CAR_Public/140922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 188

                             Headlines


AARON'S INC: "Kunstmann" Parties Reached Agreement in Principle
AARON'S INC: "Jewell" Case in Discovery Through October
AARON'S INC: Response in "Antoine" Suit Due in August
AARON'S INC: Appeal Pending in "Korrow" Class Suit
AARON'S INC: Plaintiff in "Byrd" Suit Seeks Appellate Review

AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Class Action Pending
AARON'S INC: Stay of Lomi Price Action Has Expired
AARON'S INC: Filed Motion to Stay "Peterson" Action
ACXIOM CORPORATION: $3.7 Million Settlement Reached in Class Suit
ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: Faces Stockholder Class Actions

AMB MEDICAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Hourly and OT Wages
AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: PwC to Pay $10.5MM to Settle CDS Claims
AMERICAN TRAVEL: Faces Suit Over Exclusive Travel Memberships
APPLE INC: Class Action Suit Over iPhone 3G Given Another Shot
ARIAD PHARMA: Oral Arguments Heard on Bids to Dismiss Class Suit

AVNET INC: Files Proof of Claim in LCD Class Action Settlement
BANKHEAD HOTELS: Sued for Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
BENARES INDIAN: Faces "Ramirez" Class Suit in S.D. New York
BIOLASE INC: Lead Plaintiff Files Consolidated Complaint
CABLE NEWS: Transferred "Perry" Suit From Illinois to Georgia

CCI INVESTMENTS: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Advertisements
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Medical Benefits Suit Proceeding in Trial Court
COMMUNITY BANK: Bank Facing 2 Class Actions in Pennsylvania
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
COMPUWARE CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim

CONCORD SERVICING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CVS HEALTH: Ala. Supreme Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
ENERGIZER PERSONAL: Recalls Certain AC/DC Power Adapters
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces Class Action Over Steep Late Fees
FIRST CITIZENS: Providence, RI Filed Second Complaint Over Merger

FIRST MERCHANTS: Plaintiff Has Not Initiated Arbitration
FLORIDA BEAUTY: Removed "Martinez" Suit to Florida District Court
FOREVER 21: Sued Over Collection of Customer Personal Information
GYRODYNE COMPANY: Defending Against Cashstream Fund Class Action
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Court Entered Stipulated Protective Order

HERBALIFE INT'L: Nears "Pyramid Scheme" Class Action Settlement
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Heparin Sodium Due to Particulate Matter
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
INVESTORS TITLE: Dismissed From Class Action in July 2014
LEVEL 3: Provides Updates on Right-of-Way Litigation

LOUIE'S BACKYARD: Removed "Goetz" Suit to Florida District Court
LOWER MERION SD: No Bias Against Black Kids, 3rd Cir. Says
LTD FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MARS CHOCOLATE: Recalls TWIX Bites 7oz. Stand Up Pouch
MCDONALD'S USA: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
MEARS TRANSPORTATION: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Says
MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
MINISOFT INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Discovery Ongoing, No Trial Date in "Fournier"

MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settlement in Securities Action Has Initial OK
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Says False Advertising Suits Have "No Merit"
MTR GAMING: Faces Class Actions Over Eldorado Resorts Merger
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players at Risk of Neurocognitive Problems
NATIONAL WESTERN: Settlement in Deferred Annuities Case Now Final

NEIMAN MARCUS: Removed "Rubenstein" Class Suit to C.D. California
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss SEPTA Case
PACKAGING CORPORATION: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement Held
PDC ENERGY: Proposes Settlement to Resolve Class Action
PELLA CORP: "Palacios" Suit Consolidated in Designer Windows MDL

PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Lipitor Class Action in Antitrust MDL
PHARMACY CREATIONS: Recalls 4 Product Lots After Test Results
PLUM ORGANICS: Recalls Little Cremes Organic Rice Milk Snacks
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT: "Rodgers" Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Drivers Want Minimum and OT Wages

PROVIDENT CAPITAL: Receiver to Pursue Former Directors
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Recalls Private Label Jalapeno Bagels
RAYMOND JAMES: Fund Shareholders Enter Into Arbitration
RAYMOND JAMES: Muni Bond Buyers' Suit Set for Trial This Month
SASKATCHEWAN: Sued Over Alleged Abuse at Schools for Disabled

SOTHEBY'S: Appeal in "Graham" Class Action Still Pending
SOTHEBY'S: Third Point to Dismiss Class Action
SOTHEBY'S: Opposes Attorneys' Fees Bid in St. Louis Case
SOTHEBY'S: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in LMERS Case Denied
SOUTH STATE: Approval Hearing of Savannah Case Settlement Held

SOUTH STATE: Settlement in FFHI Shareholder Class Action Approved
SOUTH STATE: Settlement in Rational Strategies Suit Approved
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss "Perry" Action
STRATEGIC SCREENING: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
SUNSHINE CLEANING: Removed "Otero" Class Suit to S.D. Florida

TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Roma Tomatoes Due to Potential Salmonella
TOMELDON CO: Sued by EEOC for Terminating Pregnant Employees
TULLIA'S: Recalls Sauce Due to Possible Health Risk
UBS AG: Has Closed and Converted Secret Bank Accounts, Suit Says
VCA INC: Obtained Partial Summary Judgment in "Duran" Action

VCA INC: Faces "Bradsbery" and "Brakensiek" Class Action
VCA INC: October Hearing on "Lopez" Suit Summary Judgment Bid
VCA INC: Faces "Graham" Class Action in N.D. California
WALGREENS CO: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages and Damages
WASHINGTON, DC: Settles Civil Forfeiture Class Action for $855,000


                            *********


AARON'S INC: "Kunstmann" Parties Reached Agreement in Principle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., engaged in a
successful mediation of this case and reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter for an immaterial amount, Aaron's,
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.

In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the United
States District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case No.:
2:08-CV-01969-KOB-JEO) on October 22, 2008, plaintiffs alleged
that the Company improperly classified store general managers as
exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"). The case was conditionally certified as an FLSA
collective action on January 25, 2010. Plaintiffs sought to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages. In July
2014, the parties engaged in a successful mediation of this case
and reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for an
immaterial amount, subject to execution of definitive
documentation.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: "Jewell" Case in Discovery Through October
-------------------------------------------------------
The parties in Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. are engaging in
discovery, which is expected to continue through October 2014,
Aaron's, 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.

The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division on October 27, 2011 and was transferred on
February 23, 2012 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Civil No.:1:12-CV-00563-AT).
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employees
who worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violated
the FLSA when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees'
time for meal breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did not
take their meal breaks. Plaintiff claims he and other employees
actually worked through meal breaks or were interrupted during the
course of their meal breaks and asked to perform work. As a result
of the automatic deduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company
failed to account for all of his working hours when it calculated
overtime, and consequently underpaid him. Plaintiffs seek to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all
similarly situated employees nationwide for the applicable time
period.

On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditional
certification of a class consisting of all hourly store employees
from June 28, 2009 to the present. The class size is approximately
1,788 opt-in plaintiffs, which is less than seven percent of the
potential class members.

The parties are engaging in discovery.  Discovery is expected to
continue through October 2014, and the parties have scheduled a
resumption of a previous mediation for August 2014.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Response in "Antoine" Suit Due in August
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron's Inc. expected to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint Daniel Antoine v. Aaron's, Inc., in late August 2014,
Aaron's, 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.

In Daniel Antoine v. Aaron's, Inc., filed in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, on July 3, 2014, plaintiff
alleges that the Company violated his rights and the rights of
putative class members under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by
refusing to hire plaintiff and other applicants based upon pre-
employment background check reports without first sending such
background reports and a pre-adverse action notice to the
applicants. The Company expects to answer or otherwise respond to
this complaint in late August 2014.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Appeal Pending in "Korrow" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
An appel in the case Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., is
pending in district court, Aaron's 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.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division
on October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in
damages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's
lease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint
seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts
issued in New Jersey, and also claim that there are multiple
violations per contract.

The Company removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil
Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated seeks equitable relief, statutory
and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees. Discovery on this matter is closed. On July 31, 2013, the
Court certified a class comprising all persons who entered into a
rent-to-own contract with the Company in New Jersey from March 16,
2006 through March 31, 2011.

In August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's request
for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The
Company has filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all
newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or
damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the
Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by
the Magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, but an appeal of that
ruling is pending with the District Court.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Plaintiff in "Byrd" Suit Seeks Appellate Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc.,
Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees
and Designerware, LLC, is seeking appellate review of district
court rulings before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Aaron's,
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.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,
Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,
filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),
plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently owned
and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way")
knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer
Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide
class.  Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a
software program called "PC Rental Agent."

Although the District Court dismissed the Company from the
original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain procedural
motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserts the claims
under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a request
for injunction, and named additional independently owned and
operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the
third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that
complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to
dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's
response was filed in August 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Judge accepted the
recommendations on pending motions. The Court dismissed all claims
against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The
Court also dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and
abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants. Finally, the
Judge recommended denial of the Company's motion to dismiss the
violation of ECPA claims. In addition, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

Plaintiff has requested immediate appellate review of these
rulings by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court
would have to determine that the issue is appropriate for
consideration before the District Court proceeds on the remaining
merits of the case, and then to evaluate the merits of the ruling
itself. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive
relief.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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 Michael Winslow and
Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John
Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on
March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its
independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection
with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking
certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are
represented by the same counsel as in the above described Byrd
litigation.

In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter to federal
Court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this
litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike
certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently
stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike
certain allegations remain pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Stay of Lomi Price Action Has Expired
--------------------------------------------------
Although the stay of the case, Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW
Freedom Corporation, has technically expired, neither the court
nor the parties are currently pursuing action on this matter,
Aaron's 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.

In Lomi Price v. Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed
on February 27, 2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia
(Case No. 13-EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims
against the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee, NW Freedom Corporation, for invasion of
privacy/intrusion on seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and
infliction of emotional distress.  Each of these claims arises out
of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software.  The plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages of not less than
$250,000.

On April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative
defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to
stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to
strike certain allegations in the complaint. The court stayed the
proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case.

Although the stay has technically expired, neither the court nor
the parties are currently pursuing action on this matter.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Filed Motion to Stay "Peterson" Action
---------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, 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 Michael Peterson v.
Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19,
2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, several plaintiffs allege that they leased computers for
use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that the Company
and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the
privacy of plaintiff's legal clients in violation of the ECPA and
the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen
Way's use of a software program called PC Rental Agent. The
plaintiffs claim that information and data obtained by defendants
through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client privileged. The
Company has filed a motion to stay this proceeding pending the
outcome of the Byrd litigation.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


ACXIOM CORPORATION: $3.7 Million Settlement Reached in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom 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 a putative class action
is pending against the Company, AISS (which was sold to another
company in fiscal 2012), and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., a
Colorado corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Acxiom (now
known as Acxiom Identity Solutions, LLC), in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  This action
seeks to certify nationwide classes of persons who requested a
consumer file from any Acxiom entity from 2007 forward; who were
the subject of an Acxiom report sold to a third party that
contained information not obtained directly from a governmental
entity and who did not receive a timely copy of the report; who
were the subject of an Acxiom report and about whom Acxiom
adjudicated the hire/no hire decision on behalf of the employer;
who, from 2010 forward, disputed an Acxiom report and Acxiom did
not complete the investigation within 30 days; or who, from 2007
forward,  were the subject of an Acxiom report for which no
permissible purpose existed. The complaint alleges various
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The parties have
reached a tentative settlement agreement and the Company has
accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of the probable loss
associated with this matter.  The Company believes the chances of
additional loss are remote.


ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS: Faces Stockholder Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Alliant Techsystems 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 purported stockholder
class action and derivative complaint was filed on May 5, 2014, in
the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia by Michael Blank,
who claims to be a stockholder of Orbital Sciences Corporation,
alleging, among other things, that the directors of Orbital
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transaction
between Orbital and ATK, and alleging that ATK aided and abetted
such breaches of fiduciary duty. A similar purported class action
was filed on May 9, 2014, by Gregory Ericksen in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Plaintiffs in Virginia and Delaware seek, among other relief, to
enjoin the Transaction (or, in the Delaware action, to rescind it
in the event it is consummated).

ATK believes the allegations and claims asserted in the complaints
in the Virginia and Delaware actions to be without merit and
intends to defend those actions vigorously. As a result of the
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has
been made in the financial statements with respect to this
contingent liability.

Alliant Techsystems Inc. ("the Company" or "ATK") is an aerospace,
defense, and commercial products company and supplier of products
to the U.S. Government, allied nations, and prime contractors. ATK
is also a major supplier of ammunition, rifles and shotguns, and
related accessories to commercial customers and law enforcement
agencies. ATK is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia and has
operating locations throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and
internationally.


AMB MEDICAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Hourly and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philipa Quito v. AMB Medical Services, P.C. (a/k/a DocCare), and
Alan Bigman, Case No. 1:14-cv-05392-ILG-JMA (E.D.N.Y.,
September 15, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid hourly wages and
overtime wages on behalf of those who worked as a medical
assistant for the Defendants.

AMB Medical P.C., also known as DocCare, is a New York corporation
doing business in Queens County, New York.  DocCare, is a multi-
specialty medical practice with office locations in Ridgewood,
Queens, and Hauppauge, Long Island.  Alan Bigman is the Chief
Executive Officer of DocCare and is a practicing medical doctor,
based in Ridgewood, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


AMERICAN INT'L GROUP: PwC to Pay $10.5MM to Settle CDS Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, Jocelyn Allison, Ed Beeson and Kat Greene, writing
for Law360, report that PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP will pay $10.5
million to settle claims in a consolidated securities class action
targeting American International Group Inc. for allegedly
misinterpreting the value of credit default swaps and costing
investors billions, after AIG shelled out $960 million, according
to documents filed in New York federal court on Sept. 12.

The investors, led by the state of Michigan, say that counsel for
PwC on Aug. 1 accepted a mediator's proposal to settle and release
all claims asserted against it in return for a cash payment of
$10.5 million.  The plaintiffs' claims against PwC were premised
on false and misleading statements and omissions in AIG's 2005 and
2006 financial statement and footnotes, according to court
documents.

Following the $960 million settlement with insurer AIG, which was
reached on July 15, the lead plaintiff and PwC agreed to mediation
before former district Judge Layn R. Phillips of the claims
brought on behalf of the class.

"Judge Phillips conducted a mediation session in New York City on
July 30, 2014, at which no agreement was reached," counsel for the
parties wrote in a stipulation and agreement of settlement filed
on Sept. 12.  "However, on August 1, 2014, counsel for PwC and
Lead Counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, accepted a
mediator's proposal from Judge Phillips to settle and release all
claims asserted in the Action against PwC in return for a cash
payment of $10,500,000 for the benefit of the Class."

