transported, the midstream companies that transported
the crude from the well head to the rail system, the manufacturers
of the rail cars used to transport the crude, the railroad
companies involved, the insurers of these companies, and the
Canadian Attorney General.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that Arrow (i) was a producer of the crude oil being
transported on the derailed train, (ii) was negligent in failing
to properly classify the crude delivered to the trucks that hauled
the crude to the rail loading terminal, and (iii) owed a duty to
the petitioners to ensure the safe transportation of the crude
being transported.

The motion to authorize the class action and motions in opposition
were heard by the Court in June 2014. The Canadian Attorney
General was granted an extension of time to respond and will make
their oral argument opposing the motion at the end of August 2014.

"We do not anticipate a ruling from the Judge on Petitioners'
motion to authorize the class action until the fourth quarter of
2014. We believe the claims against us are without merit and will
vigorously defend ourselves.  Moreover, to the extent this action
proceeds, we believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims.
Because this litigation is in the early stages of the proceeding,
we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of
loss in this matter.  We believe this claim is an insurable event
under our insurance policy and we have notified our insurance
company of the claim," the Company said.

Crestwood Equity Partners LP (the Company or Crestwood) is a
publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware limited partnership that
provides midstream solutions to customers in the crude oil,
natural gas liquids (NGLs) and natural gas sectors of the energy
industry. We are engaged primarily in the gathering, processing,
storage and transportation of natural gas and NGLs, the marketing
of NGLs, and the gathering, storage and transportation of crude
oil.


CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE: Settlement Approval in Seen in Q4 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on December 4,
2012, the Company's subsidiary, CC Staffing, Inc. (now known as
Travel Staff, LLC) became the subject of a purported class action
lawsuit (Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CC Staffing, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants) filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.
Plaintiff alleges that traveling employees were denied meal
periods and rest breaks, that they should have been paid overtime
on reimbursement amounts, various other wage and hour claims, and
that they are entitled to associated penalties.

In 2013, the parties agreed to settle this lawsuit for $0.8
million with the understanding that such settlement is not an
admission by the Company of any liability, negligence or wrong
doing. The settlement amount has been accrued for and is included
in other current liabilities on its consolidated balance sheets.

The United States District Court, Northern District of California
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 17,
2014, subject to the inclusion of language requiring a five-day
cure period for deficient requests for exclusion from class
members.

On February 6, 2014, the parties amended the settlement agreement
to include such language. A hearing for final approval of the
settlement agreement was held in May 2014.

The Company expects the Court to grant final approval of the
settlement during the fourth quarter of 2014.

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., is a national leader in providing
healthcare recruiting, staffing and workforce management
solutions.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Execs Knew of Card's Deceptive Ad, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that corporate
executives at Discover knew the credit card company was
deceptively marketing its "credit protection products" as free --
then charging customers' cards -- but kept doing it anyway, a
union pension fund claims in a shareholder derivative complaint.

Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund sued Discover Financial
Services, its CEO David Nelms and 17 other corporate officers, in
Lake County Court.

From 2007 to 2011, "the individual defendants, in dereliction of
their oversight duties and responsibilities and otherwise in
violation of their fiduciary duties, caused the company to market
various fee-based credit card account add-on features to customers
in a highly misleading fashion, including enrolling customers in
fee-based products known as the Discover Payment Protection,
Identity Theft Protection, Wallet Protection, and Credit
ScoreTracker, without their consent," as alleged in several
consumer class actions and government regulatory indictments, the
heavily redacted lawsuit states.

The company's telemarketers used scripts implying that the
products were free "benefits," with no fee attached, or simply
enrolled consumers without their consent and charged them on their
Discover card, the shareholders say.

Discover in September 2012 agreed to pay $200 million to 3.5
million customers and pay a $14 million penalty to settle a
federal probe into its marketing of its credit protection
products.

The consent order states that Discover's "misconduct continued
unabated until August 2011, well after the defendants consciously
disregarded problems with the Protection Products as far back as
December 2007, ignored regulator concerns beginning in 2009 and
became aware of the specific misconduct in April 2010 based on the
class action litigation, a clear breach of the Board's oversight
duties," according to the complaint.

Discover faces lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
Hawaii, Mississippi, and New Mexico, and 10 other class actions,
and has paid millions to settle with the attorneys general of
Minnesota , West Virginia, and Missouri.

"These legal and regulatory proceedings have exposed Discover to
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in addition to severely
damaging Discover's reputation and goodwill in the market," the
pension fund claims.

Nevertheless, "to date the Board has not sought to claw back
compensation from the executive defendants and other members of
company management that were responsible for implementation and
operation of the illegal sales and marketing practices that
damages the company.  Therefore, plaintiff brings this action
against the individual defendants to remedy the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants."

The union seeks disgorgement of unjust profits and damages for
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William London, Esq.
          FREED, KANNER, LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015 USA
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: blondon@fklmlaw.com


DORN VA: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Styles, writing for WLTX, reports that two days after Dorn
VA Hospital notified more than 2,100 patients that their personal
information may have been compromised, a class action lawsuit has
been filed.

In July, four boxes of pathology records had been reported
missing. The documents contained veterans names, social security
numbers and pathology reports from 1999, 2000, and 2002.

The Mike Kelly Law Group filed the suit on Sept. 10 citing that
the hospital is in breach of the U.S. Privacy Act.  Attorney Brad
Hewitt said that they're seeking at least $1,000 per claimant.
Mr. Hewitt also said that some veterans that were affected by this
incident were also involved in a privacy concern when a laptop
went missing from the hospital containing more than 7,000
veterans' personal data.

The firm also filed a lawsuit for that incident.

The hospital notified affected patients and are offering one year
of free credit monitoring for through Equifax.  Veterans can
enroll by calling 1-866-937-8432 or online.


DUNECRAFT INC: Faces "EEOC" Suit Alleging Age Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. DuneCraft, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-02011-JG (N.D. Ohio, September 10, 2014) is an action
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to correct alleged
unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and
participation in protected activity and to provide appropriate
relief to Kevin Marken.

EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with
the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the EPA,
Title VII and the ADA.

DuneCraft, Inc., was incorporated in Ohio doing business in the
state of Ohio and the Cities of Cleveland and Chagrin Falls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. David Lopez, Esq., General Counsel
          James L. Lee, Esq., Deputy General Counsel
          Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq., Associate General Counsel
          Debra M. Lawrence, Esq., Regional Attorney
          Maria L. Morocco, Esq., Supervisory Trial Attorney
          Philip M. Kovnat, Esq., Trial Attorney
          EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
          Philadelphia District Office
          801 Market Street, Penthouse Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 440-2814
          E-mail: philip.kovnat@eeoc.gov


DUO EPSILON: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saasha Rodriguez, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Duo Epsilon, Inc. d/b/a Eat Greek Souvlaki, a
Florida Corporation, and Tom Alexopoulos, a Florida Resident, Case
No. 1:14-cv-23326 (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Duo Epsilon, Inc. owns and operates a bar and restaurant under the
trade name Eat Greek Souvlaki.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Karl Auerbach, Esq.
      ANIDJAR AUERBACH LAW
      9734 W. Sample Rd.
      Coral Springs, FL 33065
      Telephone: (954) 906-8228
      Facsimile: (844) 270-6948
      E-mail: info@aalawllc.com


DUPONT: Sept. 22-23 Meetings on Medical Monitoring Program Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONSUMED CERTAIN WATER FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR AT
ANY TIME BEFORE DECEMBER 4, 2004 IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS IN WEST
VIRGINIA AND OHIO

If you have consumed water for at least one year at any time
before December 4, 2004 from Lubeck Public Service District (WV),
Little Hocking Water Association (OH), City of Belpre (OH),
Village of Pomeroy (OH), Mason County Public Service District (WV)
or tuppers Plains-Chester Water District (OH), OR certain private
water sources containing 0.05 ppb or > of C-8 -- a list of private
water sources is available on the C-8 Medical Monitoring Program
website at www.C-8MedicalMonitoringProgram.com -- you may be a
Class Member in a suit against DuPont and you may be entitled to
Medical Monitoring paid for by DuPont.

What is this Litigation about?

A Settlement of a class action lawsuit was approved in 2005 in
Wood County Circuit Court, West Virginia.  It deals with releases
from DuPont's Washington Works plant in Parkersburg, WV, of a
chemical, ammonium perfluorooctanate, also known as C-8, PFOA or
APFO.  DuPont denies any wrongdoing but settled the case to avoid
the time and cost of litigation.

What is this Notice about?

An independent panel of three epidemiologists (the "Science
Panel") has found that a "Probable Link" exists between exposure
to C-8 and pregnancy-induced hypertension (including
preeclampsia), kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol
(hypercholesterolemia).  The Science Panel has not found that a
"Probable Link" exists for any other Human Diseases.

Medical Monitoring

An independent Medical Panel has now determined that a Medical
Monitoring Protocol for these "Probable Link Diseases" is
appropriate and has recommended specific medical monitoring
procedures for Class Members for each of these Human Diseases.
More information will be made available to Class Members on the
recommended medical monitoring and how to obtain monitoring by
mail.  The Director of Medical Monitoring will also be holding
Town Hall Meetings where more information will be presented and
Class Members will have the opportunity to ask questions about the
Medical Monitoring Program.

Town Hall Meetings

September 22:

1:00 p.m.
The Historic Lowe Hotel
401 Main Street
Point Pleasant, WV 25550

6:00 p.m.
Meigs County High School
42091 Pomeroy Pike
Pomeroy, OH 45769

September 23:

8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.
Blennerhassett Hotel
320 Market Street
Parkersburg, WV 26101

6:00 p.m.
Belpre High School
612 Third Street
Belpre, OH 45714

This is a summary notice.  The full notice with additional
information as well as other important information about the
Medical Monitoring Program can be obtained online at
www.C-8MedicalMonitoringProgram.com or by calling the Medical
Monitoring Administrator toll free at (888) 499-2553.


ENDOCYTE INC: Faces "Nguyen" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on June 24, 2014, a
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and one of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under
the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the efficacy of vintafolide,
and violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by, among other things: employing devices, schemes and
artifices to defraud; making untrue statements of material facts
or omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; or engaging in acts, practices and a
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon
plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their
purchases of the Company's securities during the class period.
The complaint also alleges that Mr. Ellis violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as a control person, by causing the Company
to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint. The
complaint alleges that the alleged violations resulted in
plaintiff purchasing the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices. The putative class period in this action is from
March 21, 2014 through May 2, 2014. The plaintiff seeks the
designation of this action as a class action, an award of
unspecified damages, interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys'
fees, and such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the court
may deem just and proper. The Company believes that this lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against
the allegations made in the complaint.

Endocyte, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing targeted
therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases.


ENDOCYTE INC: Faces Vivian Oh Trust Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 13, 2014, a
complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and one of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under
the following caption: Vivian Oh Revocable Trust, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and
P. Ron Ellis. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about
vintafolide's Phase 3 trial and its future prospects, and violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by, among other things: employing devices, schemes and
artifices to defraud; making untrue statements of material fact or
omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made not misleading; or engaging in acts, practices and
a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon
purchasers of the Company's securities during the class period.
The complaint also alleges that Mr. Ellis violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as a control person, by, among other things,
influencing and controlling the Company's decision-making,
including the content and dissemination of the various statements
with plaintiff contends are false and misleading, causing the
Company to engage in the wrongful conduct alleged in the
complaint. The complaint alleges that the alleged violations
resulted in plaintiff purchasing the Company's securities at
artificially inflated prices. The putative class period in this
action is from March 21, 2014 through May 2, 2014.

The plaintiff seeks the designation of this action as a class
action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs, expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The Company
believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint.

Endocyte, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing targeted
therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases.


ENERNOC INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action complaint engaged on June 27, 2014, in
mediation and reached agreement in principle on the terms of a
potential settlement, EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Pursuant to the settlement, defendant members of the Company's
Board of Directors would cause their insurer to make a cash
payment of $500,000 to the Company, and cause the Company to
undertake certain reforms in connection with equity granting
practices. However, the settlement remains subject to numerous
contingencies, including finalization of settlement documentation
and court approval.

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of EnerNOC, Inc. (the
Plaintiff) filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
Court) against certain of the Company's officers and directors as
well as the Company as a nominal defendant (the Defendants). The
complaint asserts derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf
of the Company, for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity
grants (awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded
an annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be
contained in the 2007 Plan. The complaint also asserts a direct
claim, brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class of
the Company's shareholders, alleging the Company's proxy statement
filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed
to disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 30, 2013.
Plaintiff responded to the motion on October 18, 2013 and
Defendants replied on November 22, 2013. No hearing date has been
set.

On June 27, 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and reached
agreement in principle on the terms of a potential settlement.
Pursuant to the settlement, defendant members of the Company's
Board of Directors would cause their insurer to make a cash
payment of $500 to the Company, and cause the Company to undertake
certain reforms in connection with equity granting practices.
However, the settlement remains subject to numerous contingencies,
including finalization of settlement documentation and court
approval.

The Company's management believes that the defendants have
substantial legal and factual defenses to the claims in the
complaint, and intends to pursue these defenses vigorously. There
can be no assurance, however, that such efforts will be
successful. However, as a result of this agreement in principle on
the terms of a potential settlement, the Company has determined
that it is probable that it will incur a loss related to this
matter principally related to the remaining amount of its
insurance deductible, which was not material and has been accrued
for as of June 30, 2014.

With respect to the $500,000 payment to the Company that would
result under the terms of this settlement, this amount represents
a contingent gain and will be recorded as other income, if and
when, the amount is realized. In addition, regardless of the
outcome of this matter, the matter may divert financial and
management resources and result in general business disruption,
including that the Company may suffer from adverse publicity that
could harm its reputation and negatively impact its stock price.

EnerNOC, Inc. is a provider of energy intelligence software, or
EIS, and related solutions.


EPAI PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert White v. EPAI Protective Services, LLC, and Shelton
Moreland, Case No. 1:14-cv-02903-CAP (N.D. Ga., September 10,
2014) seeks payment for unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, actual damages, compensatory damages, arising from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began his employment with EPAI as a Security Guard
in or around 2005 and continued through May 7, 2014.

EPAI Protective Services, LLC is a Georgia domestic Corporation,
with a principal place of business of in Atlanta, Georgia.  EPAI
describes its business as an international security solution, i.e.
security and bodyguard service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
          A. Brian Henson, Esq.
          THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
          246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 378-1290
          Facsimile: (404) 378-1295
          E-mail: cvaughn@thevaughnlawfirm.com
                  bhenson@thevaughnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
          DEMELFI LAW GROUP, LLC
          4651 Woodstock Road, Suite 208-103
          Roswell, GA 30075
          Telephone: (678) 948-7808
          Facsimile: (866) 674-7808
          E-mail: fdemelfi@gmail.com


ESPIRITO SANTO: Faces Class Action Over Tranquilidade Sale
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portugal News reports that a series of Espirito Santo
Financial Group (ESFG) bondholders have launched a class action
against the sale of Portuguese insurance company Tranquilidade to
Apollo, as they feel they have suffered damages in a process that
believe may be illegal, the president of ATM said on Sept. 10.

The president of the Investors and Capital Market Technical
Analysts Association (ATM), Octavio Viana, told Lusa on Sept. 10
that "five or six (ESFG) bond holders" has filed a class action on
Sept. 5 at a Lisbon civil court and were now waiting to attach an
injunction.

The bond holders want to block the sale of Tranquilidade by Novo
Banco to US company Apollo as they consider they are suffering and
that the case is illegal", Mr. Viana said.

In late August, ESFG acknowledged that the Novo Banco lien on the
Tranquilidade shares may be illegal as it had not been notified
that this guarantee was being enforced and so, legally, it was
still the owner of the Insurer's shares.

ESFG, which is under administration in Luxembourg, controls 100%
of Tranquilidade, but gave the company to Banco Espirito Santo
(BES) as collateral for a debt.


FADA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Barahona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Edilma Barahona, on behalf of herself and other employees
similarly situated v. Fada International Corp. d/b/a Fada NYC, and
Fred H. Chen, Case No. 1:14-cv-07280 (S.D.N.Y., September 9,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay certain
non-exempt employees overtime compensation for all hours worked.

Fada International Corp. is engaged in wholesale costume jewelry
business located at 19 West 36th Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


FGX INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Children's Sunglasses Due to Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
FGX International Inc., of Smithfield, R.I., announced a voluntary
recall of about 215,000 children's sunglasses.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Surface paint on the sunglasses contains excessive levels of lead,
which is prohibited under federal law.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes 20 styles of Disney, Marvel and Sears/Kmart
brand children's sunglasses.  They come in a variety of colors and
with printed images of characters on the frames.  These style
numbers located inside the sunglasses' left temple arm are
included in the recall:

    Style#          Brand                      Colors
    ------          -----                      ------
S00014SVS999     Marvel Spider-Man                     Red, blue
S00014SVSBLU     Marvel Spider-Man                          Blue
S00014SVSRED     Marvel Spider-Man                           Red
S00021LKC999     SK2 Sears /Kmart Private Label             Blue
S00021SVS999     Marvel Spider-Man        Red/black, silver/blue
S01551SDB999     Disney Mickey Mouse Clubhouse         Red/white,
                                                     silver/black
S02964SJN440     Disney Jake and the Never Land Pirates      Blue
S02964SJN999     Disney Jake and the Never Land Pirates      Blue
S03683SDC999     Disney Cars                     Blue, black, red
S04611SDC001     Disney Cars                            Red/black
S04611SDC080     Disney Cars                           Red/Silver
S04611SDC400     Disney Cars                     Blue/teal/yellow
S04611SDC999     Disney Cars          Blue/teal/yellow, red/black,
                                                      red/silver
S07786SMS500     Disney Doc McStuffins               Purple/pink
S07786SMS650     Disney Doc McStuffins                 Pink/blue
S07786SMS999     Disney Doc McStuffins    Purple/pink, pink/blue
S07840SDC999     Disney Cars                           Red/black
S07841SDC001     Disney Cars                        Black/silver
S07841SDC440     Disney Cars                            Blue/red
S07841SDC999     Disney Cars   Blue/red, black/silver, black/red

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/YwU4Vw

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at: Bon
Ton, CVS, K-mart, Rite-Aid, Walgreens and other retail stores
nationwide from Dec. 2013 to March 2014 for between $7 and $13.

Consumers should immediately take these sunglasses away from
children and return them to FGX International for a free
replacement or refund, including free shipping and handling.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bids Filed in Pa. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
FreightCar America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 8, 2013, the
Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois Court"). The
case names as defendants the United Steel, Paper & Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Services
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as well as
approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as defined in the
Complaint), and was assigned Case No 1:13-cv-4889.

Pursuant to the 2005 Settlement Agreement among the Company, the
USW and the Retiree Defendants, the Company agreed to make certain
levels of contributions to medical coverage for the Retiree
Defendants and to continue to provide life insurance benefits at
their amount at that time under certain of the Company's employee
welfare benefit plans. The 2005 Settlement Agreement expressly
provided that, as of November 30, 2012, the Company could cease
making these contributions. In June 2011, the Company and the USW
began discussing the possibility of an extension beyond November
30, 2012 for the Company's contributions to retiree medical
coverage and life insurance benefits at a reduced amount and on
other mutually acceptable terms.

The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years with
the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort to
reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life
insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final
agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its
contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree
Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is
seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under the ERISA
to reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005
Settlement Agreement.

On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants
(collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges
that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare
benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and
requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the
Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare
benefits.

On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the
Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from
Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5,
2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative,
to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).

On January 14, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss and, on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court
transferred the Company's case to the Pennsylvania Court. On
January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to consolidate both
cases before the Pennsylvania Court.

On April 3, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the
"Initial Procedural Order") that, among other things, consolidated
both cases before the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for
purposes of the consolidated actions, established discovery
parameters and deadlines and established a briefing schedule
applicable to the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as
to liability only.

On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the Pennsylvania Court
their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability.
There can be no assurance as to when the Pennsylvania Court will
issue its ruling on such motions, or how the Pennsylvania Court
will rule.

On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain
putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO
Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the
plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an
injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly
contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement
Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the
merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the
Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice.

FreightCar America is a manufacturer of aluminum-bodied railcars
and coal cars in North America, based on the number of railcars
delivered.


GOODMAN COMPANY: Recalls Air Conditioning and Heating Units
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Goodman Company, L.P. of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 233,500 Amana, Century, Comfort-Aire, Goodman and
York International Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner/Heat Pump
("PTAC") units.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The power cords on the air conditioning and heating units can
overheat, posing burn and fire hazards.

Goodman has received five reports of power cords smoking or
catching on fire.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Amana, Century, Comfort-Aire, Goodman and York
International-branded Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps.  The units are rated 230/208 volt, 3.5 kW and are most
often installed in walls of hotels, motels, apartment buildings
and commercial spaces to provide room climate control.  The
recalled units are beige with serial numbers ranging from
0701009633 through 0804272329.  The brand name is located on the
unit's front cover.   The serial number is located on the control
board plate found by lifting the unit's front cover.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/cs1mKI

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Goodman and heating and cooling equipment dealers
nationwide from Jan. 2007 through June 2008 for between $700 and
$1,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the air
conditioning and heating units and call the appropriate number
listed or go to amana-ptac website request a free replacement
power cord.  Non-commercial owners will receive free installation
of the power cord and inspection of the PTAC control board for
damages.  If the control board has been damaged by the recalled
power cord, non-commercial owners will also receive a free
installation of a replacement control board.  Commercial owners
are being contacted directly and will install the power cord and
inspect the control board.  If the control board has been damaged
by the recalled power cord, Goodman will provide a new control
board for commercial owners to install.


GREAT INNOVATIONS: Recalls Humidifiers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Great Innovations LLC, of Miramar, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 70,000 Ultrasonic Clean Mist Humidifiers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Water can enter the base and cause the circuit board to short
circuit and overheat, posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received 100 reports of overheating resulting in
reports of smoke and burning odors.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves Air Innovations branded Ultrasonic Clean Mist
humidifiers with mood lights.  Model number MH-407 and date code
MX1342, MX1343, MX1344, MX1344, MX1345 or MX1346 are printed on a
label affixed to the underside of the humidifier.  The recalled
humidifiers are 15 inches high and were sold in four colors:
black, silver, red and blue. A mood light button and the words
"Air Innovations" are on the front of the one-gallon humidifiers.
QVC item number V32459 is printed on the packing slip shipped with
the humidifier.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/yjBeTd

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at QVC TV during Jan. 2014 and online at QVC.com from
Dec. 2013 to Feb. 2014 for about $55.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled humidifiers,
unplug them and contact Great Innovations for a repair kit.  Great
Innovations is contacting known consumers directly by mail.


GREEN SUMMIT: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Garcia, Raudy A. Vargas, Javier Fabian, Jose Luis Pichon,
Antonio Torres, JR., Agusto J. Perez, Jessy Nunez Diego, and
Alfredo Garcia, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly
situated v. Green Summit Group, LLC, City Barn Group, LLC, Blue
Radish 52, LLC, T.M. Management, LLC, Philip M. Corhan, Paul
Millman, and Daniel Millman, Case No. 1:14-cv-07279 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 9, 2014), seeks to recover minimum wages, reimbursement
of expenses related to unlawfully requiring the Plaintiffs to
purchase the tools of their trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate multiple fast food restaurants in
Manhattan, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


HANSEN MEDICAL: Reported $1.2 Million Decrease in Legal Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that selling, general and
administrative expenses decreased marginally in the second quarter
of 2014 compared to the second quarter of 2013 as a result of $1.3
million decrease in general and administrative expenses primarily
resulting from a $1.2 million decrease in legal expenses
associated with a settlement of the securities class action
lawsuit, patent filing expenses and other corporate matters, which
was partially offset by an increase of $0.6 million in sales and
marketing expenses, primarily as a result of payroll cost increase
of $0.5 million due increased headcount and sales.

The Company also said that selling, general and administrative
expenses increased during the first half of 2014 compared to the
first half of 2013. The increase resulted from increased spending
of $0.6 million in commissions as a result of increased sales,
$0.6 million for development of global sales organization, $0.5
million of increased prototyping materials/non-capital
equipment/advertising and promotion related to mobile lab costs
and a $0.8 million due to executive transitions, and a $0.1
million increase in cost of Directors and Officers insurance.
These increases were offset by savings of $1.4 million from a
decrease in general legal and litigation fees related to
settlement of class action lawsuit.

Hansen Medical develops, manufactures and markets a new generation
of medical robotics designed for accurate positioning,
manipulation and stable control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies.


HARBINGER GROUP: Nominal Defendant in Haverhill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that HGI is a nominal
defendant, and the members of its board of directors are named as
defendants in a purported class and derivative action filed in
March 2014 by Haverhill Retirement System in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its
affiliated funds ("HCP") and Leucadia National Corporation
("Leucadia"), each a stockholder of HGI, are also named as
defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with transactions involving Leucadia. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an unspecified award of compensatory
damages and costs and disbursements. The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
this matter.


HARBINGER GROUP: FGL Sees Total Settlement Cost Would Be $9.9MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 18, 2011, a
putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California captioned
Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company ("OM
Financial"), et al., Case No. 2:2011-cv-05871. The Plaintiff asked
the Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf of
both a nationwide and a California class defined as certain
persons who were sold OM Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed
universal life insurance policies. The Plaintiff alleged, inter
alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied
on Defendants' advice to purchase unsuitable insurance policies.
After extensive motion practice, the federal court dismissed the
federal causes of action, with prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013,
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims, dismissed the state law claims, without prejudice, and
granted the plaintiff leave to re-file the state law claims in
California state court.

On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty Life Insurance
Company, et al., in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, at No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts,
inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class
relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-
indexed insurance policies. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class
defined as "all persons who reside or are located in the state of
California who were sold OM Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed
universal life insurance policies as an investment."

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million to settle the
claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions,
of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance
indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1,
2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive.

As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification
of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended
Settlement Agreement was filed with the court on April 23, 2014 as
part of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Settlement and Conditional Class Certification, which is
scheduled to be heard by the Court on June 19, 2014. FGL Insurance
has the right to unilaterally terminate the settlement if either:
(i) 100 policyholders or (ii) policyholders representing more than
one percent (1%) of the total premiums paid opt out of or object
to the settlement. The settlement is subject to other conditions
and the Court's final approval.

At June 30, 2014, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement,
legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be
$9.9 million and established a liability for the unpaid portion of
the estimate of $7.3 million. Based on the information currently
available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement,
legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the
amount accrued. FGL is seeking indemnification from OMGUK under
the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement between FGL (formerly, Harbinger
F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and
fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and
state courts. FGL has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK
for the amount of $4.5 million, the collection of which FGL
believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could
be greater or less than FGL's estimate, but FGL anticipates that
the amount recovered will not be materially different than its
current estimate.


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MOU in Washington Banking Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 4, 2014,
Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs
providing the terms of an agreement in principle among Washington
Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for the
settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court
of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action").

The Action alleges that Washington Banking's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders
in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage combined
their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington
Banking merging with and into Heritage. The Action also alleges,
among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and
that the public disclosures concerning the Washington Banking
Merger are misleading in various respects.

Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved
the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs. If the
Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance,
however, that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive
settlement agreement or that the Court will approve the settlement
even if the parties enter into such an agreement.  In the absence
of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
MOU may be terminated.

The settlement of the Action did not affect the Washington Banking
Merger consideration paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in
connection with the completion of the Washington Banking Merger on
May 1, 2014.

Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage continue to believe
that the Action is without merit, have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, all of the allegations of wrongful or
actionable conduct asserted in the Action, and Washington Banking
and its directors and Heritage maintain that they have diligently
complied with all applicable fiduciary duties, that the Proxy
Statement is complete and accurate in all material respects and
that no further disclosure is required under applicable law.
Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into the
MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the costs,
risks, burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and
to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest.

Heritage Financial Corporation is primarily engaged in the
business of planning, directing and coordinating the business
activities of its wholly-owned subsidiary Heritage Bank.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Marko" Suit in S.D. Illinois Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Marko and Mike's Inc., Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00981 (S.D. Ill., September 9, 2014), alleges that the
Plaintiffs' personal identifiable information -- including, names,
addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, credit and debit card
numbers, card expiration dates, and the three-digit security codes
located on the backs of the credit and debit cards was stolen by a
thief or thieves while in the possession, custody, and control of
the Defendant.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware Corporation and is
considered as the world's largest home improvement retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis J. Flynn, Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS AND LOWE
      8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 678-3400
      Facsimile: (314) 678-3401
      E-mail: casey@jefflowepc.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "O'Brien" Suit Over Financial Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey O'Brien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06975 (N.D. Ill.,
September 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to secure and safeguard its customers' personal financial data.

Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement specialty
retailer and fourth largest retailer in the United States, with
stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
U.S. Virgin Islands, 10 Canadian provinces, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Wood Jones, Esq.
      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      E-mail: gjones@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hartman" Suit in Missouri Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Hartman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
01545 (E.D. Mo., September 10, 2014) is a consumer class action
lawsuit brought on behalf those whose personally identifiable
information they entrusted to Home Depot was stolen by a thief or
thieves while in the possession, custody, and control of the
Company.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., doing business as The Home Depot, is a
Delaware Corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Home
Depot touts itself as being the world's largest home improvement
specialty retailer, with more than 2,200 retail stores in the
United States (including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands),
Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
          E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Murphy" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02909-CC (N.D. Ga.,
September 10, 2014) alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 965669
          36 Trammell Street, Suite 101
          Marietta, GA 30066
          Telephone: (770) 578-1314
          Facsimile: (770) 578-1302
          E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


HOSPITALITY LODGING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Annie Cosby, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
Raleigh County man is suing over claims he was fired and not paid
his wages for five days instead of the legally required three.