The $10.5 million settlement resolves claims against PwC that were
dismissed in an April 2013 order, but that could have been
appealed by investors.  The agreement with the professional
services company and the much larger deal with AIG came after the
Supreme Court's landmark Halliburton decision, in which the high
court refused to overturn the fraud-on-the-market presumption of
reliance that is the backbone of securities litigation.

On Aug. 4, the insurance giant disclosed it had reached a mediated
settlement with plaintiffs to end a series of class action claims
over its allegedly false and misleading statements about its vast
exposure to the subprime mortgage market through its CDS business.
To end their claims, AIG said in a financial filing that it would
fork over $960 million in cash.

AIG disclosed it would pay the sum in its quarterly report last
month.  The deal ends the 2008 consolidated litigation, but not
nine individual suits filed between 2011 and 2013 that are still
pending, the company revealed in its SEC filing.

Those lawsuits assert "substantially similar" claims to the 2008
consolidated litigation, AIG said.

The investors, led by a quartet of Michigan pension systems,
alleged the company concealed the true value of its credit-default
swaps -- essentially an insurance policy against potential losses
in an investment that itself became a securitized asset that could
be bought and sold -- for two years, and that the company's stock
plummeted in 2008 when the CDS' value was revealed to be lower
than anticipated.

The lead plaintiff is represented by Leonard Barrack --
lbarrack@barrack.com -- Jeffrey W. Golan -- jgolan@barrack.com --
Robert A. Hoffman -- rhoffman@barrack.com -- Lisa M. Port, Julie
B. Palley, A. Arnold Gershon and Michael A. Toomey --
mtoomey@barrack.com -- of Barrack Rodos & Bacine and by E. Powell
Miller, Marc L. Newman and Jaysen E. Blake --
jblake@millerlawpc.com -- of The Miller Law Firm PC.

AIG and the defendants are represented by Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP; Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP; Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP; Mayer Brown LLP; Gibson Dunn; Latham & Watkins
LLP; Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP; Willkie Farr & Gallagher
LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; and
Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.

The case is In Re: American International Group Inc. 2008
Securities Litigation, case number 1:08-cv-04772, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


AMERICAN TRAVEL: Faces Suit Over Exclusive Travel Memberships
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Brown and Terry Brown, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. American Travel Planners, Andrew
Wunder, Bethany Wunder, Christian Wunder, Stephen Wunder, and Does
1-20, Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-07150 (C.D. Cal., September 12,
2014) is premised on the Defendants' alleged unfair and fraudulent
business practices of selling exclusive memberships to ATP on the
false premises that the membership will provide exclusive access
to various travel packages, and most importantly, that the
membership will provide guaranteed discounts and savings on
various travel packages provide by third-party vendors working
with ATP.

ATP is a Limited Liability Company registered and doing business
in the state of Colorado.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
managers, officers or agents of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Class Action Suit Over iPhone 3G Given Another Shot
--------------------------------------------------------------
An old battle over whether an outdated iPhone failed to perform as
advertised will continue with the latest revival by a California
appeals court, reports William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

Ingrid Van Zant is the lead plaintiff in the 2010 class action
over the iPhone 3G, which she says failed to live up to promises
that it would be "twice as fast" as its predecessor.  Besides
false advertising, Van Zant's action included warranty, negligence
and unjust enrichment claims.

AT&T had been the iPhone's exclusive carrier at that time, but the
class action expressly excluded that company from the mix, blaming
the device's poor performance on either a processor that was not
up to snuff or software flaws in the phone's algorithms.

The result, Van Zant claimed, was slow performance regardless of
AT&T's 3G network capabilities.

In the meantime a federal multidistrict litigation against both
Apple and AT&T Mobility claimed the companies "acted in concert"
to sell more phones than the network could handle.  Changes in
federal pre-emption law and the U.S. Supreme Court's gutting of
California unconscionability rules in favor of federal arbitration
guidelines in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion led the plaintiffs
to dump AT&T as a defendant -- only to have the federal court
order them to add the carrier again in a fifth amended complaint.

Apple seized on that in Van Zant's action and moved to dismiss the
suit on grounds that AT&T was a necessary party to this action as
well.  The trial court agreed in light of the recent precedent and
the similarity between Van Zant's lawsuit and the multidistrict
litigation, which had been ordered to arbitration.

Van Zant filed an amended complaint in 2010 but did not add AT&T.
Her lawyer told the court he could not ethically add the carrier
even if ordered, given his belief that AT&T was not the cause of
Van Zant's problems.

Given this and the fact that the multidistrict case had stalled in
arbitration and likely been dropped, the trial court completely
dismissed Van Zant's action in 2013.  The judge in the case said
that the "claims against Apple are necessarily intertwined with
the issue of 3G connectivity, thereby necessarily implicating the
operator of the only 3G network on which the iPhone 3G operated."

But the Golden State's civil code does not require AT&T's
inclusion in Van Zant's litigation for it to continue against
Apple, the Sixth Appellate District found on September 12,
regardless of whether or not the carrier has an interest in the
action.

AT&T's inclusion in Van Zant's complaint will not affect the
company's ability to defend itself in similar proceedings, the
three-judge panel held.

"Nothing in the record evidences any pending or ongoing
arbitration proceedings against AT&T Mobility concerning the
iPhone 3G," Judge Miguel Marquez wrote for the court.  "Indeed, it
appears such proceedings are unlikely. The federal district court
granted the MDL defendants' motion to compel arbitration on an
individual, non-class basis such that MDL plaintiffs would be
required to enter individually into costly arbitration with Apple
and AT&T. Given the limited recovery of damages available on an
individual basis, the pursuit of arbitration is hardly worthwhile.
Counsel for Apple speculated that an individual plaintiff might
wish to complete arbitration for the right to appeal from the
district court's orders, but counsel was unaware of any plaintiff
actually doing so."

Marquez continued: "Second, Apple does not claim, and cannot
claim, that findings or rulings in this action would have any
preclusive effect on AT&T.  In the absence of any preclusive
effect, the mere possibility of unfavorable evidentiary findings
is insufficient to require joinder."

And neither Apple nor the trial court showed how leaving AT&T out
of the case might open Apple up to "double, multiple or otherwise
inconsistent" obligations in the future, the panel stated.

"Even if arbitration proceedings were pending or ongoing in the
MDL action, inconsistent rulings are not the same as inconsistent
obligations," Marquez wrote.  "Because the putative class in this
action excludes 'all individuals pursuing arbitration against
AT&T,' Apple can fully comply with the state court's orders while
simultaneously complying with any obligations arising out of any
MDL-related proceedings.  Accordingly, the possibility of
arbitration presents no risk of inconsistent obligations for
Apple."

The trial court also "went beyond the four corners" of Van Zant's
complaint -- relying on findings in the multidistrict federal
action -- to find that the issues of 3G network connectivity and
speed are intertwined enough to require adding AT&T, the panel
said.

"In this case, Van Zant alleges that the iPhone 3G's performance
deficiencies have nothing to do with AT&T's network," the 19-page
ruling states.  "She claims that the problem is inherent in the
software and hardware of the iPhone 3G itself.  Accepting this
claim as true -- as we must -- the issue of the iPhone 3G's
performance is not 'necessarily intertwined' with the functioning
of AT&T's network.  Van Zant's claim is analogous to a claim that
her television gets poor reception solely because its cable input
port is defective; this claim would not require her to sue her
cable provider as a necessary party.  At its core, Van Zant's
complaint is no different from any other claim for defectively
manufactured technology."

The trial court must overrule Apple's objection and deny the
company's motion to dismiss, the appeals court concluded.

The Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by:

          Jonathan Weissglass, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          ALSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: cpitts@altshulerberzon.com
                  jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Michael G. Stewart, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          James G. Stranch, III, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          227 Second Avenue North
          Nashville, TN  37201
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: mikes@BSJFirm.com
                  gerards@BSJFirm.com
                  jims@BSJFirm.com

The Defendant-Respondent is represented by:

          Miriam A. Vogel, Esq.
          Penelope Preovolos, Esq.
          Suzanna Brickman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: mvogel@mofo.com
                  ppreovolos@mofo.com
                  sbrickman@mofo.com

The appellate case is Ingrid Van Zant v. Apple Inc., Case No.
H039354, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth
Appellate District.  The trial court case is Ingrid Van Zant v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 1-10-CV-177571, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara.


ARIAD PHARMA: Oral Arguments Heard on Bids to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD 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 on October 10,
2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and December 6, 2013,
purported shareholder class actions, styled Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch v. ARIAD
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters'
Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, and Nabil
Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, respectively,
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the Company and
certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits allege that
the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions
of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for Iclusig in
its public disclosures during the period from December 12, 2011
through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order
of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class
period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30,
2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's
officers, directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the
Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common
stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10,
2014, the District Court heard oral argument but has not yet ruled
on the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

ARIAD is a global oncology company whose vision is to transform
the lives of cancer patients with breakthrough medicines.


AVNET INC: Files Proof of Claim in LCD Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avnet 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 filed a proof of
claim in the settlement of a class action proceeding that sought
damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays. A
settlement was reached in the proceedings and in the first quarter
of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the
proceeding issued an order approving the distribution of
settlement funds to the class claimants and the Company received
an award payment of $19.1 million. In the third quarter of fiscal
2014, the federal district judge overseeing the proceedings issued
an order approving a final distribution of funds and the Company
received a final award payment of $3.0 million. The total award of
$22.1 million is classified within "gain on legal settlement,
bargain purchase and other" in the consolidated statements of
operations.

Avnet, Inc., incorporated in New York in 1955, together with its
consolidated subsidiaries (the "Company" or "Avnet"), is a global
value-added distributor of electronic components, enterprise
computer and storage products, IT solutions and services and
embedded subsystems.


BANKHEAD HOTELS: Sued for Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Greathouse, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Bankhead Hotels, L.L.C. and Mahendra Patel, Case No.
7:14-cv-00093 (W.D. Tex., September 12, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants pay their hotel employees the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those worked in excess of 40 in a week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bankhead Hotels, L.L.C., is a Texas corporation that employed Mr.
Greathouse and the other Class Members.  Mahendra Patel owns and
operates Bankhead Hotels, L.L.C.  The Company operates at least
five hotels in Midland and Odessa, including Midland Extended
Stay, where Mr. Greathouse worked as a hotel clerk.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


BENARES INDIAN: Faces "Ramirez" Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Lopez Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Benares Indian Restaurant LLC (d/b/a
Benares)(f/k/a Baluchi's), SJG Foods LLC, (d/b/a Benares)(f/k/a
Baluchi's), Rakesh Aggarwal, Inder Singh, Gurvinder Sahni, Ranjit
Singh and Sukhdev Singh, Case No. 1:14-cv-07423 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 12, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.


BIOLASE INC: Lead Plaintiff Files Consolidated Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
BIOLASE, 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 purported class
action lawsuit entitled Brady Adams v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case
No. 13-CV-1300 JST (FFMx) was filed on August 23, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against BIOLASE and its Chief Executive Officer,
Federico Pignatelli, and its Chief Financial Officer, Frederick D.
Furry. On August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit
entitled Ralph Divizio v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-
1317 DMG (MRWx) was filed in the same court against BIOLASE,
Messrs. Pignatelli and Furry, and its President and Chief
Operating Officer, Alexander K. Arrow. Each of the lawsuits
alleges violations of the federal securities laws and asserts
causes of action against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, on December 10, 2013, the court entered an order
consolidating the lawsuits, appointing a lead plaintiff and
approving the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.

On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint against BIOLASE and Messrs. Pignatelli, Furry, and
Arrow, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and
asserting causes of action against the defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 19, 2013, BIOLASE's Board received a letter from
attorneys for purported shareholder David T. Long, demanding that
the Board investigate, institute litigation, and take measures to
redress and prevent alleged wrongdoing concerning the
dissemination of certain allegedly false and misleading public
disclosures made by the Company between January 2013 and August
2013.

The Company paid $250,000 for legal costs expected to be incurred
in connection with these matters during the year ended December
31, 2013. The Company believes that the claims contained in the
lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims.

BIOLASE, Inc. incorporated in Delaware in 1987, is a biomedical
device company that develops, manufactures, and markets lasers in
dentistry and medicine and also markets and distributes two-
dimensional ("2-D") and three-dimensional ("3-D") dental imaging
equipment, including cone beam digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-
oral scanners, and in-office, chair-side milling machines and 3-D
printers. The Company's products are focused on technologies that
advance the practice of dentistry and medicine and offer benefits
and value to healthcare professionals and their patients.


CABLE NEWS: Transferred "Perry" Suit From Illinois to Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Perry v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01194, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02926-
SCJ to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Ryan Perry brings the Class Action against the CNN
Defendants to put an end to their alleged unlawful practice of
disclosing their users' sensitive information, and to obtain
redress for that conduct.

Cable News Network, Inc. is one of the largest producers of
television news programming in the world.  Perhaps best known for
its eponymously named television channel, the Cable News Network
also offers content to consumers via other media, including on
mobile devices, like iPhones, through its proprietary mobile
software application.  CNN Interactive Group, Inc. is Cable News
Network's subsidiary responsible for the development and
distribution of the CNN App.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Courtney C. Booth, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  nlarry@edelson.com
                  cbooth@edelson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clinton Earl Cameron, Esq.
          Danielle Nicole Twait, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, #3000
          Chicago, IL 60603-5111
          Telephone: (312) 759-1920
          Facsimile: (312) 759-1939
          E-mail: clinton.cameron@troutmansanders.com
                  danielle.twait@troutmansanders.com

               - and -

          Marc J. Zwillinger, Esq.
          ZWILLGEN PLLC
          1900 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 296-3585
          E-mail: marc@zwillgen.com

               - and -

          Robert F. Huff, Jr., Esq.
          ZWILLGEN PLLC
          300 N. LaSalle St., 49th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 685-2278
          E-mail: bart@zwillgen.com


CCI INVESTMENTS: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan L. Laub, DDS, Inc. individually, and as the representatives
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. CCI Investments, LLC
d/b/a CareWorks Consultants, Inc., and John Does 1-10, Case No.
2:14-cv-01539-ALM-NMK (S.D. Ohio, September 12, 2014) involves
CareWorks' alleged practice of sending unsolicited advertisements
via facsimile, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

CCI Investments, Inc. is an Ohio corporation, and its principal
place of business is located in Dublin, Ohio.  The Doe Defendants
are not presently known but may be identified through discovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
          36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
          E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
                  mstubbs@mrjlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Medical Benefits Suit Proceeding in Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union
("USWA"), the USWA's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually
and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's
rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in
November 2009, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class
filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company,
Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John
Does with respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled
Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century
Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have
been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent us from implementing any modifications to
the retiree medical benefits while these lawsuits are pending,
which was dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed upon appeal.

CAWV has filed a motion for summary judgment of these actions. The
case in chief is currently proceeding in the trial court, subject
to the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment, Century
Aluminum 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.


COMMUNITY BANK: Bank Facing 2 Class Actions in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank System, 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 Community Bank N.A.
was named a defendant in an action commenced October 30, 2013
which is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The complaint, as amended,
alleges that the notices provided by the Bank in connection with
the repossession of plaintiff's automobile failed to comply with
certain requirements of the Pennsylvania and New York Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC).  Plaintiff seeks to pursue the action as a
class action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seeks to
recover statutory damages under the UCC.

The Bank was named in a separate action filed on May 29, 2014
containing similar allegations in which the plaintiff also seeks
to pursue the action as a class action. The related complaint is
also pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

The Bank contests the allegations in the actions that the
repossession notices were deficient and intends to assert various
legal defenses and oppose class certification in both cases.  In
response, the Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of
contract and set-off against plaintiffs, individually and as
representatives of the putative class, in both actions and has
filed a motion to dismiss the initial action. Plaintiffs have
further filed various motions which are pending before the Court.


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Sept. 12 disclosed
that on September 10, 2014, it filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of its client Town of Davie Police Pension Plan
against CommVault Systems, Inc., and certain of its senior
executives.  The action, which is captioned Town of Davie Police
Pension Plan v. CommVault Systems, Inc., et al., No. 3:14-cv-05628
(D.N.J.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and
78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired CommVault common stock during the period from May 15,
2013 and April 24, 2014, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, CommVault and
certain of its senior executives violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and statements during investor conference calls.
CommVault is an independent provider of data and information
management software, which is sold under the Simpana brand name.
CommVault derives about half of its annual revenue from licensing
its software applications, with the remaining half of the
Company's revenue coming in the form of services and maintenance
revenue.

As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants misrepresented CommVault's
revenue growth by booking and subsequently recognizing deferred
software licensing revenue to mask slowing revenue growth, while
at the same time denying that revenue growth was in fact
decelerating.  The Company also misrepresented that it was
increasing investments in its sales force and hiring more sales
employees in order to continue to drive growth through fiscal year
2014 and beyond.  As a result of these misrepresentations,
CommVault stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.

On January 29, 2014, the Company disclosed that it had only met
its revenue growth target because of the timely recognition of
deferred software licensing revenue, effectively depleting
CommVault's deferred licensing revenue.  The Company also
disclosed that it had missed its sales force hiring target for the
quarter.  Then, on April 25, 2014, the Company announced that its
fiscal fourth quarter profit dropped significantly as a result of
significant deceleration in revenue growth.  Despite the Company's
prior representations that deferred revenue was a poor indicator
of growth, without the ability to recognize deferred software
licensing revenue, the Company could no longer conceal the revenue
growth deceleration it had been experiencing.  The Company also
revealed that its financial results were negatively impacted, in
large part, by inadequate staffing of sales and marketing
personnel.  These disclosures caused a material decline in the
price of CommVault stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
September 12, 2014.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff is November 11, 2014.  Any
member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

Davie Police is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys
with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, and Illinois.  If
you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Founded in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.


COMPUWARE CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Directors are selling
Compuware too cheaply through an unfair process to Thoma Bravo,
for $10.25 a share or $2.5 billion, shareholders claim in Wayne
County Court.


CONCORD SERVICING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Zeigen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Concord Servicing Corporation d/b/a Blackwell Recovery,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Case No. 3:14-
cv-02197-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal., September 15, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert R. Limberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT R. LIMBERG
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 344-8667
          Facsimile: (619) 344-8657
          E-mail: alimberg@limberglawoffice.com

               - and -

          L. Paul Mankin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF L. PAUL MANKIN IV
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (800) 219-3577
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


CVS HEALTH: Ala. Supreme Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verna Gates and David Adams, writing for Reuters, report that the
Alabama Supreme Court on Sept. 12 allowed a class action lawsuit
seeking more than $3 billion to go forward against CVS Health Corp
and several insurance companies, affirming the ruling by a lower
court which said the plaintiffs could be certified as a class.

The case dates back to a 1999 class action settlement for $56
million over alleged accounting fraud at MedPartners, a physician
and pharmacy benefits management corporation.

CVS Health could not be reached for comment.

MedPartners became Caremark and merged in 2007 with CVS, now known
as CVS Health.  In 2003, Alabama attorneys filed a lawsuit on
behalf of a stockholder John Lauriello, alleging fraudulent
insurance information was given in court by MedPartners and its
insurers.

The plaintiffs allege that MedPartners and its insurers hid the
fact that unlimited insurance coverage was available at the time
of the initial class action in 1998, enabling them to settle for
$56 million, instead of $3 billion in stockholder losses,
according to court documents.

The 48-page opinion from the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a
Jefferson County Circuit Judge's 2013 order certifying the case as
a class action.


ENERGIZER PERSONAL: Recalls Certain AC/DC Power Adapters
--------------------------------------------------------
Energizer Personal Care - Playtex Manufacturing, Inc. announced
that, out of an abundance of caution, it is adding an adapter
production lot to its voluntary nationwide recall of certain AC/DC
power adapters that are used with the Playtex Nurser Deluxe Double
Electric Breast Pump.  No injuries have been reported to date.

In March 2014, Playtex announced a voluntary recall of certain
AC/DC power adapters because the casing on some adapters may come
loose and separate, resulting in a potential for electric shock.
After further evaluation and investigation, Playtex has added one
adapter production lot to the recall.

The affected adapters were manufactured from November 2012 through
July 2013.  The products can be identified by product serial
number (P12315 -XXXX through P13205-XXXX).  Alternatively, the
product can be identified by adapter production code (1238 through
1324).  The adapters were sold along with the Playtex Nurser
Deluxe Double Electric Breast Pump.  They were not sold
separately.

The Playtex Nurser Deluxe Double Electric Breast Pump was sold at
nationwide, specialty and online retailers.  Playtex is notifying
its retail partners to return any remaining products with affected
AC/DC adapters.

Consumers who have purchased an affected product should contact
Playtex for a replacement by calling 1-888-207-1429 from 8 a.m. to
6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online.  Consumers should
immediately discontinue use of the adapter if it shows signs of
separating.

The recall is specific to certain AC/DC adapters sold with the
Playtex Nurser Deluxe Double Electric Breast Pump, and is being
conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Faces Class Action Over Steep Late Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Hepler, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal,
reports that steep late fees might seem par for the course when it
comes to renting in a tight housing market, like Silicon Valley
during a tech boom.

But three East Palo Alto renters are seeking late fee policy
changes and damages from landlord Equity Residential in a class
action lawsuit filed Sept. 3 in state superior court.  The claim
raises two primary allegations: "Excessive" and "unlawful" flat
late fees of $50 per month or more, as well as monthly "auto late
fees" charged, without necessarily notifying tenants, if they had
accrued a balance of $100 or more.

The plaintiffs -- all long-term tenants in the city that has
pushed to keep costs of living much lower than the rest of Silicon
Valley -- are represented by Community Legal Services East Palo
Alto and Oakland law firm Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho.

"Our belief is that these practices that were first identified by
CLSEPA with the clients they were meeting with are happening
throughout California," said Megan Ryan, an attorney with
Goldstein, Borgen, Dadarian & Ho who is representing the
plaintiffs.  "In the current climate where housing is so
unaffordable for so many people in the Bay Area, when we see big
landlords making it even more unaffordable through unlawful means
that makes us very concerned."

Equity Residential, which declined to answer any questions about
its late fee policies or comment on the lawsuit, owns 25,000 units
throughout California.  A certified class action suit could
include thousands of current and former tenants affected by late
fee policies.

Though late fees are an industry-wide norm, the claim filed
against Equity Residential notes that flat late fees for the
Chicago-based company's portfolio of 1,800 East Palo Alto
rent-controlled units can pencil out to more than 1,000 percent
interest.

"Most landlords in the state charge flat late fees," said Jason
Tarricone, directing attorney of housing and predatory lending at
Community Legal Services.  "It's actually unlawful."

One major issue raised in the new suit is whether the company's
late fees are proportional to financial damages incurred by
landlords due to tenants' late rent payments.  Chicago-based
Equity Residential is a real estate investment trust with a market
cap of $23 billion.

More broadly, the lawsuit comes amid ongoing controversy over East
Palo Alto's rent stabilization program that was revamped in 2011.

Former City Manager Magda Gonzales resigned this spring after a
tenant advocacy group released public emails that they said
demonstrated a "cozy" relationship with executives from Equity
Residential.  The company, meanwhile has expressed concerns about
unfair enforcement of the local rent law.  Also worth noting:
Equity Residential Chairman Sam Zell has personally invested in
anti-rent control California political campaigns.

Fees on top of fees

Beyond concerns about high flat fees for tenants, Mr. Tarricone
said he has noticed a recurring practice of "stacked" late fees.
Under such a system, he said renters are charged $50 monthly fees,
which are not mentioned in their leases, if they have a balance of
past-due rent or other fees in excess of $100 or $150.

"Tenants sometimes get notices with their balances and it includes
all these late fees," Mr. Tarricone said.  "They think they've
been paying their rent every month."

Ms. Javanni Munguia-Brown, a plaintiff in the new class action
suit against Equity Residential, has encountered both flat late
fees and recurring "auto late fees" stacked on top, according to
the complaint.

Ms. Munguia-Brown paid her $1,409.75 rent on Feb. 9, 2012, four
days past the grace period allowed in the lease on her rent-
controlled East Palo Alto apartment.  The long-time childcare
worker at nearby Stanford University, incurred a flat $50 late fee
penciling out to an annual interest rate of 324 percent.

This past spring, after a few more isolated late rent payments,
Ms. Munguia-Brown paid her rent for June early, on May 30.  But
she was short a $2.02 city administrative fee and had a previous
balance on her account, triggering a $50 "auto late fee."  She
ultimately paid "hundreds" of dollars in fees, according to the
lawsuit.

While even several hundred dollars is a relatively small amount in
the context of the region's average $2,000-plus rents, East Palo
Alto is an economic anomaly in affluent Silicon Valley.

The city has had a rent control program on the books since it was
incorporated in the 1980s. As of 2012, the Peninsula city had a
median household income of $47,950, just over half of the $87,751
median income throughout San Mateo County.

Spiking Silicon Valley housing costs have reignited familiar
concerns about displacement from the Bay Area to less expensive
areas of the state, with some area workers commuting as far as
Sacramento area or the Central Valley.  Those concerns are even
more pronounced in more affordable-than-average East Palo Alto and
surrounding lower-income areas of Redwood City and Menlo Park,
Mr. Tarricone said.

"A lot of the working class people in East Palo Alto know if they
get evicted there's not a lot of places they can live," he said.
"We really are seeing an exodus."


FIRST CITIZENS: Providence, RI Filed Second Complaint Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Citizens BancShares, 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
announcement of the proposed merger with First Citizens
Bancorporation, Inc., BancShares received a shareholder demand
from the City of Providence, Rhode Island, pursuant to Section 220
of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") for access to
certain books and records of BancShares. The purported basis for
the demand was to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty
and other wrongdoing by BancShares' officers and directors in
connection with the merger.

The City of Providence concurrently filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against BancShares and
its directors challenging Article X, Section 8 of BancShares'
Bylaws, which requires certain litigation to be brought only in
North Carolina courts to the fullest extent permitted by law. The
Delaware complaint alleges that the Bylaw violates the DGCL and
that adoption of the Bylaw constituted a breach of fiduciary duty
by BancShares' directors. While not directly challenging the
merger, the complaint contains allegations referencing the merger
and seeks a declaration that any stockholder action regarding the
merger may be brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On July 31, 2014, the City of Providence filed a second litigation
in Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger and seeking
to enjoin the BancShares stockholder vote. Any potential claim for
damages is not reasonably calculable at this time. BancShares and
its directors have moved to dismiss both complaints.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Plaintiff Has Not Initiated Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
First Merchants 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 First Merchants was
named on April 16, 2013, in a class action lawsuit in Delaware
County Circuit Court challenging First Merchants' checking account
practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The
plaintiff sought damages and other relief, including restitution
and injunction relief. First Merchants removed the case from state
court to federal district court. First Merchants filed a motion to
stay the federal action pending arbitration. The motion was
granted by the court and the action was stayed.

"To the extent the plaintiff desires to further pursue the matter,
the plaintiff must do so through a separate arbitration
proceeding. To date, there has been no effort by the plaintiff to
initiate arbitration proceedings and no further activity in the
court proceedings. If arbitration is pursued, First Merchants
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the
plaintiff," the Company said.

First Merchants is a financial holding company headquartered in
Muncie, Indiana and was organized in September 1982. The
Corporation's Common Stock is traded on NASDAQ's Global Select
Market System under the symbol FRME. The Corporation has one full-
service bank charter, First Merchants Bank, National Association
(the "Bank"), which opened for business in Muncie, Indiana, in
March 1893. The Bank also operates Lafayette Bank and Trust,
Commerce National Bank and First Merchants Trust Company as
divisions of First Merchants Bank, National Association.  The Bank
includes ninety-seven banking locations in twenty-six Indiana, two
Illinois and two Ohio counties. In addition to its branch network,
the Corporation's delivery channels include ATMs, check cards,
remote deposit capture, interactive voice response systems and
internet technology. The Corporation's business activities are
currently limited to one significant business segment, which is
community banking.


FLORIDA BEAUTY: Removed "Martinez" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Martinez v. Florida Beauty Flora,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CACE-18811, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-23383-JAL to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter T. Mavrick, Esq.
          Victor M. Velarde, Esq.
          MAVRICK LAW FIRM
          1620 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
          Telephone: (954) 564-2246
          E-mail: peter@mavricklaw.com
                  vvelarde@mavricklaw.com


FOREVER 21: Sued Over Collection of Customer Personal Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Los Angeles resident is suing Forever 21 Retail Inc. for
collecting personal identification information of customers to its
California stores.

In July, Tamar Estanboulian went to Forever 21 Retail's store in
Los Angeles, Calif., and proceeded to select merchandise that she
intended to purchase from the store, according to a complaint
filed Sept. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  After selecting the merchandise, Ms. Estanboulian
proceeded to the cashiers' section of the defendant's store to pay
for the selected merchandise through the use of a credit card,
according to the suit.

"Defendant's employee saw that plaintiff had selected products
that plaintiff wished to purchase from defendant and, as part of
defendant's uniform policy, then requested personal identification
information in the form of an e-mail address . . . without
informing [her] of the consequences if [she] did not provide
defendant's employee with [her] requested personal identification
information," the complaint states.

Ms. Estanboulian claims she provided her email address because she
believed she was required to do so to complete the transaction and
receive her receipt.

"Defendant's employee informed plaintiff of the amount due to
defendant for the merchandise plaintiff had selected," the
complaint states.  "Plaintiff then utilized a credit card to
complete the transaction."