Paycheck, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
filed a lawsuit July 17 in Raleigh Circuit Court against
Hospitality Lodging Investors L.P., citing violations of the West
Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act.  Hospitality Lodging
Investors does business as a Country Inn & Suites.

According to the complaint, Chester Browning's employment as a
banquet server with the defendant was terminated June 22, 2013,
and the company failed to pay Browning his wages in a timely
manner, as it had done with other employees similarly situated.
The defendant is accused of failing to pay discharged employees
within 72 hours, constituting a violation of the Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Mr. Browning is seeking damages on behalf of all defendant
employees discharged and not timely paid wages and attorney's
fees.

He is being represented in the case by attorneys of Todd S.
Bailess -- tbailess@bailesslaw.com -- and Joy B. Mega of Bailess
PLLC in Charleston and Rodney A. Smith -- rsmith@baileyglasser.com
-- and Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- of
Bailey & Glasser LLP in Charleston.  The case has been assigned to
Circuit Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick.

Raleigh Circuit Court Case No. 14-C-709


HUNAM INN: Former Bartender Files Minimum Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lou Chibbaro Jr., writing for Washington Blade, reports that a
former bartender with the Dupont Circle gay bar and restaurant
Cobalt/30 Degrees has filed a class action lawsuit against the
establishment, accusing its owners of violating federal and D.C.
labor laws by allegedly forcing bartenders to share their tips
with non-tipped employees.

In the 11-page lawsuit filed Sept. 6 with the U.S. District Court
for D.C., Arlington, Va., resident Sara Wilson charges that
Cobalt/30 Degrees violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act and
the D.C. Minimum Wage Act as revised in 1992 by forcing her to
give 20 percent of the tips she received to bar backs while not
paying her the full minimum wage.

The lawsuit alleges that Cobalt/30 Degrees was improperly taking a
special "tip credit" exemption from having to pay bartenders the
full minimum wage that's allowed under the two laws only if
bartenders can keep all of the tips they receive from customers.

"Because Defendants did not permit Plaintiffs to retain all their
tips, Defendants cannot take advantage of the tipped-employee
exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act and so [they] owe full
wages to all bartenders employed under this common scheme," the
lawsuit states.

The lawsuit names as defendants Hunam Inn, Inc., the corporation
that does business as Cobalt/30 Degrees, and the corporation's co-
owners Donald Eric Little and David Perruzza.

Mr. Little told the Blade in an email on Sept. 10 that under
advice from his attorney neither he nor Cobalt/30 Degrees would
issue an immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Hospitality industry observers have said most of the bars and
restaurants in the D.C. metropolitan area as well as those
throughout the country operate under a system in which bartenders
and servers provide a share of their tips to bar backs and busboys
or "bussers," who help the servers and bartenders do their jobs.

Observers, some of whom asked not to be identified, told the Blade
that dozens of D.C.-area bars and restaurants could be subjected
to penalties if the court rules in favor of Wilson in her lawsuit
against Cobalt/30 Degrees.

Attorney Andrew Kline, who serves as general counsel for the
Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington, which advocates
on behalf of restaurants and bars, said bar backs and bussers have
traditionally been treated as tipped employees.  He pointed to a
fact sheet issued by the U.S. Department of Labor that includes
bussers and similar restaurant and bar employees who could be
eligible for a "tip pool."

But Ken Gauvey, the attorney representing Wilson in the lawsuit,
said bar backs and other restaurant and bar personnel that don't
directly receive tips from customers, are not included in the
Labor Department's definition of a "valid tip pool."

The lawsuit says Cobalt/30 Degrees also violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by requiring Wilson and "other similarly situated
bartender employees" to perform work such as cleaning bathrooms
and other public and private areas of the establishment without
paying them the full minimum wage for such work, which is not
exempt under the minimum wage law.

In addition, the lawsuit says the establishment failed to inform
Wilson and other bartenders that it was invoking the minimum wage
exemption for tipped employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
It says the law prohibits an employer from invoking this exemption
unless it first informs an employee that it is taking the
exemption.

Because Cobalt/30 Degrees allegedly failed to comply with the two
statutes, they forfeited their exemption from having to pay Wilson
and other bartenders the full minimum wage as required under the
D.C. Minimum Wage Act, which called for a salary of $8.25 per hour
prior to July 1, 2014 and $9.50 per hour starting on July 1, 2014.

"Wherefore, Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, to
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated bartenders who have
joined this suit for unpaid minimum wages in such amounts as are
to be proven at trial, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages,
interest (both pre- and post-judgment), attorney's fees, the costs
of this action, and any other and further relief this Court deems
appropriate," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Gauvey, the Baltimore-based attorney who filed the lawsuit on
Wilson's behalf, said it is up to the federal judge assigned to
the case to decide whether to grant a class action status to the
case.

The lawsuit says that based on calculations made of the number of
bartenders who worked at Cobalt/30 Degrees during the three-year
period in which Wilson worked there as a bartender, the number of
current and former bartenders potentially eligible to be part of
the class action suit "is believed to exceed 100."

Andy Shallal, owner of the D.C.-area restaurant chain Busboys and
Poets and a former D.C. mayoral candidate, told the Blade that bar
backs and bussers have long been considered as "tipped" employees
because of the longstanding practice of waiters and bartenders
giving them a share of their tips.

Mr. Shallal said he planned to ask his personnel advisers to look
into the Cobalt/30 Degrees lawsuit.  But he said he believes that
courts in the past have upheld the system of requiring bartenders
and servers to provide bar backs and bussers a certain percentage
of their tips without resulting in the restaurant or bar losing
its exemption on the minimum wage law.

Mr. Kline points out that use of the word "exemption" is sometimes
misleading because no employer is actually exempt from paying
employees the minimum wage established by a state or the federal
government.  In the case of restaurants and bars, Mr. Kline said,
the employer can deduct from an employee's paycheck a "tip credit"
-- the amount of money the employee makes in tips that brings his
or her pay up to the level of the minimum wage.

If the tips don't bring the level of the server or bartender's
earnings to the level of the minimum wage, the employer is still
required to pay the server or bartender an amount equal to the
minimum wage, Mr. Kline said.


IDEVICES LLC: Recalls Temperature Probes Due to Ingestion Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
iDevices LLC, of Avon, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 48,500 in the U.S. and 510 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

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

The firm received 11 reports of the probe overheating and the
plastic insulator melting during normal use.  No injuries were
reported.

The recall involves all Pro Ambient Temperature Probes and Pro
Meat Probes manufactured from May 2014 through June 2014.  The
probes were sold separately as an accessory for the iGrill,
iGrill2, iGrillmini grilling thermometers and the Kitchen
Thermometer and Kitchen Thermometer mini cooking thermometers.
The meat probe was also sold as a component of the iGrill2 set.
The probes consist of a curved stainless steel rod attached to a
mini connector by a steel braided cable.  Pro Ambient Temperature
probes are about 6 inches long with a metal grate clip on the end.
Pro Meat Probes are about 6 3/4 inches long.  iGrill Pro Meat
Probes and iGrill Pro Ambient Probes came with either a red or
yellow rubber sleeve and an oval black plastic cord holder.
Kitchen Thermometer Pro Meat Probes and Kitchen Thermometer Pro
Ambient Probes came with a green rubber sleeve and a round white
plastic cord holder.  The iDevices logo is stamped into the top of
the cord holder.  Recalled probes have only two indentations, or
crimps, in the base of the probe tube where attached to the
braided cable.  iGrill Pro Meat Probes and iGrill Pro Ambient
Probes came in red packaging. Kitchen Thermometer Pro Meat Probes
and Kitchen Thermometer Pro Ambient Probes came in green
packaging.  The iDevices name and logo and either "iGrill Pro Meat
Probe," "iGrill Pro Ambient Temperature Probe," "Kitchen
Thermometer Pro Meat Probe" or "Kitchen Thermometer Pro Ambient
Probe" are printed on the front of the packaging.  UPC number
852931005148, 852931005193, 852931005162 or 852931005216 is
printed on the bottom of the packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Mq39Zt

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace
Barnes Hardware, Alabama Gaslight and Grill, AT Guys, Bass Pro
Shops, BBQ Outfitters, Brookstone, Cabela's, Calvert Retail, Chef
JJs Backyard, Coastal Cupboard, Combined Pool & Spa, Goodwood
Hardware & Outdoors, Gourmet Chef, Great News Cookware & Cooking
School, Hartville Hardware, Helping U BBQ, Hopps Sound and
Electric, Kansas City BBQ, Kitchen Window, Orchard Supply
Hardware, Palmetto Propane, Shoppers Choice and online at
Amazon.com, Firecraft.com, Gilt.com, HWBBQSupply.com,
iDevicesinc.com, iGet.it,  Outdoorcooking.com, SharperImage.com,
SomeiCoolThings.com, SpaPartsDepot.com and TouchofModern.com from
May 2014 to June 2014.  The probes sold separately for about $25.
The iGrill2 set sold for about $100.

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


INNERWORKINGS INC: Faces "Van Noppen" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in February 2014,
following the Company's February 2014 announcement of its
intention to restate certain historical financial statements, an
individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual
defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously defend the
matter. Any loss that the Company and individual defendants may
incur as a result of this matter cannot be estimated.

InnerWorkings is a global marketing supply chain company that
provides global print management and promotional solutions to
corporate clients across a wide range of industries.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Sued for Dumping Patients With Mental Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reni Anguelova, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Kaiser forces patients who suffer from mental illness to cancel
their insurance and then shifts the cost of treatment onto
taxpayers through a patient dumping scheme, a family claims in a
class action lawsuit.

The 1999 California Mental Health Parity Act requires health
insurers to provide all medically necessary treatment of patients
suffering from a severe mental illness on the same financial terms
and conditions as for physical illnesses.

The law states that mental illness is real, can be reliably
diagnosed, is treatable, and the treatment is cost-effective.
Mental illness covered by the Parity Act include pervasive
developmental disorder of children such as autism, obsessive-
compulsive disorder, bulimia, anorexia nervosa, panic disorder,
major depressive disorders, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder,
according to the complaint.

Kaiser claims to provide health plans for all medically necessary
treatment and defines "medically necessary" as a service required
to prevent, diagnose, or treat a condition in accord with the
generally accepted professional standards of practice that are
consistent with a standard of care in the medical community.  It
claims that its medical health services include inpatient
psychiatric hospitalization and intensive psychiatric treatment
programs. In the mental/behavorial health service disclosures a
section titled "Limitations & Exceptions," 'the summary states,
"none," according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Matthew Szitkar-Kerr, 21, suffers from schizophrenia and
bipolar disorders, he says in the complaint.

Szitkar-Kerr claims he was hospitalized for his condition at a
Kaiser Permanent facility and then placed in a conservatorship the
following month.

Conservatorship, otherwise known as "LPS Conservatorship," is a
short-term (one year) service for people suffering from a mental
disorder who are gravely disabled and require psychiatric
treatment in a locked facility, according to the complaint.  The
yearlong conservatorship can be renewed annually if necessary.

Once placed on conservatorship, Szitkar-Kerr, says he was
instructed to "disenroll" from the Kaiser health plan.  He claims
that Kaiser telephoned him and said that "it was time" to
terminate his status as a dependent insured so that he could be
provided more treatment in a residential program at a Los Angeles
County facility known as "La Casa."

Szitkar-Kerr says his treatment is now funded by the county, the
state (through Medi-Cal), and the federal government (through
Social Security and Medicare).  Despite its obligation to provide
medically necessary services, including treatment for mental
health, Kaiser systematically denies coverage, ensures a mandatory
disenrollment to LPS conservatorships, and then dumps the costs of
psychiatric treatment onto the government and taxpayers, Szitkar-
Kerr says the complaint.  He seeks class certification and damages
for civil rights violations, unfair competition, fraud and bad
faith.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn Trepenski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN M. TREPENSKI
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 201
          Telephone: (310) 201-0022
          Facsimile: (866) 201-2251


KELLOGG CO: Dropped From Kashi Consumer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, The National Law Journal, reports that The
Kellogg Company has gotten out of a class action alleging that
consumers of Kashi Company's "natural" food products were deceived
because the products contain genetically modified organisms and
synthetic ingredients like GMO soy, soy derivatives and corn
derivatives.

U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard ruled that the plaintiffs did
not allege that the Kellogg subsidiary Kashi was a mere
instrumentality or alter ago of Kellogg.  Without that allegation,
Kellogg, as Kashi's parent company, cannot be held liable, Judge
Lenard of the Southern District of Florida said.

Kashi, however, will have to face claims of breach of express
warranty, money had and received, negligent misrepresentation,
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Judge Lenard ruled that federal law does not preempt the
plaintiffs' claims.  While the federal Food and Drug
Administration does regulate bioengineered foods, the plaintiffs
are not alleging that the products should not have contained the
artificial ingredients -- but that they should not have been
marketed and labeled as "all natural,'" the judge said.  The FDA
does not regulate the term "all natural" in any case, Judge Lenard
added.

The FDA also does not have primary jurisdiction over the dispute
because the case is not about scientific safety but whether
Kashi's labels are misleading to reasonable consumers, Judge
Lenard added.  The plaintiffs argue that they "expected to
purchase products with wholesome ingredients untouched by
scientific modifications -- only to learn that they were in fact
. . . bioengineered, artificial and synthetic ingredients," Lenard
said.

Judge Lenard also rejected the defense argument that the
plaintiffs are attempting to conflate "natural" with "organic" and
consumers can avoid foods with GMOs by purchasing certified
organic foods.  "The issue is whether the 'all natural' labeling
on defendants products would mislead a reasonable consumer into
believing they buying a product fee of GMOs, Pyridoxine
Hydrochloride, Alpha-Tocopherol Acetate, Hexane-Processed Soy
ingredients and Calcium Pantothenate, not whether buying 'organic'
is 'an easy way to avoid such foods,'" Judge Lenard said.

The judge rejected the claims for breach of implied warranty of
fitness for purpose because there was no privity of contract
between Kashi and the purchasers.  She also said that a permanent
injunction is unnecessary because an adequate remedy at law
exists.

The judge limited the lawsuits to Kashi products: GOLEAN Crunch!
Cereal, GOLEAN Crunchy! Chocolate Peanut Protein & Fiber Bars,
GOLEAN Roll! Chocolate Peanut Protein & Fiber Bars, and five kinds
of Kashi granola bars.


LA MERIDIANA: Faces "Maestoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Maestoso, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. La Meridiana I, Ltd. d/b/a Numero 28 Pizzeria Napoletana, La
Meridiana 2 Ltd. d/b/a Numero 28 Pizzeria Napoletana, Rolando
Biamonte, Eugenia Biamonte, and Luigi Porceddu, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07298 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate Numero 28 Pizzeria Napoletana at
1431 First Avenue, New York, NY 10021, and 176 Second Avenue, New
York, NY 10003, in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


LIGGETT GROUP: 11th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Dead Smokers Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th Circuit showed no patience on September 10, 2014, toward
class counsel who filed 588 personal-injury cases on behalf of
already dead Florida smokers, reports Jack Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service.

"As any lawyer worth his salt knows, a dead person cannot maintain
a personal injury claim under Florida law," the 84-page judgment
states.

In 2008, Florida smokers sued the major U.S. tobacco companies
seeking damages for injuries caused by smoking cigarettes.

That case expanded to cover 4432 individuals, but the law firm
originally representing plaintiffs did not have the resources to
fully investigate each complaint.

As a result a number of personal-injury claims were filed on
behalf of deceased smokers; wrongful-death claims were filed on
behalf of smokers who were still alive; claims were filed for
people the law firm had never contacted, and on behalf others who
had already filed in another court.

"Over and over, plaintiffs' counsel explained that these problems
were the result of the unique logistical difficulties involved in
managing so many individual lawsuits," Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote
for a three-member panel.  "And over and over the District Court
reminded counsel that a lawyer's responsibilities to the court are
not diluted even by an ocean of claims."

The court later discovered that 588 plaintiffs were already dead,
one for 25 years, and dismissed their invalid complaints.

The 11th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of these claims Sept. 10,
denying counsel's motions to amend.

Counsel sought to substitute the 588 predeceased plaintiffs with
their survivors and estates, but could not convince the court that
their 588 "mistakes" were understandable.

The rule permitting substitution "was not promulgated to allow
lawyers to file placeholder actions (Mr. [Norwood] Wilner called
them 'protective filings') to keep a limitations period open while
they investigate their claims and track down the proper parties,"
Tjoflat wrote for the court in Atlanta (parentheses in original).

"If we were to adopt the approach plaintiffs' counsel propose --
and thus compel courts to allow substitution any time the real
plaintiff is waiting in the wings -- we would read this limitation
out of existence and enable, in fact encourage, lawyers to file
complaints without proper authorization or investigation," he
added.

In addition to not fixing these mistakes, counsel did not bring
them to the court's attention for four years, the court found.  In
fact, the mistakes were only revealed when the court demanded
individual plaintiffs fill out a questionnaire detailing their
claims.

"To say that, having unearthed plaintiffs' counsel's mistakes, the
court was then required to grant them leave to fix those mistakes
under Rule 15(a)'s command that it do so 'when justice so
requires,' is, to put it bluntly, absurd," Tjoflat wrote.

"Thus, we affirm the District Court's conclusion that the years of
unjustified delay and obfuscation stripped plaintiffs' counsel of
whatever rights to amendment that they might have had if they had
brought the defects to the court's attention in a timely fashion."

The consolidated appellate cases are 4432 Individual Tobacco
Plaintiffs v. Various Tobacco Companies, Liggett Group, LLC, and
Vector Group, Ltd., Case Nos. 13-10839, 13-12901 and 13-14302, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The
District Court cases are 4432 Individual Tobacco Plaintiffs v.
Various Tobacco Companies, Liggett Group, LLC, and Vector Group,
Ltd., Case Nos. 3:09-cv-10000-TJC-JBT and 3:09-cv-10000-WGY-JBT,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Faces "Howard" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 14, 2014,
Leonard Howard (the "Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer.
The complaint claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, by, among other things, misrepresenting or omitting
material facts regarding the Company's growth initiative, growth
potential, and financial and operating conditions.  The Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses,
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

"We believe the allegations are without merit and intend to defend
against this action vigorously," the company said.

Liquidity Services, Inc. and subsidiaries (LSI or the Company)
operates leading auction marketplaces for surplus and salvage
assets. LSI enables buyers and sellers to transact in an
efficient, automated online auction environment offering over 500
product categories.


LITHIA MOTORS: 1.3 Million Liability for Unused Vouchers
--------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action suit was
filed in December 2006 against Lithia Motors, Inc. (Jackie Neese,
et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al, Case No.
3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April 2007, a second class action suit
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) was filed against Lithia Motors in
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial
District at Anchorage. These suits were subsequently consolidated.

"In the consolidated suit, plaintiffs alleged that we, through our
Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that purportedly
violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging customers
dealer fees and costs (including document preparation fees) not
disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to disclose the
acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used vehicles or
whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for sale in a
foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that we receive a fee or
discount for placing that loan. The suit sought statutory damages
of $500 for each violation or three times plaintiff's actual
damages, whichever was greater, and attorney fees and costs," the
Company said.

"In June 2013, the parties agreed to mediate the claims. The
mediation resulted in a settlement agreement that received the
final approval of the Court on December 11, 2013.  Under the
settlement agreement, we agreed to reimburse plaintiffs' legal
fees and to pay (i) $450 in the form of cash and vouchers to valid
claimants and (ii) $3,000 for each claim representative. The
majority of cash and vouchers have been mailed.

"We have recorded expenses of $6.7 million to settle all claims
against us and to pay plaintiffs' legal fees. Of this amount, $0.7
million in expense was recorded in the six months ended June 30,
2014, as a component of selling, general and administrative
expense in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of June
30, 2014, the liability for unused vouchers, assuming an expected
redemption rate, was $1.3 million and is recorded as a component
of accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. We
believe that these estimates are reasonable; however, actual cost
could differ materially."


LIVIE AND LUCA: Recalls Children's Shoes Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Livie and Luca, of Emeryville, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of "Carta" and "Cotton" Children's Shoes.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A metal thread inside the interior shoe liner can loosen and poke
through the shoe lining, posing a laceration hazard to the user.

The firm has received two reports of the metal thread coming
through the liner of the shoe, including one report of a child's
foot that was cut by a metal thread poking through the shoe
lining.

The recalled Livie & Luca children's shoes include two styles:
Carta and Cotton.  The Carta style Mary Jane shoes are canvas,
solid color shoes stitched to a tan sole with a fabric strap and a
brown wooden button.  The Carta shoes are blue, fuchsia or gray.
The Cotton style Mary Jane canvas shoes have a stitched tan rubber
sole and a colored fabric strap with a dandelion printed on a pink
square button and a gingham or polka-dot cotton interior lining.
The cotton shoes are yellow, green or red.  Both the Carta and the
Cotton style shoes were sold in toddler sizes 4 through 13.  Only
shoes with date codes 06 2013 through 12 2013 (Month Year) printed
on the insole of the shoe are included in the recall.  The Livie &
Luca logo is printed on the inside of the shoe.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/BOsDOg

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
children's boutiques including Ready Set Grow in Tennessee and
ZandyZoos in Texas and online at livieandluca, zappos, addyscloset
and mylittlejules from Jan. 2014 through March 2014 for about $54.

Consumers should immediately take these shoes away from children
and contact the retailer where purchased for instructions on
receiving a store credit or replacement.  If purchased through
Livie & Luca's online, contact the firm for instructions on
receiving a store credit for a free replacement pair of shoes with
prepaid shipping before disposing of the shoes.


MAGNUM HUNTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action have appealed the
dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially
similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District
of New York and in the Southern District of Texas.  All such cases
are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases.

The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been
dismissed.

The cases filed in the Southern District of New York were
consolidated and have since been dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or
misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including
statements related to the Company's internal and financial
controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation
expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the
dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered
accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors'
position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters
identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended.
The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements
made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period,
as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the
Company's internal controls made in connection with a public
offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities
Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which the Company intends to vigorously defend. It is possible
that additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these
events.

Magnum Hunter Resources is a Houston, Texas based independent
exploration and production company engaged in the United States in
the acquisition and development of producing properties and
undeveloped acreage and the production of oil and natural gas,
along with certain midstream and oilfield services activities.


MARTIN BROTHERS: Hagens Berman Settles School Lunch Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Elizabeth A. Fegan, managing partner of the Chicago
office of Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a
national law firm, has settled a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
thousands of Iowa families who participated in school lunch
programs.  The Iowa School Food Settlement affects private and
public schools all over the state.  More than 22,572 claims have
been filed covering 47,614 students since it was announced
Sept. 2.

The lawsuit claimed that since 2000, Martin Brothers Distributing
and the Iowa Association for Educational Purchasing collaborated
to fix prices and reduce competition in school lunch contracts
statewide.  The result was lunches priced higher than they
otherwise would have been.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch, but we certainly feel our
kids deserve better than an overpriced lunch," Mr. Fegan said.
"Many families struggle every day to feed their kids a nutritious
meal.  This settlement provides refunds to families for lunch
overcharges, plus ensures that school food contracts are subject
to competitive bidding going forward."

As part of the settlement, Martin Brothers Distributing will pay
$1,925,000 to cover claims from parents who purchased school
lunches at selected schools from Jan. 2000 through Aug. 2014, as
well as certain costs and fees of the litigation.  Families are
eligible to receive $3.50 per student per year, up to $50 per
student.  Claims must be submitted by September 30, 2014.  The
claim form is available here; or families may email
info@IowaSchoolFoodSettlement.com

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.


MAXIMUS INC: Facing "Norton" Class Action in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in January 2014,
MAXIMUS was named a defendant in Norton et al. v. MAXIMUS in the
U.S. District Court for Idaho. The plaintiffs in this purported
class action are current and former trainers and supervisors at
the MAXIMUS federal health care projects in Boise, Idaho and
Brownsville, Texas. They allege the Company willfully
misclassified them as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and failed to pay them overtime, and they seek to
establish a nationwide class covering the company's federal health
care operations. The plaintiffs allege compensatory and punitive
damages of at least $5.0 million. MAXIMUS has since reclassified
the trainers as non-exempt employees and is seeking an expedited
resolution of their wage claims. MAXIMUS denies liability as to
the supervisors and will contest the matter vigorously. As of June
30, 2014, the Company has reserved $0.6 million to cover the
estimated legal costs of defending this lawsuit, in addition to
estimated liabilities to employees.

MAXIMUS provides business process services (BPS) to government
health and human services agencies.


MEDIA COLLECTIONS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Shteinmantz, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Media Collections, Inc. d/b/a Joseph Mann & Creed, an Ohio
corporation, Case No. 7:14-cv-07331-KMK (S.D.N.Y.,
September 10, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RexCorp Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


MEL S. HARRIS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shaperonovitch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-05283 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 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


METLIFE INC: "Keife" and "Simon" Plaintiffs Appeal to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the cases Keife,
et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in
state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on
September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011).  The Company said the
class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, raise breach
of contract claims arising from MLIC's use of the Total Control
Accounts ("TCA") to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance program.  On March 8, 2013, the
court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


METLIFE INC: "Owens" Suit Seeks Disgorgement of MLIC Profits
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014).  This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use
of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") as the settlement option for
life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks
disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by
members of the putative class.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada Indemnity Claim.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking
a declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC
and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had asked
that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims
pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the
sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but
subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the
indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

An amended class action complaint in that case was served on Sun
Life in May 2013, again without naming MLIC as a party.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala
v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August
2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the
same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for
some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices
cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from this litigation.


METLIFE INC: Nov. Final Approval Hearing of "Fauley" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case C- Mart,
Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10,
2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D.
Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.);
and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit
Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3,
2014).

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227.  MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to
resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and the
date of the court's preliminary approval of the settlement.

Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois,
and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed.

In August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the
settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled
the final approval hearing for November 2014.


MICHOACANA VARIETY: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Gonzalez-Dominguez v. Maria L. Alcantar, dba: La Michoacana
Variety Store, and La Michoacana Variety Store, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01455-HA (D. Or., September 10, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff
is entitled to recover all unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Maria L. Alcantar and The Michocana Variety Store are residents of
Wasco County, Oregon, in The Dalles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq.
          THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          815 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 757-4749
          Facsimile: (503) 200-1289
          E-mail: quinn@kuranzlaw.com


MOBILEREV LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Claverie and Reynard Gross, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Mobilerev LLC, Paul Zsebedics,
Sam Bahreini a/k/a Dave Lott and Amir Bahreini, Case No. 8:14-cv-
02875 (D. Md., September 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid and
illegally withheld, overtime compensation and commissions earned,
interest, attorney's fees and litigation costs and treble or
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mobilerev LLC owns and operates approximately 11 Sprint cellular
telephone stores, which maintains its corporate headquarters in
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brooke E. Lierman, Esq.
      Joseph B. Espo, Esq.
      BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY
      120 E Baltimore St Ste 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 962-1030
      Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
      E-mail: blierman@browngold.com
              jbe@browngold.com

         - and -

      Omar Vincent Melehy, Esq.
      MELEHY AND ASSOCIATES LLC
      8403 Colesville Rd., Suite 610
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-6364
      Facsimile: (301) 587-6308
      E-mail: ovmelehy@melehylaw.com


MORGAN'S FOODS: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Morgan's Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01227-CRE (W.D.
Pa., September 10, 2014) is brought under The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Say $725,000 Still Due and Payable
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court") on
behalf of alleged stockholders of Novatel Wireless, Inc. On
December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action and in May 2010, the consolidated lawsuits were captioned
the case In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation (the
"Litigation"). The Litigation was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 27, 2007 and
September 15, 2008.

On December 6, 2013, to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, legal counsel for the
defendants entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding.

On June 23, 2014, the Court entered its judgment approving a final
settlement agreement with respect to the Litigation. The
settlement agreement does not admit any liability and the Company
and the individual defendants continue to deny any and all
liability. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the
plaintiff class has agreed to settle all claims asserted in the
Litigation and grant the defendants and released parties a full
and complete release in exchange for (1) a cash payment of $6.0
million to the plaintiff's class, approximately $1.7 million of
which is to be funded by the Company's insurers, (2) the issuance
of unrestricted and freely tradable shares of the Company's stock
with an aggregate value of $5.0 million and (3) the issuance of a
$5.0 million secured promissory note, which such note shall have a
30-month maturity, carry interest at 5% per annum, payable
quarterly, and be secured by the accounts receivable of the
Company.

On July 1, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to amend the judgment entered on June 23, 2014,
specifically requesting the Court to amend the effective date of
such judgment to June 20, 2014 -- the date the court held the
final approval hearing. The Court granted this motion on July 8,
2014, and the judgment date was deemed entered on June 20, 2014.
Based on a judgment date of June 20, 2014, the Company believes
that it will be relieved from an additional cash payment of
approximately $725,000, which would have been triggered, pursuant
to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, if the date of the
Court's entry of judgment had remained June 23, 2014 (based on the
then-current trading price of the Company's common stock, which
was below a certain threshold price established by the Stipulation
of Settlement).