Ms. Estanboulian claims at this point in the transaction, the
defendant had her credit card number, name and email address
recorded in its databases.

The defendant's employee made no attempt to erase, strikeout,
eliminate or otherwise delete her personal identification
information from the electronic cash register after her credit
card number was recorded, according to the suit.

"Plaintiff observed that other patrons were asked to provide their
personal email addresses at the point of sale," the complaint
states.  "Defendant's employee and plaintiff completed the
transaction and plaintiff left defendant's store with her
purchased merchandise."

Ms. Estanboulian claims shortly thereafter, she received an email
from the defendant promoting the store's merchandise.  Forever 21
violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by collecting
Ms. Estanboulian's personal identification information, according
to the suit.

"The proposed class is defined as: all persons in California from
whom defendant requested and recorded personal identification
information in conjunction with a credit card transaction

Ms. Estanboulian claims the members of the class are so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable.  While the exact
number of class members is unknown to the plaintiff at this time,
such information can be ascertained through appropriate discovery,
from records maintained by the defendant and its agents, according
to the suit.

Abbas Kazerounian, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, said that the
complaint speaks for itself where the facts are concerned.

Ms. Estanboulian is seeking class certification, statutory damages
of $1,000 to her and all class members pursuant to the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and pre-judgment interest.  She is
being represented by Kazerounian and Matthew M. Loker of Kazerouni
Law Group APC; and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart.

The case is assigned to District Judge Percy Anderson.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 2:14-cv-06971


GYRODYNE COMPANY: Defending Against Cashstream Fund Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gyrodyne Company of 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 a
purported stockholder of the Company filed on July 3, 2014, a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
its board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and against
Gyrodyne Special Distribution LLC ("GSD"), and Gyrodyne, LLC
(collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"), captioned
Cashstream Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014 (the
"Action").

The plaintiff in the Action alleges that (i) the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted
the breach of those duties in connection with the Merger and (ii)
the Company and the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose material information in the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiff in the Action seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger,
requiring corrective disclosures in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and
interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs.

On July 17, 2014, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause
submitted by the plaintiff setting a return date of August 5, 2014
on plaintiff's motion for an order (a) preliminarily enjoining
consummation of the Merger, (b) granting expedited discovery and
(c) scheduling a hearing for continuation of a preliminary
injunction after completion of expedited discovery. Plaintiffs'
motion has been fully briefed and submitted to the Court for
resolution. The Defendants believe the lawsuit is without merit.

Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. is a self-managed and self-
administered real estate investment trust ("REIT") formed under
the laws of the State of New York. The Company manages its
business as one operating segment. Prior to December 30, 2013, the
Company's primary business was the investment in and the
acquisition, ownership and management of a geographically diverse
portfolio of medical office, industrial and development of
industrial and residential properties located in the Northeast
region of the United States.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Court Entered Stipulated Protective Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, 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 Federal
Securities Class Action Complaint was filed on December 21, 2012,
against the Company and three of its Officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., et al.,
was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17, 2012. The
Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of the
Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been
filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On March 14, 2013, the Court appointed Hemispherx Investor Group
as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4. Pursuant to
the Court's March 29, 2013 scheduling order, Lead Plaintiff filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and in its Amended Complaint, dropped
Thomas K. Equels and Charles T. Bernhardt as Defendants and added
David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne Pambianchi, an outside
consultant, as Defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges an
expanded Class Period of March 14, 2012 to December 20, 2012,
which period encompasses statements made in the Company's 2011
Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2012, and at the FDA Advisory
Committee Meeting on December 20, 2012.

On July 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to
Defendants' motion to dismiss is September 17, 2013, and
Defendants filed their reply brief on October 17, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on
February, 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter
alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for the completion of all fact
discovery.

On February 25, 2014, defendants filed an answer and affirmative
defenses to the Amended Compliant. Also on February 25, 2014, the
Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which will govern all
confidential documents produced in discovery.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Nears "Pyramid Scheme" Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that
Herbalife is close to reaching a settlement with five former
distributors who claim the controversial nutritional products
company is running a pyramid scheme that has victimized thousands.

Lawyers for both sides told California federal judge Beverly
O'Connell last month that "the parties have tentatively agreed on
the principal terms of a settlement," according to court papers.

The parties asked for an extension of several pretrial filing
dates, saying they needed more time to finalize a deal.

The suit was brought by California resident Dana Bostick in April
2013, less than four months after hedge fund activist Bill Ackman
called Herbalife a fraud and placed a $1 billion short bet on the
shares.

In June, four new plaintiffs joined the proposed class-action suit
against the Los Angeles company.

Both sides declined to comment on the talks or the amount of the
potential settlement under discussion.

Herbalife, which is under investigation by the Federal Trade
Commission and other regulators, has denied the allegations and
earlier said the suit had no merit. But it now appears willing to
accept a class-wide settlement to put a cap on its liability,
sources told The Post.

The class would cover about 1.5 million people -- those who joined
in the US after 2009 to the present, excluding those who signed up
last year after Herbalife instituted an arbitration clause in its
distributor contracts.

Hispanic activists and critics who accuse the multilevel marketing
company of preying on minorities and poor people expressed concern
that the settlement would not be big enough to compensate the
alleged victims.  The settlement "needs to be large enough to
cover the full amount of losses of the potential class members,"
said Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United
Latin American Citizens.

Three of the former distributors suing Herbalife said they each
lost more than $10,000.  For each member of the class to get even
$1,000, the settlement would have to be $1.5 billion.

Similar settlements involving controversial multilevel marketing
companies have not been that generous.

Boies Schiller, the law firm representing Herbalife, was on the
other side in a recent suit against Amway, which was settled in
2012 for about $20 million in cash for 3 million potential
claimants -- that is, less than $7 per person.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Heparin Sodium Due to Particulate Matter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., announced it is initiating a voluntary nationwide
user-level recall of one lot of Heparin Sodium, 1,000 USP Heparin
Units/500 mL (2 USP Heparin Units/mL), in 0.9% Sodium Chloride
Injection, 500 mL, NDC 0409-7620-03 Lot 41-046-JT with expiration
date of 01NOV 2015.  This action is due to one confirmed customer
report of particulate in a single unit.  The foreign particle was
confirmed by Hospira as human hair, sealed between the tube and
the film at the round seal of the unused Administrative Port on
the non-print side of the container.

In the unlikely event that the particulate breaks and pieces are
able to pass through the intravenous catheter, injected
particulate material may result in local inflammation, phlebitis,
and/or low-level allergic response.  Capillaries which may be as
small as the size of a red blood cell, approximately seven microns
in diameter, may become occluded.  Patients with preexisting
condition of trauma or other medical condition that adversely
affects the microvascular blood supply are at an increased risk.

Heparin Sodium Injection in 0.9% Sodium Chloride at a
concentration of 2 units/mL is indicated as an anticoagulant to
maintain catheter patency.  To date, Hospira has not received
reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this
lot.  The root cause has not been determined and is under
investigation.

The affected lot was distributed nationwide between June 2014 and
August 2014 to wholesalers/distributors, hospitals and pharmacies.

Anyone with an existing inventory should stop use and distribution
and quarantine the product immediately.  In addition, customers
should inform potential users of this product in their
organizations of this notification.  Hospira will be notifying its
direct distributors/customers via a recall letter and will arrange
for impacted product to be returned to Stericycle.  For additional
assistance, call Stericycle at 1-855-201-4337 between the hours of
8am to 5pm ET, Monday through Friday.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Impax Laboratories, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 14-cv-03673, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Impax securities between May 20, 2013 and July 28, 2014,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Impax securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 13, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Impax is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
development, manufacture and marketing of bio-equivalent
pharmaceutical products, referred to as generic products, in
addition to the development of proprietary branded products.  The
Company operates in two segments, referred to as the "Global
Pharmaceuticals Division" and the "Impax Pharmaceuticals
Division".

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
quality control at the Company's Taiwan production facility.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to maintain
proper quality control and manufacturing practices at its Taiwan
facility in violation of current Good Manufacturing Practices
("cGMP"); (2) the manufacturing deficiencies at the Taiwan
facility could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
ability to successfully launch its new drug, RYTARY; (3) the
manufacturing deficiencies at the Taiwan facility jeopardized the
Company's ability to manufacture, sell, and distribute generic
pharmaceutical products; and (4) based upon the above, Defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company and its outlook, including statements about its ability to
launch RYTARY.

On July 29, 2014, Impax announced that the FDA completed an
inspection of the Company's Taiwan facility.  The FDA's inspection
covered two areas.  First, it covered a Pre-Approval Inspection
for RYTARY, given the critical importance of the Taiwan facility
to the manufacturing processes of the Company's drug candidate.
Moreover, it included a general good manufacturing practices
inspection.  Based on its inspection, the FDA issued a Form 483 (a
form used by the FDA to document and communicate deficiencies in a
company's manufacturing quality-control system), stating that it
had found "ten inspectional observations," or deficiencies, at the
Taiwan facility.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $4.27, or over 15.23%, to
close at $23.76 on July 29, 2014.

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


INVESTORS TITLE: Dismissed From Class Action in July 2014
---------------------------------------------------------
Investors Title 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 Investors Title
Insurance Company and several other title insurance underwriters
were named in a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
entitled Bushman et al. v. R. Kevin Clinton, Treasurer of the
State of Michigan, et al. (2:14-cv-10011-GCS-MAR). Michigan law
requires the seller of property to pay a transfer tax based on the
total value of the property at the time of transfer. Exemptions
from the payment of this tax exist if (1) the property is the
seller's principal residence, and (2) the state equalized value
("SEV") of the property at the time of purchase is greater than
the SEV at the time of sale. The plaintiffs in this case
contended, notwithstanding this exemption, they were assessed,
charged and paid the full transfer tax when they sold their
property. The Company was dismissed with prejudice from this
proceeding during July 2014. The Company will not report further
on this matter unless there are any material developments.

Investors Title Company is a holding company that engages
primarily in issuing title insurance through two subsidiaries,
Investors Title Insurance Company ("ITIC") and National Investors
Title Insurance Company ("NITIC").


LEVEL 3: Provides Updates on Right-of-Way Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Level 3 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 the Company is
party to a number of purported class action lawsuits involving its
right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-
ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In general, the Company
obtained the rights to construct its networks from railroads,
utilities, and others, and has installed its networks along the
rights-of-way so granted.

Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the
owners of lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass,
and that the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the
Company the right to construct and maintain its network did not
have the legal authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on
theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and
property, as well as punitive damages.

The Company has also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories. The Company has defeated motions for class
certification in a number of these actions but expects that,
absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in the pending
lawsuits will continue to seek certification of statewide or
multi-state classes.

The only lawsuit in which a class was certified against the
Company, absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et.
al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two
state class action filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed
pursuant to a settlement reached in November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions.

The settlements, affecting current and former landowners, have
received final federal court approval in multiple states and the
parties are engaged in the claims process for those states,
including payments of claims. The settlement has also been
presented to federal courts in additional states and approval is
pending.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
approved for all affected landowners.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company" or
"Level 3") is an international facilities-based provider (that is,
a provider that owns or leases a substantial portion of the plant,
property and equipment necessary to provide its services) of a
broad range of integrated communications services. The Company
created its communications network by constructing its own assets
and through a combination of purchasing other companies and
purchasing or leasing facilities from others. The Company designed
its network to provide communications services that employ and
take advantage of rapidly improving underlying optical, Internet
Protocol, computing and storage technologies.


LOUIE'S BACKYARD: Removed "Goetz" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Goetz v. Louie's Backyard, Inc., et al., Case
No. 14-CA-000689-K, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
10074-JLK to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Thomas Goetz alleges that he was unlawfully denied the
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carol C. Lumpkin, Esq.
          Hayden P. O'Byrne, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Southeast Financial Center, Suite 3900
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-3300
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7095
          E-mail: carol.lumpkin@klgates.com
                  hayden.obyrne@klgates.com


LOWER MERION SD: No Bias Against Black Kids, 3rd Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Inspiring a vigorous dissent from the panel's lone black judge,
the 3rd Circuit found that Pennsylvania school administrators did
not intentionally discriminate in placing a disproportionate
number of black children in special-education classes, reports
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service.

From 2005 to 2010, black students made up 7 to 8 percent of the
total student body in Lower Merion School District (LMSD), a
district covering northwest suburbs of Philadelphia, but 12 to 14
percent of special-education students.

During these years, there were no black students in college prep
or advanced placement classes.

Amber Blunt led several Merion students in a class action that
accused the school district of systematically discriminating
against black children, incorrectly classifying more black
students than white students as learning disabled, and thereby
limiting black students' opportunities for a top education by
placing them in remedial classes.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) and Concerned Black Parents of Mainline also joined in the
suit.

A federal judge ruled for the school district in 2011, however,
finding no indication that the district's actions stemmed from
intentional discrimination rather than errors in student
evaluations.

A divided three-judge panel with the 3rd Circuit affirmed in a
124-page opinion on September 12, 2014, but Chief Judge Theodore
McKee, the panel's one black judge, wrote separately to express
his "strong disagreement" with parts of the majority's opinion.

"The allegations here are not pretty," McKee, an appointee of
President Bill Clinton, wrote.  "No one likes to think that a
school district, especially one with an outstanding educational
reputation, allows race to be a factor in assigning African-
American students to special education classes.  However, there is
sufficient evidence on this record to establish that a trial is
warranted to determine whether this school district did exactly
that."

In this case, Lower Merion put one black student in special-
education classes though the boy measured "average" in all skill
assessments, McKee noted.  Another was classified as learning
disabled because she was deficient in language arts -- even though
that subject is not a disability category.

In addition, the school allegedly destroyed testing records that
determined a student's placement in special-education classes,
sometimes before their parents could even review them.

"In response to this glaring evidence in support of plaintiffs'
claims that they were placed into special education classes
because of their race rather than their relative academic need,
the majority simply makes a blanket assertion that 'if the same
evaluation procedures are used for all students or [sic] their
race there is simply no discrimination,'" McKee wrote.  "This
statement is deeply problematic for two reasons.  First, it
assumes that the procedures themselves cannot be discriminatory.
Second, and most importantly here, it assumes the 'procedures'
comprise the whole of the evaluation, thus ignoring the discretion
and subjectivity afforded the examiner who is applying the
procedures and interpreting the results of the evaluations."

The majority meanwhile emphasized that "the whole record" does not
present an issue of material fact concerning LMSD's intent."

"There is no evidence showing that the district intended to
discriminate against plaintiffs, nor that LMSD had knowledge of
any intentional discrimination on the part of its employees,
including deliberate indifference to discriminatory practices
against African American students as a form of intentional
discrimination," Judge Morton Greenberg wrote for the majority.

All students were individually evaluated using the same criteria,
the court found.

"After all, if the same evaluation procedures are used for all
students regardless of their race there simply is no
discrimination," Greenberg, an appointee of President Ronald
Reagan wrote.

McKee found singled this statement out as especially problematic
in his dissent.  He also pointed out that the school district
could have come forward with evidence of white students mistakenly
placed in special-education classes, but did not -- or could not
-- do so.

The majority countered that Lower Merion assessed and satisfied
each individual student's educational needs "through a thorough
and individualized IEP process."

The record "contains no evidence that the educators and
administrators responsible for placing students intended to
discriminate against them because of their race," Greenberg said.

Judge Thomas Ambro, another Clinton appointee, concurred
separately.

Appellants Linda Johnson, Lydia Johnson, Carol Durrell, Chantae
Hall, S.H., Christine Dudley, W.W., Eric Allston, June Coleman,
R.C., Lynda Muse, and Q.G. are represented by:

          Patrick Castaneda, Esq.
          Matthew A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Carl W. Hittinger, Esq.
          John D. Huh, Esq.
          Lesli C. Esposito, Esq.
          Nathan P. Heller, Esq.
          DLA PIPER
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, Suite 4900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3300
          Facsimile: (215) 656-3301
          E-mail: patrick.castaneda@dlapiper.com
                  matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com
                  john.huh@dlapiper.com
                  lesli.esposito@dlapiper.com
                  nathan.heller@dlapiper.com

Appellants Amber Blunt, Crystal Blunt, Michael Blunt and the
Concerned Black Parents of Mainline Inc. are represented by:

          Jennifer R. Clarke, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Geffen, Esq.
          Sonja D. Kerr, Esq.
          Barbara E. Ransom, Esq.
          PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA
          1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
          United Way Building, 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 627-7100
          Facsimile: (215) 627-3183

               - and -

          Judith A. Gran, Esq.
          REISMAN, CAROLLA & GRAN
          19 Chestnut Street
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 354-0021
          Facsimile: (856) 873-5640
          E-mail: Judith@freemancarolla.com

Appellees Lower Merion School District and Lower Merion School
Board are represented by:

          Jenna B. Berman, Esq.
          Michael D. Kristofco, Esq.
          WISLER PEARLSTINE, LLP
          460 Norristown Road, Suite 110
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (610) 825-8400
          Facsimile: (610) 828-4887
          E-mail: jberman@wispearl.com
                  mkristofco@wispearl.com

Appellee Pennsylvania Department of Education is represented by:

          Amy C. Foerster, Esq.
          SAUL EWING
          Two North Second Street
          Penn National Insurance Tower, 7th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-0000
          E-mail: amy.foerster@bucknell.edu

               - and -

          M. Abbegael Giunta, Esq.
          Howard G. Hopkirk, Esq.
          OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
          Strawberry Square, 15th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17120-0000


LTD FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Weill, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-05342
(E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARS CHOCOLATE: Recalls TWIX Bites 7oz. Stand Up Pouch
------------------------------------------------------
Mars Chocolate North America announced a voluntary recall of its
TWIX Brand Unwrapped Bites 7 oz. Stand Up Pouch with the code
date: 421BA4GA60.

Fewer than 25 cases of the stand-up pouches in this single lot
code may contain product containing peanuts and eggs without
listing them on the ingredient label.  People who have allergies
to peanuts and egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.  No adverse
reactions have been reported to date.

The issue was identified after a consumer notified the company of
peanuts in their TWIX Unwrapped Bites product.

This specific code date was shipped and distributed to the
company's customers' warehouses in Indiana, Texas, Oregon,
Tennessee and Connecticut.  These customers then redistribute
products for retail sale nationwide.

The TWIX Brand Unwrapped Bites product comes in a 7 ounce,
metallized-golden package marked with lot # 421BA4GA60 and with an
expiration date of 03/2015 stamped on the back.

Mars Chocolate will work with retail customers to ensure that the
recalled product is not on store shelves.  In the event that
consumers believe they have purchased this item and have allergy
concerns, they should return this product to the store where they
purchased it for a full refund.


MCDONALD'S USA: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Hornsby, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. McDonald's USA, LLC and JTS Enterprises of Tampa,
LTD, d/b/a Caspers Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02288-JSM-TBM (M.D.
Fla., September 12, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowbrook Insurance 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 in August
and October 2013, two putative class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, Robert Cubbin and Karen Spaun.  The
cases were subsequently consolidated and on April 25, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
naming the same defendants, on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's stock
between February 17, 2009 and February 21, 2014 (the "Class
Period").  The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that during
the purported Class Period, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's reserves and
reported goodwill.

On July 7, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Court has not
yet ruled on the motion.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The
Company has not accrued any amounts for the securities class
actions as the Company does not believe, based upon current
information, that a loss relating to these matters is probable,
and an estimate of a range of potential loss relating to these
matters, cannot reasonably be made.

Meadowbrook Insurance Group is a specialty niche focused
commercial insurance underwriter, which also owns and operates
insurance agencies and an insurance administration services
company.


MEARS TRANSPORTATION: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Brown, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mears Transportation Group, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01504-PGB-DAB (M.D. Fla.,
September 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431-1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
          E-mail: srd@DininLaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luzvimid Nepomuceno, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05719-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., September 12, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net


MINISOFT INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Evans, a married man v. MiniSoft, Inc., an Arizona
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02023-GMS (D. Ariz., September 12,
2014) accuses the Defendant of unlawful failure to pay overtime
wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MiniSoft, Inc., was incorporated in Arizona and has its principal
place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona.  MiniSoft is a global
software company specializing in collection management software
for legal and professional service firms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Discovery Ongoing, No Trial Date in "Fournier"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier filed on October 17, 2012, a
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Riverside, styled Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier v.
Monster Beverage Corporation, against the Company claiming that
the death of their 14 year old daughter (Anais Fournier) was
caused by her consumption of two 24-ounce Monster Energy(R) drinks
over the course of two days in December 2011. The plaintiffs
allege strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranties and wrongful death. The
plaintiffs claim general damages in excess of $25,000,000 and
punitive damages. The Company filed a demurrer and a motion to
strike the plaintiffs' complaint on November 19, 2012, and the
plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2012.
The Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on
June 7, 2013. The parties attended a court ordered mediation on
January 23, 2014.

Monster Beverage 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 discovery has commenced
but no trial date has been set. The Company believes that the
plaintiffs' complaint is without merit and plans a vigorous
defense. The Company also believes that any such damages, if
awarded, would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in other complaints
containing similar allegations to those presented in the Fournier
lawsuit, each of which the Company believes is also without merit
and would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations in the event any
damages were awarded.

Monster Beverage Corporation is a holding company and conducts no
operating business except through consolidated subsidiaries.  It
develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage
category beverages.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Settlement in Securities Action Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement in a securities litigation against Monster
Beverage Corporation, the 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.

On September 11, 2008, a federal securities class action complaint
styled Cunha v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "District Court"). On September 17, 2008, a second
federal securities class action complaint styled Brown v. Hansen
Natural Corp., et al. was also filed in the District Court. After
the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed the
Structural Ironworkers Local Union #1 Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff, a Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Federal
Securities Laws was filed on August 28, 2009 (the "Consolidated
Class Action Complaint").

The Consolidated Class Action Complaint purported to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period November 9, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class
Period"). It named as defendants the Company, Rodney C. Sacks,
Hilton H. Schlosberg, and Thomas J. Kelly. Plaintiff principally
alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants made false
and misleading statements relating to the Company's distribution
coordination agreements with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. ("AB") and its
sales of "Allied" energy drink lines, and engaged in sales of
shares in the Company on the basis of material non-public
information. Plaintiff also alleged that the Company's financial
statements for the second quarter of 2007 did not include certain
promotional expenses. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

The District Court dismissed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, with leave to amend, on July 12, 2010. Plaintiff
thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of Federal Securities Laws on August 27, 2010 (the
"Amended Class Action Complaint"). While similar in many respects
to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Amended Class
Action Complaint dropped certain of the allegations set forth in
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and made certain new
allegations, including that the Company engaged in "channel
stuffing" during the Class Period that rendered false or
misleading the Company's reported sales results and certain other
statements made by the defendants. In addition, it no longer named
Thomas J. Kelly as a defendant.

On September 4, 2012, the District Court dismissed certain of the
claims in the Amended Class Action Complaint, including
plaintiff's allegations relating to promotional expenses, but
denied defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the majority
of plaintiff's claims, including plaintiff's channel stuffing
allegations. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking class certification
on December 6, 2012, which the court denied, without prejudice, on
January 17, 2014.

Following a mediation conducted by an independent mediator, the
Company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on April 16, 2014
that, if approved by the District Court, will resolve the
litigation and result in the action being dismissed with
prejudice.  Preliminary approval hearings with respect to the
proposed settlement were held on June 19, 2014 and July 21, 2014,
and the District Court entered an Order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement on July 29, 2014.

Monster Beverage Corporation is a holding company and conducts no
operating business except through consolidated subsidiaries.  It
develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage
category beverages.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Says False Advertising Suits Have "No Merit"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage 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 the Company has
been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative
class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these
actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled
and advertised Monster Energy(R) brand products that allegedly
were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not
limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as
advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further
allege that the Monster Energy(R) brand products at issue are
unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly
could result in illness, injury or death.

In connection with these product safety allegations, the
plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate
warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently
specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or
adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy
drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain
ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with
other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure,
palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or
that the products themselves are unsafe).

Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for
violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair
competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the
plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive
relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having
no merit.

Monster Beverage Corporation is a holding company and conducts no
operating business except through consolidated subsidiaries.  It
develops, markets, sells and distributes "alternative" beverage
category beverages.


MTR GAMING: Faces Class Actions Over Eldorado Resorts Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
MTR Gaming 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 since the announcement
of the merger with Eldorado Resorts, three putative class action
lawsuits have been filed by purported stockholders of the Company
challenging the Mergers. All three cases were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The first case was filed on September 23, 2013 and is captioned
Harris v. MTR Gaming Group,  Inc., et al., Case No. 8937-VCG (the
"Harris Case"); the second case was filed on September 27, 2013
and is captioned Julian v. MTR Gaming Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 8950-VCG (the "Julian Case"); and the third case was filed on
October 14, 2013 and is captioned Morse v. MTR Gaming, Inc., et
al., Case No. 9001 (the "Morse Case"). All three cases have been
consolidated into In Re: MTR Gaming Group, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation Consol. C.A.No. 8937-VCP.

The consolidated case, which purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of all of the Company's stockholders, excluding
the members of the Company's board of directors, alleges that the
consideration that stockholders will receive in connection with
the MTR merger is inadequate and that the Company's directors and
current President breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders
in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The complaints
contained in the consolidated case allege that MTR, Eldorado,
Eclair Holdings Company, Ridgeline Acquisition Corp., Eclair
Acquisition Company, LLC, Eldorado, Gary Carano, Thomas Reeg and
Robert T. Jones aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the
Company's directors and current President. The consolidated
complaint seeks various forms of relief including injunctive
relief that would, if granted, prevent the Mergers from being
consummated in accordance with the agreed-upon terms.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and
intends to defend the actions.

MTR Gaming Group, Inc. is a hospitality and gaming company that
owns and operates racetrack, gaming and hotel properties in West
Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players at Risk of Neurocognitive Problems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly three in 10 former NFL players will develop at least
moderate neurocognitive problems and qualify for payments under
the proposed $765 million (GBP470 million) concussion settlement,
according to data prepared for ex-players' lawyers and made public
on Sept. 12.

According to theguardian.com, their actuary expects 14% of all
former football players to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease
and another 14% to develop moderate dementia over the next 65
years, according to the data.  There are more than 19,000 former
players still living, meaning nearly 6,000 of them will fall into
those two groups.

Another 31 men will be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease and 24
with Parkinson's disease during their lives, according to the
data.

The actuary estimated that ex-players were at twice the risk for
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and
dementia as the general population between the ages of 20 to 60.
After that, they estimated the ex-players' risk would be closer to
normal.

The Sept. 12 release of the actuarial data is designed to address
some complaints raised so far.  Critics lament that the settlement
plan offers no awards to anyone diagnosed with CTE in the future,
and that the Alzheimer's and dementia awards are cut by 75% for
players who also suffered strokes.

The report was prepared for senior US district judge Anita B
Brody, who is presiding over the class-action lawsuit in
Philadelphia that accuses the NFL of hiding information that
linked concussions to brain injuries.

The NFL also predicted that 28% of all retired players will
qualify for an award, while estimating rates for some illnesses
will be at a far greater rate than the general population and
strike much earlier in life.

The proposed settlement includes $675 million for player awards,
$75 million for baseline assessments, $10 million for research and
$5 million for public notice.  It would not cover current players.

Both sides have insisted that $675 million would be enough to
cover awards for 21,000 former players, given fund earnings
estimated at 4.5% annually.  Judge Brody initially had concerns
the money might run out, while critics complained the NFL's
offering is a pittance given its $10bn in annual revenues.

The league agreed this summer to remove the cap on its
contributions, saying it would pay out more than $675 million if
needed, and pay more over time if needed.  Judge Brody then
granted preliminary approval of the plan and scheduled a fairness
hearing on the proposed settlement for 19 November, when critics
can challenge the parties on their calculations or award scheme.

Lawyers for some players have complained that the negotiations
have been cloaked in secrecy, leaving them unsure of whether their
clients should participate or opt out by next month's deadline.

With an 14 October looming, "we still lack 'an informed
understanding of the dynamics of the settlement discussions and
negotiations'. Indeed, we have zippo understanding," lawyer Thomas
A Demetrio, who represents the family of Dave Duerson, wrote in a
motion on Sept. 11.  Mr. Duerson, the popular Chicago Bears
safety, killed himself in 2011.

The family of former linebacker Junior Seau, who also killed
himself, has announced plans to opt out.  He and Mr. Duerson are
among about 60 former players diagnosed after their deaths with
the brain decay known as chronic traumatic encephalopathy.  Known
as CTE, it can only be diagnosed after death.

The plan would pay up to $5 million for players with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease; $4 million
for deaths involving CTE; $3.5 million for Alzheimer's disease;
and $3 million for moderate dementia and other neurocognitive
problems.

However, only men under 45 who spent at least five years in the
league would get those maximum payouts.  The awards are reduced,
on a sliding scale, if they played fewer years or were diagnosed
at a more advanced age.

The players' data therefore predicts the average payouts, in
today's dollars, to be $2.1 million for ALS, $1.4 million for a
death involving CTE, and $190,000 for Alzheimer's disease or
moderate dementia.  The average ex-player being diagnosed with
moderate dementia is expected to be 77 with four years in the NFL.

About 28% of all retired players are expected to be diagnosed with
a neurocognitive injury that is eligible for compensation under
the plan.  But only 60% of them are expected to seek awards, based
on prior class-action litigation.