On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to the court
claiming that since the Company's stock price traded intraday
below the aforementioned threshold price, that the $725,000 was
still due and payable. The Company expects to contest the
plaintiffs' motion and has not accrued the $725,000 asserted claim
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, Novatel
Wireless said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

On July 8, 2014, the Company funded the cash portion of the
settlement with $4.3 million of Company cash and $1.7 million
previously funded into escrow by the Company's insurers. The $4.3
million payment was accrued at December 31, 2013, and is accrued
as of June 30, 2014 in current liabilities. On July 17, 2014, the
Company issued 2,407,318 unrestricted shares of the Company's
common stock to the class members in satisfaction of the $5.0
million stock payment. The estimated share value of $5.0 million
was accrued at December 31, 2013, and is accrued as of June 30,
2014 in non-current liabilities. The Company issued a $5.0 million
secured promissory note on July 8, 2014. Such note was accrued at
December 31, 2013, and is accrued as of June 30, 2014 in non-
current liabilities.


NRS INC: Recalls Water Sports Helmets Due to Risk of Head Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
NRS Inc., of Moscow, Idaho, announced a voluntary recall of about
3,300 NRS water sports helmets.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rivets holding the chin strap to the helmet can fail and cause
the helmet to fall off in an incident, posing a risk of head
injury.

NRS has received four reports of the helmet's rivets failing.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves NRS "Chaos Side Cut" helmets used for water
sports, including rafting, kayaking, stand-up paddling and
canoeing.  The helmet's hard shell is available in yellow, red,
blue or white.  "NRS" is printed on the front and back of the
helmet.  The recalled helmets have a black "Boa" dial-fit
retention harness inside at the back of the helmet.  "Boa" is
printed on the dial.  "Chaos" and PO#39225 are printed on a white
sticker inside of the helmet.  Helmets with an "Inspected" sticker
inside the shell under the Boa dial are not included in this
recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/4S2BYj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Collinsville Canoe & Kayak Store, NRS, Outdoorplay, REI and other
paddlesports equipment stores nationwide and online at nrs.com and
aire.com from April 2014 through July 2014 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
return them to the place where purchased or NRS for a free
replacement helmet or a full refund.


OMEGA FLEX: Defending Against Hall and Schoelwer Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that two putative class
action cases have been filed against the Company; one in U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida titled Hall v.
Omega Flex, Inc. and one in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio titled Schoelwer v. Omega Flex, Inc.  In both
cases, the lead plaintiffs claimed that they are exposed to an
increased likelihood of harm if one of the plaintiffs' houses that
contain TracPipe CSST is struck by lightning, that could damage
the CSST causing a release of fuel gas in the house and causing a
fire.  However, none of the lead plaintiffs have suffered any
actual harm.  In January 2014, the judge in the Hall case granted
the Company's motion to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims due
primarily to a lack of jurisdiction because there is no actual
case or controversy posed by these claims.  The plaintiff in
Schoelwer voluntarily dismissed her claims in January 2014, but
refiled the case in May 2014 alleging purely economic damages
(i.e., no personal injury or property damage).  The Company does
not believe that the Schoelwer Claim has any legal merit, and is
therefore vigorously defending that Claim.

The Company is a manufacturer of flexible metal hose, which is
used in a variety of applications to carry gases and liquids
within their particular applications.


ORBEA USA: Recalls Avant Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Orbea USA, LLC, of Little Rock, Ark., announced a voluntary recall
of 715 Avant Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle front fork can crack, posing a fall hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves all Avant bicycles and carbon framesets sold
with hydraulic disk brakes and all Avant bicycles and carbon
framesets that are capable of being configured with hydraulic disc
brakes.  The model numbers are not marked on the bicycles and
there is also no color or gender designation.  The word Avant is
in black or white on the top and head tube of the frameset and the
word Orbea is in white on the top and down tube of the frameset.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/guCOa7

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Spain and
sold at authorized Orbea bicycle retailers nationwide from Aug.
2013 to June 2014 for between $1,200 and $9,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact Orbea for a free replacement and installation of the
bicycle front fork.


OSRAM SYLVANIA: November 14 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought Sylvania Automotive Lighting

You Could Get Money from a $30 Million Settlement

A proposed Settlement has been reached with Osram Sylvania Inc.
The Settlement resolves claims that Sylvania misrepresented that
certain replacement automotive lighting is brighter, provides a
wider beam, and allows drivers to see farther down the road than
standard halogen lighting.  It also claims that Sylvania omitted
material information regarding the reduced life of the replacement
lighting.  Sylvania denies that it did anything wrong.

Who is included in the Settlement?

The Settlement includes any person or entity who:

   * Bought one or more of the following, other than for resale or
distribution to another person or entity: SilverStar ULTRA(R),
SilverStar(R), XtraVision(R), or Cool Blue(R) replacement
headlight capsules; SilverStar(R), XtraVision(R), or Cool Blue(R)
sealed beam headlights; and SilverStar(R) fog or auxiliary lights.

   * In the United States (or any territory or possession) from
September 22, 2005 to July 11, 2014.

What does the Settlement provide?

A $30 million Settlement Fund will be established to make payments
to eligible Class Members.  Eligible individuals are expected to
get a minimum $10 payment and perhaps more.  All claims are
limited to a single purchase only.  The Settlement Fund will also
be used to pay Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, costs
of notice and Settlement administration, and incentive awards to
the Class Representatives.

How can I get a payment?

If you did not receive a postcard notice in the mail, you may file
a claim online or by mail by November 14, 2014.  The Claim Form
only takes 3-5 minutes for most individuals to complete.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.
If you want to keep your right to sue Sylvania yourself, you must
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by November 14, 2014.
If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the
Settlement by February 9, 2015.

The Court will hold a hearing on March 20, 2015 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and award attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses up to one-third of the Settlement Fund, and
total incentive awards up to $25,000 to the Class Representatives.
You or your lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your
own expense.

For more Settlement information or for a Claim Form:
1-866-430-8976
www.AutoLightClaims.com


PEOPLES BANCORP: North Carolina Lawsuit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp Of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that
Peoples Bank on April 2, 2013, received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.  On June 6, 2013, the Bank
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was heard in
the North Carolina Business Court on October 1, 2013.

On April 15, 2014, the North Carolina Business Court denied the
Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The effect of the
court's ruling, which is not a determination on the merits, is to
allow the case to proceed to the next stages of the legal process,
including discovery and determination as to whether class
certification is appropriate or not.  The Bank continues to
believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, including the
request that the lawsuit be certified as a class action.


PLY GEM: Oct. 29 Final Approval Hearing of Vinyl Clad Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in John Gulbankian and
Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"),
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows.

In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc.
("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the
Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows.

On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn
cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making
similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows, including MW's
V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom 800 windows. The
plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and
compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages,
and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs'
counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 that
would settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement on May 23,
2014.

If the Court grants final approval, the Vinyl Clad Settlement
Agreement provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers
submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements,
certain damage to the frames of their MW vinyl clad windows.

Under the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, MW has also agreed to
pay attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in an amount
not to exceed $2.5 million. The Court will make a determination
regarding counsel's fees and costs upon final approval of the
settlement. The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this
settlement would apply to any and all MW vinyl clad windows
manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014. A final
approval hearing is currently scheduled for October 29, 2014.

It is expected that, if the settlement receives final approval, it
will result in the dismissal of Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime
Holdings, Inc. et al., another pending lawsuit that is seeking
class certification with respect to vinyl clad windows
manufactured by MW.  The settlement is not final until the Court
grants final approval of the settlement, and the Court may, in its
sole discretion, determine not to grant final approval of the
settlement.

If the Court does not grant final approval of the settlement, the
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement will not be binding on the
parties. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlement
and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company,
however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and agreed
to settle the litigation to avoid these.

As a result of this settlement, the Company recognized a $5.0
million expense during the six months ended June 28, 2014 within
selling, general, and administrative expenses in the Company's
condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive
income (loss). It is possible that the Company may incur costs in
excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently
expects that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuits will not
exceed approximately $5.0 million. Approximately $4.7 million of
this liability is currently outstanding, with $2.7 million as a
current liability within accrued expenses and $2.0 million as a
noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the
Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 28,
2014.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Discovery on Class Cert. in "Memari" Case Has Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that om Karl Memari v. Ply
Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed in
March 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Charleston Division, plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a
result of the illegality and/or defects of MW's vinyl clad
windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i)
actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

Discovery regarding class certification has closed, however, the
hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled
as this case is currently stayed pending the final approval
hearing in the Gulbankian and Hartshorn matters.

While the damages sought in this action have not yet been
quantified, it is expected that, if the settlement of the
Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases receives final approval, it will
result in the dismissal of this action.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Deceuninck to Indemnify MHE in "Pagliaroni" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in Anthony Pagliaroni
v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC,
a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was
manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck") and
sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff seeks a
variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified. This action is currently
in discovery regarding class certification, and a hearing
regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled.

Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has
agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this
claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as
amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek
indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms
of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial
condition, which could change in the future.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Damages in Muhler Class Action Not Yet Quantified
----------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in The Muhler Company,
Inc. v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a lawsuit filed in
April 2011 in the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Charleston Division, plaintiff alleges unfair
competition and trade practices. The plaintiff seeks a variety of
relief, including (i) consequential damages, (ii) treble damages,
(iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation. In April 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment with respect to the federal Lanham Act
claims. As such, only state unfair competition and trade practices
claims currently remain.

In May 2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the
summary judgment granted on the federal Lanham Act claims, and the
Fourth Circuit denied interlocutory appeal.  The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: J-Channel Class Action in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in J-Channel Industries
Corporation v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., and Ply Gem Industries,
Inc., a purported patent infringement case filed in August 2013 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of
Tennessee, Northern Division, plaintiff, a wholly owned subsidiary
of CopyTele, Inc., a company specializing in patent monetization
and patent assertion, alleges damages as a result of patent
infringement by certain windows having an integrated "j-channel"
feature.

Ply Gem has accepted tender from co-defendant Lowe's Companies,
Inc. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i)
economic and compensatory damages and (ii) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation. This action is currently in the early stages
of discovery. The damages sought in this action have not yet been
quantified.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Defending Against Waterford Township Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in Waterford Township
Police & Fire Retirement System v. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. et al.,
a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's
IPO, plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all persons or entities,
other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the
Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO, seeks
remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was
negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue
statements of material fact and omitting material information
which was required to be disclosed.

The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) damages
together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs
of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been
quantified. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22,
2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has
agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other
expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.

Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported
federal securities class action is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Wants Stevens and Waterford Township Actions Combined
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014, that in John Stevens v. Ply
Gem Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported federal securities class
action filed on July 14, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings,
Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters
associated with the Company's IPO on May 23, 2013, plaintiff, on
behalf of itself and all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO, seeks remedies
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was
negligently prepared, containing untrue statements of material
fact, omitting facts necessary to make statements made not
misleading and omitting material information which was required to
be disclosed. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including
(i) compensatory and equitable damages together with interest
thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

While the Company has not yet been served, the Company will seek
to have this action consolidated with the Waterford Township
Police & Fire Retirement System lawsuit. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.

Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported
federal securities class action is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PNC FINANCIAL: Accused of Age Discrimination in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Alexander, 27 Miner Circle, Collegeville, PA 19426 v. PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc., 2 PNC Plaza, 2nd Floor, 620
Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Case No. 2:14-cv-05190-LFR
(E.D. Pa., September 10, 2014) seeks redress against the
Plaintiff's former employer for violations of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and for unlawful gender
discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Equal Pay Act and other applicable law.

PNC is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Victor Meitner, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick J. McMonagle, Esq.
          A. VICTOR MEITNER, JR., P.C
          564 Skippack Pike
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (215) 540-0575
          E-mail: pmcmonagle@meitnerlaw.com


PRECISION COMPLETION: "Hagans" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hagans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Precision Completion & Production Services, Ltd and
Precision Drilling (US) Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-02602 (S.D.
Tex., September 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Precision Completion & Production Services, Ltd and Precision
Drilling (US) Corporation are engaged in the business of oil and
natural gas production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


QR ENERGY: Illegally Sales Partnership, "Bushansky" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alan L. Smith, John H. Campbell, Jr., Donald
D. Wolf, Stephen A. Thorington, Donald E. Powell, Richard K.
Herbert, Toby R. Neugebauer, S. Wil Vanloh, Jr., QR Energy LP, QRE
GP, LLC, Breitburn Energy Partners LP, Breitburn GP, LLC, and Boom
Merger Sub, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-02601 (S.D. Tex., September 9,
2014), is brought against the Defendant in connection with their
attempt to sell the Partnership to Breitburn by means of an unfair
process and for an unfair and for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of oil and natural gas
production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: 212-682-3025
      Facsimile: 212-682-3010


QUANTEM AVIATION: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billi-Jo Atterberry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Quantem Aviation Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01454-KI (D. Or., September 10, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
          BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP
          8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130
          Portland, OR 97225-3429
          Telephone: (503) 297-9031
          Facsimile: (503) 291-9172
          E-mail: justin@baxterlaw.com


ROCKET FUEL: Faces IPO-Related Class Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjiv Mehrotra, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter
Bardwick, Susan L. Bostrom, Ronald E. F. Codd, William Ericson,
Richard Frankel, John Gardner, Clark Kokich, Monte Zweben, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Needham & Company, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Piper Jaffray &
Co., BMO Capital Markets Corp., and Luma Securities LLC, Case No.
3:14-cv-04114-WHO (N.D. Cal., September 10, 2014) seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 and under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket Fuel securities: (1)
pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on September 19, 2013; and (2) on the open market between
September 20, 2013, and August 5, 2014, inclusive.

Rocket Fuel delivers a programmatic media-buying platform at Big
Data scale that uses artificial intelligence to purportedly
improve marketing return on investment in digital media across
web, mobile, video, and social channels.  The Company provides
digital advertising and marketing programs globally for customers
in North America, Europe, and Japan.

Rocket Fuel is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Redwood City, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Credit
Suisse, Citigroup, Needham, Oppenheimer, Piper Jaffray, BMO, and
LUMA served as underwriters to Rocket Fuel in connection with the
Offering.

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
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com


ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Defending Against Thwaites and Rudman Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwood Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 22, 2014 and
August 1, 2014, purported class actions were filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, in Mercer County and in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, respectively, relating
to Rockwood's pending merger with a subsidiary of Albemarle
Corporation ("Albemarle").  The lawsuits, Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings Inc. and Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings Inc.,
respectively, name Rockwood, its directors and Albemarle as
defendants. The Rudman Partners case also names the merger
subsidiary as a defendant. The lawsuits, which contain
substantially similar allegations, include allegations that the
directors of Rockwood breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood's
shareholders will receive the maximum value for their shares,
failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their
own interests ahead of Rockwood's shareholders. Rockwood and
Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a variety of equitable and
injunctive relief, including enjoining Rockwood's directors from
proceeding with the proposed merger unless and until they have
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value and rescission of the merger to the extent
implemented, and, in the Rudman Partners case, any damages arising
from the defendant's alleged breaches, and attorneys' fees and
costs. Rockwood intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits.
Rockwood is unable to estimate the loss, or possible range of
loss, for these matters.