The 21,000 class members include 19,400 living men and the estates
of 1,700 others.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Settlement in Deferred Annuities Case Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance 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 has resolved a class action lawsuit pending since June 12,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. The case is titled In Re National Western Life
Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation. The complaint asserted
claims for RICO violations, Financial Elder Abuse, Violation of
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq, Violation of Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code 17500, et seq, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Aiding and
Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Concealment, Cal.
Civ. Code 1710, et seq, Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment and Imposition of Constructive
Trust.

On July 12, 2010 the Court certified a nationwide class of
policyholders under the RICO allegation and a California class
under all of the remaining causes of action except breach of
fiduciary duty. The parties entered into a Settlement and Release
Agreement in August of 2013 ("Settlement") which was finally
approved by the Court on February 11, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the Court issued a redacted final approval
order granting the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement. The Settlement became final and non-appealable on
April 12, 2014.  The Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs' Request
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs were approved by the Court, and the
Company paid the Court-approved amount of attorneys' fees and
costs in April 2014.

The Company also made certain payments to surrendered and
annuitized policyholders in June 2014. In addition, the Company
has agreed to provide bonuses on annuitization for active
policyholders who choose a 10-year or a 20-year certain and life
settlement option.

At December 31, 2013 and March 31, 2014, the Company held reserves
of $6.5 million for the matter which approximated the settlement
amounts described above.

The Company provides life insurance products on a global basis for
the savings and protection needs of policyholders and annuity
contracts for the asset accumulation and retirement needs of
contract holders, both domestically and internationally.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Removed "Rubenstein" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Rubenstein v. The Neiman Marcus
Group LLC, et al., Case No. BC554133, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
07155 to the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin S. Asfour, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-5000
          Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
          E-mail: kevin.asfour@klgates.com


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss SEPTA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") filed
on May 25, 2012, a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank and
certain current and former directors and executive officers
(collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among
other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its
Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the
purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011,
the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results,
including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of
the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the
quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the
proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court
appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.

On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time.

On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or
before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm
and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering
of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August
23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered
oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014.

Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended
complaint was held on April 29, 2014. A decision from the court on
the motions to dismiss is expected sometime in the next few
months, Orrstown Financial 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 Second Scheduling Order stays all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informs the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
will be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

The matter is currently progressing through the legal process. The
Orrstown Defendants believe that the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously against those claims.

Orrstown Financial is a bank holding company (that has elected
status as a financial holding company with the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System (the "FRB")) whose primary activity
consists of supervising its wholly-owned subsidiary, Orrstown Bank
(the "Bank").


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Final Approval Hearing of Settlement Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing on a class action settlement involving
Packaging Corporation of America was scheduled for September 4,
2014, the 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.

During 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard
producers were named as defendants in five purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman
Act. The lawsuits were consolidated in a single complaint under
the caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period of August 2005
to October 2010 (the time of filing of the complaint). The
complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of all
purchasers of containerboard products during such period.

On April 4, 2014, the Company reached an agreement with the
representatives of the class to settle this lawsuit for $17.6
million. These costs were recorded in "Other expense, net" in the
Company's Consolidated Income Statement for the six months ended
June 30, 2014.  On May 6, 2014, the court preliminarily approved
the settlement. Notice of the proposed settlement was mailed to
potential class members and $17.6 million was paid to the
settlement fund escrow account in June 2014. A final approval
hearing was scheduled for September 4, 2014.

The Company also said the six months ended June 30, 2014, includes
$17.6 million of costs for the settlement of the Kleen Products
LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al class action lawsuit.

PCA is the fourth largest producer of containerboard in the United
States and the third largest producer of white papers in North
America, based on production capacity.


PDC ENERGY: Proposes Settlement to Resolve Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy 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 and its
wholly-owned merger subsidiary were served in December 2011 with
an alleged class action on behalf of certain former partnership
unit holders, related to its partnership repurchases completed by
mergers in 2010 and 2011. The action was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California and is titled
Schulein v. Petroleum Development Corp. The complaint primarily
alleges that the disclosures in the proxy statements issued in
connection with the mergers were inadequate, and a state law
breach of fiduciary duty.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the
court. A jury trial originally scheduled for May 2014 has been
rescheduled to begin in September 2014.

"We have held mediation meetings with plaintiffs and have proposed
a settlement to resolve the alleged class action. Our proposed
settlement includes a transfer of interests, primarily net profit
interests which would generate cash in future years, in a certain
number of future wells, plus a lesser value in an up-front cash
payment. The mediation effort is ongoing; but there can be no
assurance that the mediation meetings will continue or will result
in a settlement on the terms we proposed or at all," the Company
said.

"During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, we recorded a litigation
charge of $20.8 million, included in general and administrative
expense in the condensed consolidated statements of operations,
for a total accrued liability of $24.1 million at June 30, 2014,
which is included in other accrued expenses in the condensed
consolidated balance sheet. If the matter proceeds to trial,
plaintiffs have indicated that they will seek damages of
approximately $175 million, plus pre-judgment interest. We
continue to believe we have good defenses to both the asserted
claims and plaintiffs' damage calculations."

PDC Energy, Inc. is a domestic independent exploration and
production company that produces, develops, acquires and explores
for crude oil, natural gas and NGLs with primary operations in the
Wattenberg Field in Colorado, the Utica Shale in southeastern Ohio
and the Marcellus Shale in northern West Virginia.


PELLA CORP: "Palacios" Suit Consolidated in Designer Windows MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Palacios, et al. v. Pella
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01886, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03637-DCN to the proceeding.

The case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: Pella
Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2514.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Pella's Architect Series and Designer
Series aluminum clad windows are defective in that they permit
water to enter behind the windows, resulting in premature wood rot
and deterioration and causing damage to both the windows and other
property, including drywall, window frames, and floor coverings.
More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the windows all
suffer from a defect in the design of the sill extrusion and sill
nailing fin attachment as well as a defect in the design of
allowing a gap between the jamb gasket and the sill gasket.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq.
          Irma L. Netting, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM
          PO Box 904
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
                  irma@lemmonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Val Patrick Exnicios, Esq.
          LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER
          1515 Poydras St., Suite 1400
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 410-9611
          Facsimile: (504) 410-9937
          E-mail: vpexnicios@exnicioslaw.com


PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Lipitor Class Action in Antitrust MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Melissa Lipman and Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360,
report that a New Jersey federal judge on Sept. 12 dismissed an
antitrust suit in multidistrict litigation challenging a
purportedly anti-competitive patent infringement settlement
between Pfizer Inc. and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. over Lipitor,
ruling a proposed class of pharmaceutical wholesalers and
retailers failed to state a claim.

In orders granting Pfizer Inc.'s and Ranbaxy Inc.'s motions to
dismiss with prejudice, U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan said
claims that the settlement stifled competition in the
pharmaceutical industry didn't reasonably estimate the cash value
of the settlement and thus couldn't qualify as plausible.

The suit alleged that a delayed-entry provision in the 2008
settlement agreement resolving patent litigation over Ranbaxy's
generic challenge to Pfizer's cholesterol drug Lipitor effectively
resulted in Pfizer paying Ranbaxy to stay out of the Lipitor
market and in overcharges to pharmaceutical wholesalers and
retailers.

Judge Sheridan held on Sept. 12 that while the putative direct-
purchaser class wasn't required to precisely identify the amount
of the alleged nonmonetary payment, it had to arrive at a figure
"that fits within the ballpark like using the loss of profit
standard" but failed to do so.

"Remember, this is not a car accident where plausible facts are
easily set forth; it is a nonmonetary payment in an antitrust suit
which is at the opposite end of the benchmark scale," the Sept. 12
decision said.  "Guesswork . . . coupled with nonspecific
statements of Pfizer management is insufficient."

The MDL, which was consolidated in New Jersey in 2012, stems from
patent litigation over Lipitor, which faced potential competition
when Ranbaxy sought to market a generic version of the cholesterol
drug, prompting Pfizer to sue its rival.

The conflict between the companies ended in a 2008 settlement
agreement, under which Ranbaxy received no payment but was
accorded permission to launch its generic version of Lipitor
nearly six years prior to the expiration of Pfizer's related
patents, according to Pfizer.

The direct purchasers in the instant suit include Burlington Drug
Co. Inc., Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a SAJ
Distributors, Professional Drug Co., Value Drug Co., Rochester
Drug Cooperative Inc. and American Sales Company LLC.

Roughly a year ago, Judge Sheridan ruled that pursuant to the U.S.
Supreme Court's June 2013 ruling in Federal Trade Commission v.
Actavis Inc., the direct purchasers could amend their complaint to
allege that the deal-in-dispute was a form of a reverse-payment
settlement.

The high court's decision said that reverse payments -- settlement
payments from branded drug companies to generic producers -- could
be subjected to antitrust scrutiny.

However, Judge Sheridan on Sept. 12 said the amended complaint
didn't provide a reliable foundation or methodology to estimate
the monetary value of Pfizer's claim for infringement damages.

Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which is
representing the putative direct-purchaser class, told Law360 on
Sept. 12 that they are considering an appellate review of Judge
Sheridan's Sept. 12 decision.

"While we disagree with the result, the court has issued a
thoughtful opinion that raises important issues," Mr. Sobol said.
"We continue to believe that Pfizer's procurement of a follow-on
patent resulted in lengthy generic delay for generic
atorvastatin."

Pfizer said in a Sept. 12 statement that it is pleased with the
decision.

"Pfizer has always believed that the procurement and enforcement
of its Lipitor patents, and the settlement of litigation relating
thereto, was at all times proper and lawful," the statement said.
"The company will continue to vigorously protect and defend its
intellectual property, which is vital to developing new medicines
like Lipitor that save and enhance patient lives."

The direct-purchaser class is represented by lead counsel Steve W.
Berman, Thomas M. Sobol, Kristen A. Johnson Parker and Gregory T.
Arnold of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Bruce E. Gerstein --
bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- Joseph Opper --
jopper@garwingerstein.com -- and Kimberly M. Hennings --
khennings@garwingerstein.com -- of Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP;
Eric L. Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- David F. Sorensen and Daniel
C. Simons -- dsimons@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC; and
liaison counsel James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein
Brody & Agnello PC; and Peter S. Pearlman -- psp@njlawfirm.com --
of Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP.

Pfizer is represented by Dimitrios T. Drivas --
ddrivas@whitecase.com -- Robert A. Milne -- rmilne@whitecase.com
-- Brendan G. Woodard -- bwoodard@whitecase.com -- and Raj
Gandesha of White & Case LLP; and Liza M. Walsh --
lwalsh@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley LLP.

Ranbaxy is represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz, Joseph Serino Jr. --
joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- Karen N. Walker --
kwalker@kirkland.com -- and Jonathan D. Janow --
jonathan.janow@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP; and
Michael E. Patunas -- mpatunas@litedepalma.com -- and Mayra V.
Tarantino -- mtarantino@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC.

The case is In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, case number 3:12-
cv-02389, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


PHARMACY CREATIONS: Recalls 4 Product Lots After Test Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacy Creations has voluntarily recalled four product lots
following testing results conducted by Front Range, Inc., its
former independent testing laboratory, that indicated that the
product lots may have the potential of not being sterile.
Pharmacy Creations no longer uses Front Range, Inc. for testing of
any kind for any of its formulations.

Although the company cannot be certain that the product subject to
the recall is contaminated, to the extent it was, there are
serious health implications for the use of contaminated product in
all patients which could include development of a life-threatening
infection.  To date there have been no reported adverse events
associated with the use of the product.

The prescription preparations listed were distributed in Florida,
New Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico between March 4, 2014 and
June 18, 2014 and were mailed directly to patients and physicians.

The company is voluntarily recalling the products as a
precautionary measure, out of an abundance of caution and in order
to ensure the public health and the safety of the company's
patients.

Pharmacy Creations has notified all affected customers and has
arranged for the return of the recalled product lots.  Physicians
and patients that have products which are being recalled should
stop use and return to place of purchase.

Customers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Pharmacy Creations by mail at 540 Route 10 West Randolph, NJ 07869
or call (858) 366-8389, Monday through Friday, 8 A.M. to 5 P.M,
Eastern Standard Time.  Consumers should contact their physician
or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking or using these drug products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


PLUM ORGANICS: Recalls Little Cremes Organic Rice Milk Snacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plum Organics is voluntarily recalling its Little Cremes organic
rice milk snacks line after it was found that the product has the
potential to cause choking.  The small, bite-sized snack pieces
are made to soften in a child's mouth in less than 20 seconds
making them easy to swallow.  Some pieces were found to take
significantly longer than this, creating a potential choking
hazard, particularly for babies and very young children.

The recall affects all Little Cremes varieties:

Super Purples (acai, blackberry & purple carrot),
Super Reds (pomegranate, beet & berry), and
Super Greens (kale, apple & sweet potato).

These products should not be consumed, and should be disposed of
immediately.  The recalled products were shipped nationwide to
grocery, mass, specialty and online retailers in the United
States.

Plum is taking the necessary steps to remove all of these products
from the marketplace after it received complaints from consumers,
including reports of injuries.  No other Plum Organics products
are affected by this recall.

Plum Organics asks that people who have bought this product
contact the company for reimbursement. People can call the Plum
Organics Consumer Hotline 866-535-3774 which is open 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week or send an email.


PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT: "Rodgers" Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rodgers v. Professional Employment
Group, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02128, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston).
The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00295 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Alexander Olsen, Esq.
          OLSEN LAW OFFICES
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550-9352
          Facsimile: (619) 923-2747
          E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

Defendant Professional Employment Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Ernest W. Klatte, III, Esq.
          KLATTE, BUDENSIEK & YOUNG-AGRIESTI LLP
          20341 SW Birch Street, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 221-8700
          Facsimile: (949) 222-1044
          E-mail: ewklatte@kbylaw.com


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Drivers Want Minimum and OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Asbridge Jr., Donna Bailey, Robert Blackson, Summer Brown,
Gaylena Bunch, Theartha Burt, Linda Cage, Ricky Carlsness, Ransom
Collins, Bill Currie, Chauncey Fitzpatrick, Maxwell Hardoby,
Jeanette Horton, Cathy Johnson, Willie Jones, Philip Kariuki,
Russell Kirkman, Michael Liskooka, Jennifer Mann, Alesa Mays,
Janice McCaskey, Charles McLain, Michael Mornard, Martin Schwartz,
Thomas Scott, Arlanda Smith, Roland Staples Jr, Jared
Stubblefield, Dante Williams, Eddie Williams v. Professional
Transportation, Inc., and Ronald D. Romain, individually and as
chief executive officer of Professional Transportation, Inc., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00129-RLY-WGH (S.D. Ind., September 12, 2014) is
brought on behalf of former and current employees of the
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The action seeks to recover overtime compensation and minimum
wages for work activity performed by the Plaintiffs as over the
road drivers.