Rockwood is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of
technologically advanced and high value-added specialty chemicals.


RUSSIAN TEA: Illegally Swipes Tips From Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Russian Tea Room
illegally swipes tips from its employees, a class action claims in
New York County Supreme Court.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: To Finalize Settlement in Del. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning on
November 12, 2013, eleven putative class action lawsuits were
filed by shareholders of Santarus seeking to challenge the
Company's proposed acquisition of Santarus, which was announced on
November 7, 2013.  Nine of these actions were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, one was filed in California Superior
Court (San Diego County) and one was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

"These actions generally allege that the members of the Santarus
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Santarus
shareholders by failing to maximize the value of Santarus and by
making inadequate or misleading disclosures regarding the proposed
merger, and that Santarus, we and certain of our subsidiaries
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
in the action pending in California federal court also asserts
causes of action on behalf of the individual plaintiff for alleged
violations of certain sections of the Exchange Act. These actions
generally sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger,
unspecified damages and fees," the Company said.

On December 9, 2013, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to
stay the action pending in California Superior Court. On December
11, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the nine
actions pending in that court, appointed lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, and designated the amended complaint filed by
plaintiff Imad Ahmad Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative
complaint in the consolidated Delaware litigation. On December 20,
2013, the parties in the Delaware litigation reached an agreement
in principle, subject to full documentation, to resolve the
plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for certain
supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an amended
Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date.

The Company completed its merger with Santarus on January 2, 2014.
The parties in the Delaware litigation executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement in principle
on January 17, 2014, completed confirmatory discovery in February
2014 and are currently drafting full settlement documentation and
engaging in confirmatory discovery. The settlement of the Delaware
litigation will be subject to approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware litigation has
also indicated that the plaintiffs intend to request an award of
an unspecified amount of attorneys' fees from the Delaware Court
of Chancery.

On January 22, 2014, Santarus and its directors filed a renewed
motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court,
and the Company filed a separate motion to stay that action in
favor of the Delaware litigation. On January 22, 2014, Santarus
and its directors filed a motion to stay the action pending in the
California federal court in favor of the Delaware litigation, and
the Company filed a joinder in support of that motion on January
23, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the parties in the action pending in
California federal court filed a joint motion to stay that action
pending a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding
final approval of the proposed settlement of the Delaware
litigation, and the California federal court granted that motion
on February 13, 2014.

The Company is vigorously defending the action pending in
California Superior Court and attempting to finalize the
settlement of the consolidated Delaware litigation as described
above. The Company believes that all of the claims asserted
against it by Santarus shareholders lack merit.

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., is a specialty pharmaceutical company
dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing
prescription drugs and medical devices used in the treatment of a
variety of gastrointestinal diseases, which are those affecting
the digestive tract.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Cosmo Transaction Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft M.B.H., a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed on July 18, 2014, a putative class action in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors,
Cosmo Pharmaceuticals S.p.A., or Cosmo, Cosmo Tech and Sangiovese,
LLC (Case No. 9909, Delaware Chancery Court). The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the
agreement and plan of merger and reorganization announced on July
8, 2014 among the Company, Cosmo, Cosmo Tech and Sangiovese, LLC.
The complaint also alleges that the entity defendants aided and
abetted those breaches. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
an order permanently enjoining the merger and damages in an
unspecified amount.

"We intend vigorously to defend against the complaint and we
believe that all of the claims asserted in the complaint lack
merit," the Company said.

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., is a specialty pharmaceutical company
dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing
prescription drugs and medical devices used in the treatment of a
variety of gastrointestinal diseases, which are those affecting
the digestive tract.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Jim Atchison, James
Heaney, Dan Brown, Marc Swanson, David F. D'Alessandro, and The
Blackstone Group L.P., Case No. 3:14-cv-02129 (S.D. Cal.,
September 9, 2014), alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance, and internal controls.

Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. is a theme park and entertainment
company with SeaWorld locations in Orlando, Florida, San Diego,
California, and San Antonio, Texas.

The Blackstone Group L.P. is a full service investment banking
company, which is the majority shareholder of Seaworld
Entertainment, Inc.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Seaworld
Entertainment, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SILVERMAN & BORENSTEIN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Velez, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Silverman & Borenstein, PLLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-07277 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Silverman & Borenstein, PLLC is a foreign professional
service limited liability company, which collects defaulted
consumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI
      450 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 268-2128
      Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Oct. 6 Hearing on Settlement in "Angell" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II
and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc.

On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear. Petitioner's motion alleges that we have
marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading
advertisements and representations about the products' ability to
provide health benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's
authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief. Petitioner's motion was formally presented to
the Court on June 29, 2012.

At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as well as the
Niras and Dedato actions described below) through authorization by
the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. The
parties are currently finalizing the terms of the settlement
agreement.

In June 2014, the Court approved the pre-approval notice and the
motion for approval of the settlement is set for October 6, 2014.

"If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is
denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the
outcome of the Angell action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Angell action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial
position in excess of the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Smith" Representative Agrees to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The
Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages (including
damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief. On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended
Statement of Claim was filed to substitute a new representative
plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege
substantially the same claims as in the original Statement of
Claim with respect to all Skechers toning footwear sold to
residents of Canada.

On or about February 28, 2014, representative plaintiff Smith
agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement reached in
the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions and agreed to
discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the settlement in the
Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is finally approved by the
Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken.

"If the motion for approval of the class action settlement reached
in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato actions is denied or approval is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the
Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial
position in excess of the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Oct. 6 Hearing on Settlement in "Niras" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II,
and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users. The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement.

At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the
Angell action and the Dedato action described below) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class. The parties are currently finalizing the terms
of the settlement agreement. It is anticipated that the agreement
will provide for the voluntary discontinuance (dismissal) of the
Niras action upon approval of the settlement by the Quebec
Superior Court.

In June 2014, the Court approved the pre-approval notice and the
motion for approval of the settlement is set for October 6, 2014.

"If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is
denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the
outcome of the Niras action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Niras action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial
position in excess of the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Oct. 6 Hearing on Settlement in "Dedato" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Canada,
Inc.

On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runner footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Dedato
action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions) through
authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class.

The parties are currently finalizing the terms of the settlement
agreement. It is anticipated that the agreement will provide for
the voluntary discontinuance (dismissal) of the Dedato action upon
approval of the settlement by the Quebec Superior Court.

In June 2014, the Court approved the pre-approval notice and the
motion for approval of the settlement is set for October 6, 2014.

"If the motion for approval of the class action settlement is
denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the
outcome of the Dedato action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Dedato action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial
position in excess of the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlement in "Sayles" Suit Awaits Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
Roneshia Sayles v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

On October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles filed a class action lawsuit
against our company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC473067. The
complaint involves a wage and hour claim, alleging violations of
the California Labor Code, including unpaid time for certain
breaks and when retail employees' bags are checked upon leaving
the store at the ends of their shifts. The complaint seeks actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; general and
special damages; civil, statutory and waiting time penalties;
restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees
and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid compensation.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement of Class Action Claims (the "Settlement"). The
Settlement still has to be approved by the Court. The Settlement
obtained preliminary approval by the Court on May 8, 2014 and is
still awaiting final approval by the Court.

"In the event that the Settlement does not obtain final approval
by the Court, it is too early to predict the outcome of the
litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether
an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our
results of operations or financial position, we believe we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend
to defend the case vigorously," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Provides Updates on Lawsuits Involving Shape-ups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on Personal
Injury Lawsuits Involving Shape-ups.

The Company said, "On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as
defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that
Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently
designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to
representations made by our company, and that we failed to provide
adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In
total, we are named as a defendant in 835 currently pending cases
(some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) that assert further
varying injuries but employ similar legal theories and assert
similar claims to the first case, as well as claims for breach of
express and implied warranties, loss of consortium, and fraud.
Although there are some variations in the relief sought, the
plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and/or economic damages,
exemplary and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR, that
currently encompasses 774 personal injury cases that were
initiated as individual lawsuits in the MDL or in various federal
courts and 1,393 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets or
court-approved questionnaires for mediation purposes."

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group are also named defendants in 57 pending personal
injury actions filed in the Superior Court of California in Los
Angeles ("LASC") that have been brought on behalf of 721
individual plaintiffs (many of whom have also submitted court-
approved questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL
proceeding). Additionally, there currently are 3 personal injury
actions pending in various state courts. Another case, originally
filed in state court, has been removed to federal court and its
transfer to the MDL is pending.

Since 2011, a total of 848 personal injury cases have been filed
in or transferred to the MDL proceeding. Additionally, 1,811
unfiled claims have been submitted by plaintiff fact sheets or
court-approved questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL
proceeding. The Company has resolved 395 personal injury claims in
the MDL proceedings, 60 that were filed as formal actions and 336
that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has also
settled 52 claims in principle -- 8 filed cases and 46 claims
submitted by plaintiff fact sheets -- and anticipates that those
settlements will finalized in the near term. Six cases in the MDL
proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by
Skechers and 36 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet
have been abandoned.

In the coordinated LASC proceedings, a total of 61 personal injury
actions have been filed on behalf of 771 individual plaintiffs.
Four actions, brought on behalf of a total of 6 plaintiffs, have
been dismissed. The claims of 15 additional plaintiffs have been
settled and dismissed. Settlements with 3 other plaintiffs have
been reached in principle, and Skechers anticipates their claims
will be dismissed in the near term. The claims of 26 additional
plaintiffs have been dismissed in whole, and the claims of 16
persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on
motions by Skechers.

In other state courts, a total 17 personal injury actions have
been filed that were not removed to federal court and transferred
to the MDL or coordinated in the LASC proceedings. Thirteen of
those actions have been resolved and dismissed.

"The personal injury cases in the MDL and LASC proceedings are in
many instances solicited and handled by the same plaintiff's law
firms. It is too early to predict the outcome of any case, whether
there will be future personal injury cases filed, whether adverse
results in any single case or in the aggregate would have a
material adverse impact on our operations or financial position,
and whether insurance coverage will be adequate to cover any
losses. Notwithstanding, we believe we have meritorious defenses,
vehemently deny the allegations and intend to defend each of these
cases vigorously," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Agreement Reached in "Basaraba" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
Gloria Basaraba v. Robert Greenberg, et al.

On July 15, 2013, plaintiff Gloria Basaraba moved to file under
seal a shareholder derivative complaint against Skechers, nine
individual members of its Board of Directors and a former employee
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. CV13-5061. The complaint included allegations
of breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of
corporate assets and unjust enrichment based on the development of
Skechers' toning footwear products, advertising and marketing
activities relating thereto, and subsequent litigation involving
those issues. The complaint sought compensatory damages, a court
order directing Skechers to reform and improve their corporate
governance and internal procedures, and attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.

On August 26, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to seal
and ordered that she file an operative complaint. On September 5,
2013, plaintiff filed the operative complaint against the same
defendants, except for the former employee. The operative
complaint seeks to recover under the same causes of action as in
the prior complaint on the basis of many of the same allegations.

On November 12, 2013 and November 15, 2013, the individual
defendants and Skechers respectively moved to dismiss the
complaint. The motions to dismiss were subsequently taken off
calendar in light of the parties' settlement discussions.
Discovery has not yet commenced.

The parties have now reached a settlement in principle, which
still requires preliminary and final approval from the Court. The
motion for preliminary approval was set for August 11, 2014.

"If the Settlement does not obtain preliminary and/or final
approval, litigation may continue. At this time, it is too early
to predict the outcome of litigation or a reasonable range of
potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial
position, Skechers believes this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations," the Company
said.


SPRINT CORP: 10th Cir. Denied Petition to Appeal Cert. Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in March 2009, a
stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that
Sprint Communications and three of its former officers violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by failing
adequately to disclose certain alleged operational difficulties
subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger, and by purportedly issuing
false and misleading statements regarding the write-down of
goodwill. The plaintiff seeks class action status for purchasers
of Sprint Communications common stock from October 26, 2006 to
February 27, 2008.

On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

"Subsequently, our motion to certify the January 6, 2011 order for
an interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery is continuing.
The plaintiff moved to certify a class of bondholders as well as
owners of common stock, and on March 27, 2014, the court certified
a class including bondholders as well as stockholders. On April
11, 2014, we filed a petition to appeal that certification order
to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition was denied on
May 23, 2014. Sprint Communications believes the complaint is
without merit and intends to continue to defend the matter
vigorously. We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have
a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations," the Company said.


SPRINT CORP: Cases Over SoftBank Merger Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Sprint Communications,
Inc. has received a complaint purporting to assert claims on
behalf of Sprint Communications, Inc. stockholders, alleging that
members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
in agreeing to the SoftBank Merger, and otherwise challenging that
transaction. There were initially five cases consolidated in state
court in Johnson County, Kansas: UFCW Local 23 and Employers
Pension Fund, et al. v. Bennett, et al., filed on October 25,
2012; Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, et al. v. Hesse, et
al., filed on October 25, 2012; City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police and Fire Retirement System v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al.,
filed on October 29, 2012; Testani, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
et al., filed on November 1, 2012; and Patten, et al. v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., et al., filed on November 1,2012.

Plaintiffs did not challenge the amended SoftBank Merger
transaction, but sought an award of attorneys fees for
theirchallenge of the original SoftBank Merger transaction. The
court denied that motion and the consolidated state cases were
dismissed with prejudice.

There are two cases filed in federal court in the District of
Kansas, entitled Gerbino, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al.,
filed on November 15, 2012, and Steinberg, et al. v. Bennett, et
al., filed on May 16, 2013 (and now consolidated with Gerbino);
those cases were stayed pending the resolution of the state cases,
and those cases were dismissed on May 16, 2014.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Certification Issue Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the company is
involved, along with other steel manufacturing companies, in a
class action antitrust complaint filed in federal court in
Chicago, Illinois in September 2008, which alleges a conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States during a period between
2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such
steel products. All but one of the complaints were brought on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of
steel products.  The other complaint was brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel
products within the same time period.  A ninth complaint, in
December 2010, was brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
steel products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the
original complaints.  All complaints seek treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief.  Following a period of discovery
relating to class certification matters, plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification filed in 2012, and briefing by both
sides, the court, on March 5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, held a class
certification hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
took the class certification issue under advisement. It's unclear
when the court will issue its ruling.

Steel Dynamics, Inc. (SDI), together with its subsidiaries (the
company), is a domestic manufacturer of steel products and metals
recycler.


SUNJOY INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multi-Purpose Outdoor Shelters
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunjoy Industries, of Steubenville, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,000 Multi-Purpose Outdoor Shelter.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fabric canopy on the shelters fails to comply with a voluntary
flammability standard, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes the 10 ft. by 20 ft. multi-purpose shelter
with "Code Number: L-GZ761PST."  The code number is printed on a
label sewn into the top of side panels of the canopy fabric.  The
fabric canopies are white and cover an area of about 20 ft. by 24
ft.  "Sunjoy Industries" and "Made in China" are printed under the
barcode label on the product packaging.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/e0WN1S

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at BJ's
Wholesale Club stores in Northeastern states from Jan. 2014
through June 2014 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately remove the canopy from the shelter's
frame and store it in a safe place, away from any flame or other
source of ignition and then contact Sunjoy Industries for
instructions on how to return it for a replacement or full refund.
All purchasers have been contacted by the firm.


SWIMWEAR ANYWHERE: Recalls Little Marc Jacobs Girls Hooded Jackets
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Swimwear Anywhere, Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 210 Hooded swimwear jackets.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The jackets have a drawstring around the neck area which poses a
strangulation hazard to children.  Drawstrings can become
entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus
doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation
and/or entanglement hazard to children.  In Feb. 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves the Little Marc Jacobs girl's hooded pull-over
swimwear cover up jacket made of 100% cotton.  The jackets are
navy with red flowers and teal leaves and have a teal bunny
applique and two buttons on the front.  They were sold in girl's
sizes 2 through 12.  Little Marc Jacobs Swimwear, style number
LM28616, Lot #1 and the size are printed on the black sewn-in
label at the center back of the jackets.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/g63xNr

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at Swimwear Anywhere Outlet, children's boutiques and
other specialty retail stores nationwide and online at
swimwearanywhere from Jan. 2014 through July 2014 for about $89.

Consumers should immediately take the jackets away from children.
Consumers can remove the drawstring from the jacket to eliminate
the hazard or return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.


TANDOORY TACO: Faces "Dieckman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Candi Dieckman, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated
v. Tandoory Taco Group, L.L.C., Yaseetharan Nagalingam, and The
888 Group One, L.L.C., Case No. 4:14-cv-00579 (E.D. Tex.,
September 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 8300
Foothill Dr., Plano, Texas 75024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corinna P. Chandler, Esq.
      BRANHAM LAW LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: cchandler@branham-law.com

         - and -

      Charles William Branham III, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES W. BRANHAM III
      4946 Swiss Avenue
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@branham-law.com


TAPRITE FASSCO: Sued by EEOC Alleging Sex Bias and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Taprite Fassco
Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00801-DAE (W.D. Tex.,
September 10, 2014) alleges that Taprite paid Eloisa Schlaff, a
quality control inspector, wages which were less than it paid to a
male, who performed the same or substantially equal work.

The EEOC further alleges that Taprite discriminated against Ms.
Schlaff by disciplining and demoting her in retaliation for her
complaints of sex-based pay discrimination, all in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of
1963.

EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with
the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the EPA,
Title VII and the ADA.

Taprite is a Texas corporation, doing business in the state of
Texas and the city of San Antonio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. David Lopez, Esq., General Counsel
          James L. Lee, Esq., Deputy General Counsel
          Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq., Associate General Counsel
          David Rivela, Esq., Senior Trial Attorney
          Robert A. Canino, Esq., Regional Attorney
          EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
          San Antonio Field Office
          5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 200
          San Antonio, TX 78229-3555
          Telephone: (210) 281-7619
          Facsimile: (210) 281-7669
          E-mail: david.rivela@eeoc.gov
                  robert.canino@eeoc.gov


TELIK INC: Reaches Agreement in Suit Over MabVax Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Telik, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 30, 2014, a
putative class action lawsuit was commenced in Santa Clara County
Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of Cadillac
Partners and others similarly situated, naming as defendants the
Company's directors, the Company, MabVax Therapeutics, Inc.,
Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC, Hudson Bay
Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities Master Fund LP.
The suit alleged the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties,
or aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duties, in connection
with the Company's merger with MabVax.

The Company said, "In support of their purported claims, the
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that our board has
historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty to its
stockholders, the PIPE transaction and the Merger involved an
inadequate sales process and includes preclusive deal protection
devices, and that our board of directors would receive personal
benefits not available to our public stockholders as a result of
the Merger. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the Merger and obtain
damages as well as attorneys' and expert fees and costs.
On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement, or Settlement, pursuant to which we agreed to file
with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in connection with
the Merger, which we did on June 30, 2014 in our proxy statement
on Schedule 14A. The Settlement is subject to certain confirmatory
discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to the parties'
agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
expenses."

"On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation, or the proposed settlement. Among many
other terms, under the proposed settlement the Company and all
defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims
pertaining to the PIPE transaction, the Merger, the prior
disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The proposed
settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other shareholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the proposed settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the proposed
settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly
denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any
other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any
respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated PIPE
transaction and Merger. Finally, under the proposed settlement,
the Company and the other defendants have not agreed to pay any
legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly incurred by the
plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the Company expects
that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any such disputed
claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for resolution. We
expect our insurance policy to cover a portion of these fees and
expenses, including legal fees of approximately $111,000 incurred
by us."

Telik, Inc., is engaged in the discovery and development of small
molecule therapeutics.


TEMPLETON RYE: Tricks "Al Capone" Whiskey Consumers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Templeton Rye Spirits deceived consumers into paying $35 a bottle
for its whiskey, claiming it's made in small-town Iowa from a
Prohibition-era recipe beloved by Al Capone, though it actually is
distilled in Indiana from a stock recipe formerly owned by
Seagrams, a class action claims, reports Lorraine Bailey, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Christopher McNair sued Templeton Rye Spirits in
Cook County Chancery Court.

Templeton Rye advertised its product as small-batch whiskey, made
in Templeton, Iowa, pop. 362.

"Defendant's Templeton Rye is marketed as the revival of a
Prohibition-era whiskey recipe that was the favorite drink of
Chicago mobster Al Capone," the complaint states.  "Since its
rebirth within the past decade, defendant has marketed Templeton
Rye as being 'small batch' and 'made in Iowa.'  Consumers, seeking
an alternative to mainstream, mass-produced alcoholic beverages
have purchased hundreds of thousands of bottles of defendant's
Templeton Rye and have paid a premium price over other whiskeys to
obtain those qualities.

"However, directly contrary to these representations, defendant's
whiskey isn't actually made in Iowa.  The whiskey -- despite being
named after Templeton, Iowa and owned by a company that owns a
distillery there -- is instead distilled and aged at the Indiana
factory of MGP Ingredients, Inc. that also distills and ages
whiskey for countless other brands.  In defendant's own words,
once the source of its whiskey was publicly revealed: 'It's very
simply put: We buy the whiskey in barrels from (MGP),'" McNair
says.

Templeton Rye's Facebook page prominently features a picture of
its Iowa distillery, and a great deal of its marketing focuses on
its small-town roots.

But "there is nothing 'local about the distillery where
defendant's Templeton Rye is made.  Rather, it is actually made in
a large Indiana factory that also makes other 'cost effective'
'alcohol products.'  As explained by Vern Underwood, chairman of
Templeton, after news of its deception was publicized, the choice
to not distill its own product was made because '[w]hen we got
involved in this thing, I thought, 'I'm not going to spend
millions of dollars on the distillery not knowing if I'm going to
get booted out of town or never sell any of this stuff,'"
according to the complaint.

Underwood told the Des Moines Register in August that Templeton's
whiskey is made from an MGP stock recipe originally owned by
Seagrams, also used by Bulleit and High West whiskies.  It is then
blended with other whiskies and water in Templeton before being
bottled and shipped.

Underwood promised that Templeton will change its label to
indicate that its whiskey is distilled in Indiana, but could not
tell the Des Moines Register why the company decided to name Iowa
as the place of distillery, according to the Register's Aug. 29
story.

"Relying on defendant's misrepresentations, McNair purchased more
than a dozen bottles of Templeton Rye from 2008 to 2014, paying
approximately $34.99 per bottle at retailers including Benny's
Beverage Depot and Gold Crown Liquors," McNair says in the
lawsuit.

"If plaintiff knew that Templeton Rye was not made in Iowa but was
distilled and aged at MGP's facilities in Indiana, he would not
have purchased Templeton Rye or he would have paid less for each
bottle."

McNair seeks damages for fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir Missaghi, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle, 13th floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: amissaghi@edelson.com


TESLA MOTORS: Defending Against Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in November 2013, a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Tesla
in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleging
violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant to, Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The current complaint, which makes claims against Tesla and its
CEO, Elon Musk, seeks damages and attorney's fees on the basis of
allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk made
false and/or misleading representations and omissions, including
with respect to the safety of Model S. This case is brought on
behalf of a putative class consisting of certain persons who
purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013 and November
17, 2013.

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend
against it vigorously. As we are currently unable to predict the
outcome of this lawsuit, it is not possible for us to determine
whether there is a reasonable possibility that a loss has been
incurred nor can we estimate the range of any potential loss."

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-performance
fully electric vehicles and advanced electric vehicle powertrain
components.


TIMEC COMPANY: Fails to Pay Regular & Premium Overtime, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Vierra and Kevin Woodruff, on behalf of themselves and
classes of those similarly situated v. Timec Company, Inc. dba
Transfield Services, a corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-04105-KAW
(N.D. Cal., September 10, 2014) accuses the Defendant of failing
to pay the Plaintiffs and all California Class members regular,
premium or double-time pay for all regular and overtime hours
worked, in violation of California law.

The Plaintiffs are current and former Timec employees, who worked
in unskilled maintenance positions for Timec at various oil and
gas refineries throughout California.

Headquartered in Texas, Timec Company, Inc., doing business as
Transfield Services, does business in the state of California.
Timec is an international operations, maintenance and construction
services business, operating, among other areas, in the resources,
energy, and industrial sectors.  In California, Timec operates and
manages the Chevron refineries in Richmond and El Segundo, the
Valero refinery in Benicia, and the Shell refinery in Martinez,
among others.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John T. Mullan, Esq.
          Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
          Michelle G. Lee, Esq.
          Erin M. Pulaski, Esq.
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, L.L.P.
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
          E-mail: jtm@rezlaw.com
                  cmm@rezlaw.com
                  mgl@rezlaw.com
                  emp@rezlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay T. Jambeck, Esq.
          Mandy G. Leigh, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pacheco, Esq.
          LEIGH LAW GROUP
          870 Market Street, Suite 1157
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 399-9155
          Facsimile: (415) 795-3733
          E-mail: jjambeck@leighlawgroup.com
                  mleigh@leighlawgroup.com
                  epacheco@leighlawgroup.com


TRULIA INC: Faces Class Actions Over Merger With Zillow
-------------------------------------------------------
Trulia Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that on August 7, 2014, two putative
class action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of
Trulia against the Company and its directors, Zillow, and HoldCo
in connection with the proposed Merger between the Company and
Zillow. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et
al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC 14-540985, was brought
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco. The other of those purported class actions,
captioned Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10020, was
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

"Both lawsuits allege that our directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided
and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an
allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms. Both lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief
that would enjoin the consummation of the proposed Merger and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware action also seeks
rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already
been implemented) and an order directing the individual defendants
to account for alleged damages suffered by the plaintiff and the
purported class as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing," the Company said.

Trulia is redefining the home search experience for consumers and
changing the way that real estate professionals build their
businesses.  Its marketplace, delivered through the web and mobile
applications, gives consumers powerful tools to research homes and
neighborhoods and enables real estate professionals to efficiently
market their listings and attract and manage new clients.


TW TELECOM: Facing Class Action Over Level 3 Merger
---------------------------------------------------
tw telecom inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that following the
announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Level 3
Communications, Inc., three putative shareholder class action
complaints (the "Class Action Complaints"), were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company,
its Board of Directors, Level 3, and certain subsidiaries of Level
3, challenging the proposed Level 3 merger: Veneros v. tw telecom,
et al., Case No. 9835 (filed on or about June 27, 2014), Litman v.
tw telecom, et al., Case No. 9838 (filed on or about June 27,
2014), and Carter v. tw telecom, et al., Case No. 9845 (filed on
or about June 30, 2014).

The Class Action Complaints generally allege, among other things,
that the individual members of the Company's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the public shareholders of
the Company by approving its entry into the Merger Agreement and
failing to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its
public shareholders, and that the Company, Level 3, and certain of
Level 3's subsidiaries, aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. In addition, the Class Action Complaints allege,
among other things, that the proposal regarding the Level 3 merger
undervalues the Company, that the process leading up to the Merger
Agreement was flawed, and that certain provisions of the Merger
Agreement improperly favor Level 3 and impede a potential
alternative transaction. The Class Action Complaints generally
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed Level 3
merger, and other forms of equitable relief. The Company intends
to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss.

tw telecom inc. is a national provider of managed network
services, specializing in business Ethernet, data networking,
converged, Internet Protocol ("IP") based virtual private network
or "IP VPN", Internet access, voice, including voice over Internet
Protocol or "VoIP", and network security services to enterprise
organizations, including public sector entities, and carriers
throughout the United States, including their global locations.


UBER Technologies: Atlanta Taxi Drivers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Wheatley, writing for Creative Loafing, reports that some
Atlanta taxi drivers are taking Uber -- and the tech company's
drivers -- to Fulton County Superior Court over allegedly skirting
the city's codes regulating pay-for-hire vehicles.

A lawsuit filed last week -- apparently the first legal challenge
in Atlanta by the taxi industry against the car service -- alleges
Uber and its drivers "have tortuously and intentionally interfered
with the Taxicab drivers' and Medallion owners' business
relationships."

Bill Pannell, the attorney representing the taxi drivers, says in
a statement that those relationships include "customers, medallion
purchasers, the City of Atlanta and other governmental regulatory
bodies resulting in monetary damages."  The taxi medallions the
lawsuit references are known in Atlanta as Certificates of Public
Necessity and Convenience, or CPNCs.  It's essentially a license
to operate a taxi purchased from the city or another medallion
owner.  There are a limited number of medallions, which in the
past could make them very valuable.  Some have been sold for more
than $80,000 -- a far cry from New York, where the licenses have
sold for as high as $1 million.

The lawsuit, which was first reported by the Daily Report's Greg
Land, alleges that Uber -- and UberX, the company's service that
connects everyday drivers using their personal vehicles with
passengers -- "operate illegally by charging fares based on
measured time and distance exactly like a licensed and fully
insured Taxicab."  In addition to costing drivers fares, the
lawsuit claims that Uber has diminished the value of the
medallions and rental fees taxi drivers pay CPNC owners. We've
pasted the complaint after the jump for your reading pleasure.

Uber and its competitor Lyft have gobbled up sizable chunks of the
taxi business in Atlanta since arriving several years ago, causing
heartburn among the companies that have spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars on medallions to operate legally, in addition
to following regulations.  That's on top of some companies
maintaining vehicles.

During this year's legislative session, lobbyists for the taxi and
limo industries battled with handshake artists representing Uber
and Lyft over legislation by state Rep. Alan Powell, R-Hartwell,
that would have required the car services to undergo some form of
background check.  Mr. Powell was ultimately unable to pass his
proposal but did manage to convince lawmakers to create a study
committee to examine the issue.  According to its legislative web
page, the group has not yet met. ("Probably about when we have the
first cool weather we'll call those meetings and hear what some of
those folks have to say," Powell said in a voicemail.) If the
committee comes up with any recommendations, it will issue a
report no later than Dec. 31.