Professional Transportation, Inc. is an Indiana corporation.
Ronald D. Romain is the president and secretary of PTI.  The
Defendants are engaged in ground transportation of Class 1
railroad crews.  Among the rail carriers with which PTI contracts
are the Kansas City Southern, CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and the
Union Pacific railroads.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph H. Cassell, Esq.
          ERON LAW, P.A.
          229 E. William Street, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 262-5500
          Facsimile: (316) 262-5559
          E-mail: jhcassell@eronlaw.net


PROVIDENT CAPITAL: Receiver to Pursue Former Directors
------------------------------------------------------
Kylar Loussikian, writing for The Australian, reports that the
recriminations over the failure of debenture firm Provident
Capital are set to begin with the group's receiver, PPB Advisory,
to pursue the company's former directors in court.

Long-suffering investors, who have lost hundreds of millions of
dollars, also could be looking for compensation, with two
class-action lawsuits to be filed against Provident's trustees,
Australian Executor Trustees.

Provident collapsed in late 2012, months after telling its 3500
investors it was confident it could stay afloat despite more than
90 per cent of its loan book being many months in arrears.

The Weekend Australian understands that the company's receivers,
Phil Carter and Marcus Ayres of PPB Advisory, will seek to pursue
Provident's directors in the Federal Court for damages.

A claim was filed earlier to protect the statute of limitations
but will be amended to allow broader action.   Pre-hearings began
this month, with the matter next listed for Sept. 19.

When it collapsed, Provident, which lent money against residential
and commercial property, had 138 loans outstanding totaling AU$176
million.  At the time, many of the assets that secured these loans
had no recoverable value, including one that was held against a
deferred tax asset.

There were also questions about inconsistencies in the investor
information booklets circulated by Provident, with loans that were
more than 180 days in arrears jumping $12 million in just three
months from January to April 2012, with no explanation provided.

It later emerged through court hearings that one of Provident's
directors, Michael O'Sullivan, had applied for an Australian
Financial Services Licence through Provident Funds Management, a
separate company.  If granted by the Australian Securities &
Investments Commission, the license would have meant the new
company would become responsible for Provident's high-yielding and
monthly income funds.

Later, a court heard Mr. O'Sullivan had not told Australian
Executor Trustees about the application and later warned
Philip Joseph, the trustee's chief executive, not to report the
company's financial difficulties because it would "be the end of
the business".

Two separate class actions are also likely to be launched against
the trustee, with Slater & Gordon to argue Australian Executor
Trustees failed in its duty to exercise reasonable diligence in
making sure Provident had sufficient property available to pay
debenture holders once their investments came due.

Odette McDonald -- omcdonald@slatergordon.com.au -- a senior
class-action lawyer at Slater & Gordon, said the firm had been
approached by hundreds of investors, many of whom were retirees.

The class action will be brought on behalf of investors who
acquired new debentures issued by Provident on or after
December 22, 2010, and who have not been repaid the amount that
they invested in full.

Sydney-based Meridian Lawyers also is considering a class action
on behalf of debenture holders regardless of when they invested,
with lawyers to question directors and officers of the trustee
under oath in the NSW Supreme Court in early December.

It is expected that the production of documents in that inquiry
will enable Meridian to begin formal proceedings.

Douglas Raftesath, the principal of Meridian, confirmed there had
been "strong support from debenture holders" to proceed.

An Australian Executor Trustees spokeswoman said the company had
complied with its duties and had no further comment.

The latest report prepared by PPB forecast debenture holders
should expect a return of only up to 19c for every dollar in a
fixed-term investment, which is at most AU$23.5 million.  PPB
reported it had paid about AU$11 million to date.

PPB expects a significant capital loss to be made on three of the
largest loans remaining in the portfolio, covering a Queensland
residential development site, and a cattle yard and vineyard in
NSW, with a combined carrying value of about AU$39 million.


PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Recalls Private Label Jalapeno Bagels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Out of an abundance of precaution, the company is issuing a
voluntary recall for Publix Jalapeno Bagels, which are sold in
either the self-service bins or artisan cases in the bakery
department, and may contain pieces of glass and small stones.

The Publix Jalapeno Bagels were distributed to Publix store
locations in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.  Publix
stores in Tennessee and North Carolina are not impacted by this
recall.  Publix was made aware of this potential product hazard by
the supplier.

"As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted
product has been removed from all affected bakery departments,"
said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations director.
"To date, there have been no reported cases of illness or injury.
Consumers who have purchased the product in question may return
the product to their local store for a full refund.  Publix
customers with additional questions may call our Customer Care
Department at 1-800-242-1227 or by visiting our website."

Publix is privately owned and operated by its 169,000 employees,
with 2013 sales of $28.9 billion.  Currently Publix has 1,078
stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and
North Carolina.  The company has been named one of FORTUNE's "100
Best Companies to Work For in America" for 17 consecutive years.
In addition, Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer
service is recognized as tops in the grocery business, most
recently by an American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.


RAYMOND JAMES: Fund Shareholders Enter Into Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Certain mutual fund shareholders and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in class action lawsuits, Raymond James
Financial, 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.

Certain of the Morgan Keegan entities, along with Regions
Financial Corporation, have been named in class-action lawsuits
filed in federal and state courts on behalf of shareholders of
Regions and investors who purchased shares of certain mutual funds
in the Regions Morgan Keegan Fund complex (the "Regions Funds").
The Regions Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management
("MAM"), an entity which was at one time a subsidiary of one of
the Morgan Keegan affiliates, but an entity which was not part of
Raymond James' Morgan Keegan acquisition.  The complaints contain
various allegations, including claims that the Regions Funds and
the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts
relating to the activities of the funds.

In August 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action
and the derivative action regarding the closed end funds for $62
million and $6 million, respectively. No class has been certified.
Certain of the shareholders in the funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action
lawsuits.

Raymond James Financial is a financial holding company
headquartered in Florida whose broker-dealer subsidiaries are
engaged in various financial service businesses, including the
underwriting, distribution, trading and brokerage of equity and
debt securities and the sale of mutual funds and other investment
products.  In addition, other subsidiaries of RJF provide
investment management services for retail and institutional
clients, corporate and retail banking, and trust services.


RAYMOND JAMES: Muni Bond Buyers' Suit Set for Trial This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, 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, but
currently uncertified class action was brought on behalf of
purchasers of certain municipal bonds on September 4, 2012,
seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. These
actions are in various stages of litigation, with the putative
class action set for trial in September 2014.  These matters are
subject to the indemnification agreement with Regions Financial
Corporation.

Raymond James Financial, Inc. ("RJF" or the "Company") is a
financial holding company headquartered in Florida whose broker-
dealer subsidiaries are engaged in various financial service
businesses, including the underwriting, distribution, trading and
brokerage of equity and debt securities and the sale of mutual
funds and other investment products.  In addition, other
subsidiaries of RJF provide investment management services for
retail and institutional clients, corporate and retail banking,
and trust services.


SASKATCHEWAN: Sued Over Alleged Abuse at Schools for Disabled
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a potential class-action suit
against the Saskatchewan government by Regina lawyer Tony Merchant
is alleging verbal, physical and sexual abuse occurred at two of
the province's training schools for the intellectually disabled.

The statement of claim names the Saskatchewan Training School in
Moose Jaw and the North Park Centre in Prince Albert.

Mr. Merchant told a Prince Albert radio station that "really
horrible things" were done to people at the schools, citing
allegations by two plaintiffs of physical and sexual assault.

None of the allegations have been proven in court and the
government has declined comment on the suit, which has not yet
been certified by the court.

The Moose Jaw school opened in 1955 and was renamed the Valley
View Center in 1974; the Prince Albert center closed in 1988.

The schools were designed to train the intellectually disabled for
jobs but also provided long-term care.

"They were disadvantaged and, as a result of being disadvantaged,
they were sort of prime victims for staff and sometimes for older
people in the same institution," Mr. Merchant said.

One of the plaintiffs is a 62-year-old man who says he was a
resident at the Saskatchewan Training School for five years when
he was a teenager in the 1960s.  He alleges he was physically
assaulted by staff, sexually assaulted by an older resident and
saw others sexually assaulted.

The other plaintiff, a 59-year-old woman, says she was a resident
at the Saskatchewan Training School as a teenager for three years
in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  She alleges being physically
and sexually assaulted as well as being punished by being put in a
small concrete room, naked, with very little food.

Other allegations include that the duration of a resident's stay
was arbitrary and could be increased as a form of punishment,
living quarters were unhygenic, there was a lack of bathing, and
inadequate supervision lead to physical and sexual assaults.  The
suit contends the province is responsible for the abuse and seeks
damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

A hearing was held in Court of Queen's Bench in August regarding
the certification of the suit as a class action.  The judge didn't
certify it, saying more information was needed but he gave more
time to gather the pieces.


SOTHEBY'S: Appeal in "Graham" Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's 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 Estate of Robert Graham, et al.
v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose
artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at
auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was
allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the
"Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of
the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act
of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to
Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the
motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court
issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the
Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.

The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling.

Sotheby's believes that there are meritorious defenses to the
appeal.


SOTHEBY'S: Third Point to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Sotheby's 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 the case, Third Point LLC v.
Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), Third
Point LLC ("Third Point") filed on March 25, 2014, a verified
complaint against William F. Ruprecht, Peregrine A. M. Cavendish,
Domenico De Sole, John M. Angelo, Steven B. Dodge, Daniel H.
Meyer, Allen I. Questrom, Marsha E. Simms, Michael I. Sovern,
Robert S. Taubman, Diana L. Taylor and Dennis M. Weibling
(collectively, the "Directors") and nominal defendant Sotheby's.
Third Point alleged that the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and due care in adopting a shareholder rights
plan (the "Rights Plan") on October 4, 2013 and enforcing the plan
against Third Point on March 21, 2014 by denying Third Point's
request that it be treated as a 13G filer under the Rights Plan to
allow it to acquire up to 20% of Sotheby's outstanding Common
Stock. Third Point alleged that the Rights Plan was not a
reasonable response to a legitimate threat to Sotheby's and
alleged that the adoption and continuation of the Rights Plan
hindered its ability to wage an effective proxy contest.

The complaint sought a declaration that the Directors breached
their fiduciary duties and that the Rights Plan was unenforceable,
and sought an order that Sotheby's be required to redeem the
Rights Plan in its entirety, or in the alternative, be enjoined
from enforcing the Rights Plan against Third Point, or be required
to amend the Rights Plan to allow Third Point to acquire up to 20%
of Sotheby's outstanding Common Stock. Along with its complaint,
Third Point moved for expedited proceedings.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action with The Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP and Louisiana
Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No.--9508-VCP.

On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs'
motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions,
the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion.
Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

On May 4, 2014, Sotheby's entered into a support agreement that,
among other things, resolved the previously pending proxy contest.
As part of this support agreement, Third Point agreed to dismiss
with prejudice this litigation. On May 6, 2014, Third Point filed
a notice of dismissal terminating its case.


SOTHEBY'S: Opposes Attorneys' Fees Bid in St. Louis Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's 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 the case The Employees
Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), the Employees
Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, the plaintiff, on
behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's stockholders, filed on
April 1, 2014, a verified class action complaint against the
Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleges
in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-called "proxy
puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff
alleges that the Rights Plan is discriminatory, is designed to
entrench current board members, and undermines the proxy contest
being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleges
that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy
put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive
measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The
plaintiff seeks judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining
the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors
from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third
Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the
Rights Plan is unenforceable and that the Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the putative class.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v.
Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior
pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP.

On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs'
motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions,
the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion.
Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the
Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action jointly
filed a motion for an order dismissing their actions as moot and
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $3.5
million.

On July 25, 2014, Sotheby's filed a brief in opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion. Management believes that this claim is without
merit, as the related underlying claims were found by the court to
be unlikely to succeed on the merits.


SOTHEBY'S: Bid for Preliminary Injunction in LMERS Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's 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 the case Louisiana Municipal
Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No.-
-9508-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014), Louisiana Municipal Employees
Retirement System, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of
Sotheby's stockholders, filed on April 3, 2014, a verified class
action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant
Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleges in two counts that the Directors
breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by
including so-called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit
agreements. The plaintiff alleges that the Rights Plan is
discriminatory, is designed to entrench current board members, and
undermines the proxy contest being conducted by Third Point. In
addition, the plaintiff alleges that the Directors endorsed credit
agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were
unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate
Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff seeks judgment
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment
preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies
solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for
directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan is
unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the putative class.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and The Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP with the
prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP.  On May 2, 2014, following briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the
coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.


SOUTH STATE: Approval Hearing of Savannah Case Settlement Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of The Savannah Bancorp, Inc. ("Savannah")
on October 11, 2012, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York captioned Rational Strategies Fund v. Robert H.
Demere, Jr. et al., No. 653566/2012 (the "Rational Lawsuit"),
naming Savannah, members of Savannah's board of directors and
South State Corporation as defendants. This lawsuit is purportedly
brought on behalf of a putative class of Savannah's common
shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action with the Plaintiff as the proper
class representative. The Rational Lawsuit alleges that Savannah,
Savannah's directors and South State breached duties and/or aided
and abetted such breaches by failing to disclose certain material
information about the proposed merger between Savannah and South
State. Among other relief, the Complaint seeks to enjoin the
merger. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the
Complaint are without merit and that the proceeding will not have
any material adverse effect on the financial condition or
operations of South State.

On November 23, 2012, South State, Savannah and the other named
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the
"Rational MOU") with the Plaintiff regarding a settlement of the
Rational Lawsuit. Pursuant to the Rational MOU, Savannah made
available additional information concerning the Savannah merger to
Savannah shareholders in a Current Report on Form 8-K.

On March 20, 2014, the parties entered into and filed with the
court a stipulation of settlement, South State 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
stipulation of settlement is subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to Savannah's
shareholders.

On May 29, 2014, the court issued an Order for Notice and
Scheduling of Hearing of Settlement, which preliminarily approved
the stipulation of settlement, directed that notice of the
settlement be given to the former Savannah shareholders, and
scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement
for August 4, 2014.

On June 10, 2014, notice of the settlement was mailed to the
former Savannah shareholders.

"If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, the
settlement will resolve and release all claims in the action that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
Savannah merger, the Savannah merger agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, and that the action will be
dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the court
will approve the settlement. In the event the court fails to
approve it, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
stipulation may be terminated," South State said.

On June 30, 2014, First Financial Holdings, Inc. changed its name
to South State Corporation, and SCBT, the wholly-owned bank
subsidiary of South State Corporation, changed its name to South
State Bank.