Considering the lawsuit, some taxi drivers apparently want
something to potentially happen sooner.  Or have a back-up plan
with legal teeth should lawmakers don't crack down on Uber or pass
other measures when the legislative session begins in January.

The plaintiffs, all of which drive Atlanta taxis, are asking for
punitive damages against Uber for "consciously ignoring their
legal rights and the laws and regulations for taxicabs" in
Atlanta.  In addition, according to the lawsuit: "Plaintiffs seek
injunctive and declaratory relief; disgorgement of all fares
charged by UBER and its drivers for fares originating in the City
of Atlanta and charged based on measured mileage, distance and
time; other damages against Uber including loss in value and
rental values of CPNCs as allowed by law; and, attorneys' fees and
expenses."

In other words, they want Uber to stop doing business if drivers
don't own or lease medallions. And they want the tech company to
pay back earned revenue, Pannell says.  And the interesting twist
to the lawsuit -- the plaintiffs claim that drivers who have
picked up passengers through Uber since the summer of 2012, when
the lawsuit says the company started operating in Atlanta, should
also be considered defendants.

An Uber spokesman said the company had yet to review the complaint
but promised to fight it.

"While it would be premature to comment on litigation we haven't
reviewed, Uber will vigorously defend the rights of riders and
drivers to choice and competition," Taylor Bennett, an Uber
spokesman.


UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Tax Preparer Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that two accountants sued
the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in D.C. federal court on
Sept. 8, saying their proposed class action targeting the agency's
annual tax preparer fees has 700,000 entities and can claim $130
billion in damages.

Named plaintiffs Adam Steele and Brittany Montrois say it's
unlawful for the IRS to demand about $50 per year in exchange for
preparer tax identification numbers, which remain fixed and don't
change year to year.  They say the agency's 2010 decision to
create the fee and the penalties for avoiding it go against the
IRS's statutory authority.

"The [IRS's] final regulations state that the special benefit tax
return preparers receive in exchange for the fee is the right to
prepare returns and refund claims for compensation," the
plaintiffs wrote.  "However . . . that right exists and has always
existed."

The IRS created Publication 4832, discussing regulation of tax
preparers, in 2010.  At the time, any person could prepare a
return for a fee.  According to court documents, the IRS created a
rule to charge $50 to acquire a PTIN and renew it every year for
the same amount.  Third-party preparers often charge $13 to
administer PTIN renewal on top of the $50 fee.

But the PTIN doesn't change and is as unique as a Social Security
number, according to court documents.

The IRS has said that the regulation allows it to monitor who is
eligible to prepare tax returns.  The accountants countered that
imposition of a user fee more than the amount needed to provide a
special benefit to the payer is unlawful, citing National Cable
Television Association v. USA.

The IRS has also created penalties for failing to include a PTIN
on a return, of up to $25,000 per year.

The agency action is not a result of any legislation and the IRS
exceeded its authority, the complaint says.

In 2013, a Georgia federal court ruled that the IRS may continue
charging the user fees, after a separate attorney filed a similar
suit.  Following the government's filing a summary judgment motion
based on Eleventh Circuit precedent that found PTIN fees were
allowed by statute, the Georgia plaintiff encouraged the court to
ignore the Eleventh Circuit ruling, arguing the lower court had a
duty to administer justice.

But U.S. District Judge Robert L. Vining Jr. disagreed, pointing
out that he could not just set aside precedent established by the
Eleventh Circuit because the Georgia plaintiff disagreed with the
outcome.  The judge found that paid tax preparers receive a
special benefit from assignment and renewal of PTINs and gave
summary judgment to the government.

In 2012, tax preparers also sued the government in D.C. federal
court, winning at the trial and appellate levels.  The courts said
that the government can't create cumbersome new regulations on tax
preparers.  But the decision in Loving v. Commissioner didn't
release accountants from having to pay PTIN fees.

Adam Steele and Brittany Montrois are represented by Stuart J.
Bassin of The Bassin Law Firm PLLC.

The case is Adam Steele, Brittany Montrois and a class of more
than 700,000 similarly situated individuals and businesses v. USA,
case number 1:14-cv-01523, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


VELOCITY VIII: Dupes Chinese EB-5 Immigration Visa Applicants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liu Aifang Jin Bixia, Su Yan, Zhu Jingbo, Xu Jing, Gao Jinliang,
Gou Xiaoye, Wang Hongmei, Xin Bin and Tan Yanting v. Velocity VIII
Limited Partnership, Velocity Regional Center LLC, REO Group
Properties, LLC, Yin Nan Wang, a.k.a. Michael Wang, Yunyan Guan,
a.k.a, Christine Guan, Ben Pang, REO Property Group, LLC, Frank
Zeng and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-07060-JC (C.D.
Cal., September 10, 2014) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
scheme and artifice to defraud the Plaintiffs in connection with
the purchase and sale of a security.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are the victims of a fraudulent
scheme in which they were persuaded to invest in a business that
was managed, controlled by, or affiliated with the Defendants.  In
all, 29 investors invested a total of $14,500,000 in Velocity
VIII.  The Plaintiffs are 10 of these 29 investors.  The
Plaintiffs are limited partners of Velocity VIII, each owning
approximately 1.96% of Velocity VIII.

According to the complaint, each Plaintiff invested over $500,000
in Velocity VIII in connection with his or her application for an
EB-5 immigration visa.  The Plaintiffs, who are citizens of China,
have applied to become permanent residents of the United States.

Velocity VIII is a California limited partnership organized with
its principal place of business in Pasadena, City of Industry,
California.  VRC is the general partner of Velocity VIII.  VRC is
a California limited liability company headquartered in Pasadena.
REO Group is a California limited liability company headquartered
in Indio, California.  REO Property is a California limited
liability company headquartered in Alhambra, California.  The
Individual Defendants are directors, officers or owners of the
Corporate Defendants.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Margolis, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400
          Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
          E-mail: mmargolis@blankrome.com


VOCERA COMMS: Anticipates Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on August 1, 2013,
a purported securities class action entitled Michael Brado v.
Vocera Communications Inc., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against
the Company and certain of its officers, its board of directors, a
former director and the underwriters for the Company's initial
public offering. A second purported securities class action,
entitled Duncan v. Vocera Communications Inc., et al., was filed
on August 21, 2013, also in the Northern District of California,
against the same parties. On September 27, 2013, the Court ordered
the matters related.

The suits purport to allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly misleading statements in
the registration statement for the Company's initial public
offering and in subsequent communications regarding its business
and financial results. The suits are purportedly brought on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 28, 2012
and May 3, 2013, and seek compensatory damages, rescission, fees
and costs, as well as equitable and injunctive or other relief.

The plaintiffs' motion for consolidation of the actions and for
appointment of lead plaintiff has been granted, and the Company
anticipates that the plaintiffs will file an amended consolidated
complaint.  No responses to the current complaints are due at this
time.

Vocera Communications is a provider of secure, integrated,
intelligent communication solutions, focused on empowering mobile
workers in healthcare, hospitality, energy, and other mission-
critical mobile work environments, in the United States and
internationally.  The majority of the Company's business is
currently generated from sales of its solutions in the healthcare
market, but the Company is actively engaged in other markets.
Vocera helps its healthcare customers improve patient safety and
satisfaction, and increase hospital efficiency and productivity
through its Communication and Care Experience solutions. These
have been installed in more than 1,200 healthcare and non-
healthcare organizations worldwide.


WALTER KIDDE: Recalls Smoke and Combination Smoke/CO Alarms
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Inc., of Mebane, N.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1.2 million in the United States and
about 112,000 in Canada Kidde hard-wired smoke and combination
smoke/carbon monoxide (CO) alarms.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The alarms could fail to alert consumers of a fire or a CO
incident following a power outage.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Kidde residential smoke alarm model i12010S
with manufacture dates between Dec. 18, 2013 and May 13, 2014,
combination smoke/CO alarm il2010SCO with manufacture dates
between Dec. 30, 2013 and May 13, 2014, and combination smoke/CO
alarm model KN-COSM-IBA with manufacture date between Oct. 22,
2013 and May 13, 2014.  They are hard-wired into a home's electric
power.  The il2010S and il2010SCO come with sealed 10 year
batteries inside.  The KN-COSM-IBA model has a compartment on the
front for installation of replaceable AA backup batteries.  The
alarms are white, round and measure about 5 to 6 inches in
diameter.  Kidde is engraved on the front of the alarm. Kidde, the
model number and manufacture dates are printed on a label on the
back of the alarm.  "Always On" is also engraved on the front of
alarms with sealed 10-year batteries.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Q8s8dD

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at CED,
City Electric Supply, HD Supply, Home Depot, Menards Inc. and
other retailers, electrical distributors and online at Amazon,
HomeDepot and shopkidde.com from Jan. 2014 through July 2014 for
between $30 and $50.

Consumers should immediately contact Kidde for a free replacement
smoke or combination smoke/CO alarm.  Consumers should keep using
the recalled alarms until they install replacement alarms.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: 15% of Notice Recipients Join Class
-------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on March 15, 2012,
a former mortgage loan originator employed by Wintrust Mortgage
Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its subsidiary,
Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair Labor Standards
Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA Litigation"). The suit
asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company violated the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and challenges the manner in which Wintrust
Mortgage Company classified its loan originators and compensated
them for their work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as
a class.

On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential
class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily
informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class
and setting a deadline for same.

Approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the class prior
to the opt-in deadline of January 22, 2014.

However, the Company anticipates that about half of these new
class members will ultimately be excluded from the class.

Wintrust is a financial holding company that provides traditional
community banking services, primarily in the Chicago metropolitan
area and southeastern Wisconsin, and operates other financing
businesses on a national basis and Canada through several non-bank
subsidiaries. Additionally, Wintrust offers a full array of wealth
management services primarily to customers in the Chicago
metropolitan area and southeastern Wisconsin.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Snowmobiles Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., of Cypress, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,520 Yamaha snowmobiles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Fuel hose joint can leak during operation, posing a fire hazard.

There have been four reports of fuel leakage.  No injuries
reported.

The recall involves model year 2014 SR10R (SRViper), SR10RXS
(SRViper RTX SE), SR10L (SRViper LTX), SR10LS (SRViper LTX SE) and
SR10XS (SRViper XTX) snowmobiles and model year 2015 SR10LS
(SRViper LTX SE) snowmobiles.  They were sold in a variety of red,
black, blue and white color combinations.  The VIN number is
stamped on the tunnel near the right side footrest.  The letter E
in the 10th position of the VIN number indicates that the unit was
made in the 2014 model year, and a letter F in the 10th position
indicates that the unit was made in the 2015 model year.  The
model number can be found on the lower left and right cowling just
below the word "YAMAHA".

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/YHzoac

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Yamaha snowmobile dealers nationwide from Oct. 2013 through
Aug. 2014 for about $12,000 to $14,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowmobiles
and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair.
Yamaha is contacting its customers directly.


* Fair Labor Standards Act Class & Collective Actions on the Rise
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Prince, Esq., writing for HR.BLR.com, reports that recent
years have seen an increase in the number of class and collective
actions filed under the federal and state wage and hour laws.  An
action to recover relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
can be brought in any federal or state court of competent
jurisdiction, by any one or more employees.  An action can also be
brought by an individual, or by a group, on behalf of other
employees who are "similarly situated."  Collective actions under
the FLSA, often appended with class actions for state law claims,
have received much attention in this growing litigation.

Why collective actions?

The increasing use of collective actions may be a result of many
factors including:

     -- Near-automatic double damages for successful plaintiffs
and attorney's fees

     -- Uncertainty on the part of employers about proper
classification of employees as exempt under the overtime
exemptions

     -- Workers and their advocates becoming more informed as to
their rights to private enforcement of FLSA claims

     -- Competitive forces in an economy where increasing
production and lowering costs is of paramount concern for
employers.

Process of an FLSA collective action

In a collective action under the FLSA, a named plaintiff sues on
behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated.  No
employee may be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he
gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such
consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.

This is very different from a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3), in which the consent of class members is not required;
instead they have a right to be notified of the class action and
to opt out of it and seek their own remedies.  Under the FLSA, on
the other hand, if an individual has not given written consent to
join the suit, or if the individual has given consent but not
filed the consent with the court, that individual cannot be a
party.

Conversely, a similarly situated plaintiff who decides not to join
a pending collective action is not bound by the outcome of that
case -- he or she retains her own claim, and can sue you later,
individually, or even bring a separate collective action against
you, rounding up similarly situated employees who failed to join
up previously.

The fact that a collective action has been filed does not toll the
limitation periods for potential plaintiffs.  Rather, the statute
of limitations for each opt-in plaintiff's FLSA claim continues to
run until an individual files his/her signed statement with the
court.

Two-tier approach to determine if similarly situated

In determining if the named plaintiff is similarly situated to
putative members of a collective action, the majority of courts
use a two-step approach.  Under this approach, two levels of
review are utilized, depending on the procedural stage of the
case.

The first tier, which typically occurs very early in the
litigation, before any discovery has taken place, is known as the
notice-stage determination and typically results in conditional
certification of a representative class.  At the notice stage,
courts typically require nothing more than substantial allegations
that the putative class members were together the victims of a
single decision, policy, or plan infected by discrimination.

To establish that employees are similarly situated, a plaintiff
must show that they are similarly situated with respect to their
job requirements and with regard to their pay provisions.  The
positions need not be identical, but similar.

The second tier involves a more strict level of scrutiny and
typically follows a defendant's motion for decertification at or
near the close of discovery.  In this phase of the inquiry, the
court reviews several factors, including:

     -- Disparate factual and employment settings of the
individual plaintiffs;

     -- The various defenses available to defendant which appear
to be individual to each plaintiff; and

     -- Fairness and procedural questions.

At either the first or second stage, a plaintiff bears the burden
of establishing that he and the group he wishes to represent are
similarly situated.

Cases involving FLSA collective actions and Rule 23 class actions

Under the FLSA, plaintiffs can proceed under the Section 216(b)
opt in collective action procedure, but only state law claims
allow for opt out class actions under FRCP 23.  Combining a FLSA
collective action and state-law class action claims in one
proceeding has been labeled a hybrid wage and hour action.  Some
courts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed with a hybrid or opt
in/opt out approach under both FLSA's Section 216(b) for opt in
notice and FRCP 23 for class notice as to state law claims (on an
opt out basis).

If an employer believes that it may have wage and hour issues, it
should contact an attorney experienced in wage and hour
investigations as soon as possible.  An attorney can provide
details about the employer's rights and responsibilities from the
outset.  Resolving problems sooner rather than later will limit
your possible damages should you determine you owe back overtime
pay.


                              *********

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  * * *