SOUTH STATE: Settlement in FFHI Shareholder Class Action Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of First Financial Holdings, Inc. filed on
March 5, 2013, a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware captioned Arthur Walter v. R. Wayne Hall et al., No.
8386-VCN.  On March 25, 2013, another purported shareholder of
FFHI filed a lawsuit in the same court captioned Emmy Moore v. R.
Wayne Hall et al., No. 8434-VCN. Each complaint named FFHI,
members of FFHI's board of directors and South State Corporation
as defendants.  The complaints were purportedly brought on behalf
of a putative class of FFHI's common shareholders and sought a
declaration that the lawsuits are properly maintainable as a class
action with the named plaintiffs as the proper class
representatives. Each complaint alleged that FFHI's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to FFHI shareholders by
attempting to sell FFHI to South State by means of an unfair
process and for an unfair price and that South State aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other
relief, each complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to
prevent the proposed merger between FFHI and South State.

On April 18, 2013, the Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating the two lawsuits into one action captioned In re
First Financial Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 8386-
VCN, and requiring the plaintiffs to file a single consolidated
amended complaint as soon as practicable. On May 7, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which generally
alleges that FFHI's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to FFHI shareholders by attempting to sell FFHI to South
State by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price and by
failing to disclose certain material information about the
proposed merger.

On July 16, 2013, South State, FFHI and the director defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "FFHI MOU") with
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the action, subject to the
approval of the court.  Pursuant to the terms of the FFHI MOU,
South State and FFHI agreed to make available additional
information to FFHI shareholders regarding the FFHI merger.  In
return, the plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice and not to seek any interim relief in favor of the
alleged class of FFHI stockholders.

On October 30, 2013, the parties entered into and filed with the
Delaware court a stipulation of settlement.

On January 24, 2014, the court issued an Order and Final Judgment
approving the settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice,
South State 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 June 30, 2014, First Financial Holdings, Inc. changed its name
to South State Corporation, and SCBT, the wholly-owned bank
subsidiary of South State Corporation, changed its name to South
State Bank.


SOUTH STATE: Settlement in Rational Strategies Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of South State Corporation filed on May 3,
2013, a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
the County of New York captioned Rational Strategies Fund v.
Robert R. Hill Jr. et al., No. 651625/2013, naming South State and
members of its board of directors as defendants. This lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of South State's
common shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is properly
maintainable as a class action with the Plaintiff as the proper
class representative. The lawsuit alleges that South State and
members of its board of directors breached duties by failing to
disclose certain material information about the proposed merger
between FFHI and South State. Among other relief, the Complaint
seeks to enjoin the merger.

On July 18, 2013, the court granted a temporary injunction
enjoining South State from certifying the vote of its shareholders
at its special meeting on July 24, 2013 to consider and vote upon
the FFHI merger, pending a hearing scheduled for the same date on
the defendants' motion to vacate that temporary injunction. On
July 19, 2013, South State entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Rational/FFHI MOU") with plaintiff regarding
the settlement of the action.  Pursuant to the Rational/FFHI MOU,
South State agreed to make available additional information to
South State shareholders regarding the FFHI merger, and the
plaintiff agreed to jointly request with South State that the
temporary injunction be lifted so that the results of the special
meeting could be certified without any delay or impediment. Under
the terms of the Rational/FFHI MOU, South State, the South State
director defendants and the plaintiff have agreed to settle the
lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims made by the
plaintiff relating to the FFHI merger.

On February 20, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement that was later filed with the court.  On June 3, 2014,
the court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice, South State
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 June 30, 2014, First Financial Holdings, Inc. changed its name
to South State Corporation, and SCBT, the wholly-owned bank
subsidiary of South State Corporation, changed its name to South
State Bank.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss "Perry" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March
14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case
Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH, is a putative consolidated class
action that raises substantially identical claims and allegations
against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C.
Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged
class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits
allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a
violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem
from the Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it
announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of
FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12,
2013 press release, the Company's stock price declined. The
complaints further allege that during the putative class period
certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about
FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock.
The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs
and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the
court deems appropriate.

On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

On July 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint, Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals 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.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company with
fully integrated commercial and drug development operations, with
a primary focus in oncology and hematology.


STRATEGIC SCREENING: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Ryals, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Strategic Screening Solutions, Inc., and Liberty
Screening Services, Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-00643-REP (E.D. Va.,
September 15, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Colt North, Esq.
          751-A Thimble Shoals Blvd.
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 873-1010
          E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com


SUNSHINE CLEANING: Removed "Otero" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Otero, et al. v. Sunshine Cleaning
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-019983 CA 01, was removed from
the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23386-MGC to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
          LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN
          8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: (305) 556-3663
          Facsimile: (305) 556-3647
          E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Roma Tomatoes Due to Potential Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc. of Tracy, CA has been notified that
specific lots of "Expo Fresh" Roma tomatoes supplied to Taylor
Farms Pacific may be contaminated with Salmonella as a result of
routine testing.  No illnesses have been reported.

This lot of Roma tomatoes was used in these products made by
Taylor Farms Pacific for Costco and Safeway and is being
voluntarily recalled as a precautionary measure.  Only the
specific "use by" and "packed on" codes are affected.

Costco:

Tomatoes Roma Whole 1/25# (packed on 9/5 & 9/6 only)
Shipped to:
Costco B2B Locations in:
Hawthorne CA
Los Angeles CA
Las Vegas NV
Lynwood WA
Tacoma WA

Safeway:
Sicilian Vegetable Salad Kit- (use by 9/20 & 9/21 only)
Shipped to:
Vons El Monte CA
Safeway Warehouse Tracy Ca
Safeway Warehouse Tempe AZ.

The product was sold as "Sicilian Vegetable Salad" at deli
counters in Safeway, Vons, and Pavilions stores in California,
Nevada, and Arizona.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy people may
experience fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), and abdominal pain.  In rare cases the organism can get
into the bloodstream and cause more serious complications.

These products should not be eaten.  Customers may return them to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Taylor Farms Pacific has
notified the FDA and USDA of this voluntary recall.

Consumers with any questions may contact Taylor Farms Pacific
directly at 209-835-6300 ext 186 between the hours of 8am to 5pm
PST, Monday through Friday, or visit the FDA and USDA websites.


TOMELDON CO: Sued by EEOC for Terminating Pregnant Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tomeldon Co., Inc.
d/b/a Pharmacy Solutions, Case No. 3:14-cv-03330-L (N.D. Tex.,
September 15, 2014) is an action under the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices
on the basis of sex and to make whole Charging Party Arian Lemon
and similarly situated aggrieved individual Emilee Stephens, who
were adversely affected by those practices.

The Commission alleges that Pharmacy Solutions discriminated
against Arian Lemon and Emilee Stephens by terminating them based
on their sex, female, and because of their pregnancies.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an agency of the United
States of America charged with the administration, interpretation
and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Tomeldon Co., Inc., doing business as Pharmacy Solutions, is doing
business in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. David Lopez, Esq., General Counsel
          James Lee, Esq., Deputy General Counsel
          Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq., Associate General Counsel
          Robert A. Canino, Esq., Regional Attorney
          Suzanne M. Anderson, Esq., Supervisory Trial Attorney
          Joel P. Clark, Esq., Senior Trial Attorney
          EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
          Dallas District Office
          207 South Houston Street, 3rd Floor
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 253-2743
          Facsimile: (214) 253-2749
          E-mail: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov
                  joel.clark@eeoc.gov


TULLIA'S: Recalls Sauce Due to Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Tullia's is recalling Italian Meatless Pasta Sauce code 530140.
This recall has been initiated because a records review by the
Washington State Department of Agriculture revealed that one batch
of sauce produced with the 530140 code had a pH level high enough
to allow the growth of Clostridium botulinum.  If present, this
organism can cause botulism, a serious and potentially fatal
foodborne illness.

Foodborne botulism is a severe type of food poisoning caused by
the ingestion of foods containing the potent neurotoxin formed
during growth of the organism.  Foodborne botulism can cause the
following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and
trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.  Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Recalled sauce is packaged in 16 OZ. and 32 OZ. clear glass
bottles with white caps.  The code can be found on the label and
is in blue ink.  The only code of Tullia's Italian Meatless Pasta
Sauce recalled is 530140.

The recalled sauce was sold in the following markets in the
Spokane area: Rosauers (Rosaures, Huckleberries Natural Market and
Super 1 Foods on 29th Ave, Spokane); Yokes Fresh Market(s);
Egger's (West Rosewood); Trading Company Stores (only Spokane,
Spokane Valley); Main Market; and Albertson's # 242 (Wandermere
Mall).

Tullia's has made the decision to recall this product to ensure
the safety of their customers.  The company has not been notified
of any illness associated with their products.

Consumers who have purchased recalled sauce are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a refund or replacement.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 509-879-0325 during the
hours of 3PM to 5PM PST.


UBS AG: Has Closed and Converted Secret Bank Accounts, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AM Trust on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
UBS AG and Does 1-20, Case No. 4:14-cv-04125-PJH (N.D. Cal.,,
September 12, 2014) arises under international law and the laws of
the United States of America brought on behalf of a worldwide
class of secret bank account holders, including their estates and
beneficiaries, who have suffered monetary loss due to the alleged
systematic, deceitful and corrupt financial practices of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that UBS AG and its predecessors, Union Bank
of Switzerland and Swiss Banking Corporation, have closed and
converted certain bank and safekeeping accounts, and seized the
Plaintiff's assets for the benefit of the Defendants and to the
detriment of the Account Holders.  The Plaintiff adds that the
Defendants have wrongfully deprived the Account Holders of
billions of dollars from 1984 to present by deliberating closing
selected accounts without consent of the beneficiaries,
withholding or destroying internal records pertaining to these
accounts, and converting the proceeds to the Defendants' own use
while wrongfully denying requests for information and accounting.

AM Trust was established under the Bahamas Trustee Act of 1998.
The settlor, trustees and beneficiaries of AM Trust include the
heirs, assignees, creditors and executors of the Estate of Adam
Malik, who died in 1984.  Mr. Malik was one allegedly of the most
important politicians and revered national heroes in modern day
Indonesia and held various high governmental posts, including
ambassador to Poland and the Soviet Union, Minister of Trade,
Foreign Minister and ended his career as Vice President of
Indonesia 1978-1983.

Prior to his death in 1984, Adam Malik obtained, came in
possession or was assigned several bank and safekeeping accounts
with Union Bank of Switzerland and SBC in Switzerland and
Singapore for his personal use.  The accounts contained well over
$5 million in currency and gold bullion.

UBS AG is a Swiss global financial services company that is
headquartered in Basel and Zurich, Switzerland, which was
established in its present form when Union Bank of Switzerland and
Swiss Bank Corporation merged in 1998.  The Plaintiff is unaware
of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Easton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS EASTON
          967 Sunset Drive
          Springfield, OR 97477
          Telephone: (541) 746-1335
          E-mail: Easton3535@gmail.com

                           *     *     *

Swiss banking giant UBS converted billions of dollars for its own
profit by improperly closing accounts of secret account-holders
and refusing to provide records of it, the trust of a former
president of the U.N. General Assembly claims in a federal class
action, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff AM Trust, the trust of former Indonesian Vice
President Adam Malik, accuses Zurich-based UBS of shutting down
the accounts of people who died or were absent for prolonged
periods of time, and "withholding or destroying internal records
pertaining to these accounts and converting the proceeds to their
own use while wrongfully denying requests for information and
accounting."

The trust also sued the predecessors of UBS, Union Bank of
Switzerland and Swiss Bank Corporation.  UBS was formed in 1998
from the merger of the other two banks.  The banks "fast tracked"
the closure process to use the assets for profit, rather than
classify the accounts as dormant, the lawsuit claims.  When
beneficiaries ask about their accounts, the banks say no records
exist for accounts that have been closed for 10 years, though "a
diligent search could easily reveal the ultimate fate of the
accounts and their proceeds," the lawsuit claims.

Malik was an Indonesian politician, ambassador and the 26th
president of the U.N. General Assembly.  Before his death in 1984,
Malik had several Union Bank of Switzerland and UBS bank accounts,
containing more than $5 million in cash and gold, according to the
complaint.

The trust says in the Sept. 12 lawsuit that it has been trying to
recover assets from the accounts for years without success.  It
cites instances of impropriety involving the defendant banks.  In
1997, it says, a night guard discovered that the Union Bank of
Switzerland was destroying documents about dormant assets,
including information about companies doing business during the
Holocaust and real estate records for Berlin property seized by
Nazis and put in Swiss accounts.  In a 2009 case, UBS AG paid a
$780 million settlement for helping Americans evade taxes by
concealing records.

More than 20,000 U.S. citizens have bank accounts with UBS,
totaling at least $20 billion in deposits, the complaint states.
It claims at least 1,000 people worldwide, including some
Americans, were affected by the account closures.

The trust seeks to represent "the worldwide class of secret bank
account holders, including their estates and beneficiaries, who
have suffered monetary loss due the systematic, deceitful and
corrupt financial practices by UBS AG and its predecessors."

It seeks class certification, an accounting, restitution and
damages for conversion, unjust enrichment, trespass to chattel,
and breach of fiduciary duty.

The trust is represented by:

          Thomas Easton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS EASTON
          967 Sunset Drive
          Springfield, OR 97477
          Telephone: (541) 746-1335
          E-mail: Easton3535@gmail.com


VCA INC: Obtained Partial Summary Judgment in "Duran" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
VCA 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 29, 2013, a former
veterinary assistant at one of the Company's animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs. VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et.
al.

The Company said, "The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
current and former veterinary assistants employed by us in
California, and alleges, among other allegations, that we
improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly
failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and engaged in
unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
4 of the 8 claims of the complaint, including the claims for
failure to pay regular and overtime wages. We intend to continue
to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this action.
At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole."

VCA Inc. is an animal healthcare company with the following four
operating segments: animal hospitals ("Animal Hospital"),
veterinary diagnostic laboratories ("Laboratory"), veterinary
medical technology ("Medical Technology"), and Vetstreet.


VCA INC: Faces "Bradsbery" and "Brakensiek" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
VCA 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 former veterinary assistants
filed on July 16, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against
the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri
Brakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et. al.

The Company said, "The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
current and former veterinary assistants, kennel assistants, and
client service representatives employed by us in California, and
alleges, among other allegations, that we improperly failed to pay
regular and overtime wages, improperly failed to provide proper
meal and rest periods, improperly failed to pay reporting time
pay, improperly failed to reimburse for certain business-related
expenses, and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit
seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. We currently expect that these two
actions will be consolidated with, or related before the same
judge hearing, the Duran action.  At this time, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."

VCA Inc. is an animal healthcare company with the following four
operating segments: animal hospitals ("Animal Hospital"),
veterinary diagnostic laboratories ("Laboratory"), veterinary
medical technology ("Medical Technology"), and Vetstreet.


VCA INC: October Hearing on "Lopez" Suit Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
VCA 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 an individual who provided
courier services with respect to the Company's laboratory clients
in California filed on July 12, 2013, a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled
Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech
Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a
co-defendant in the lawsuit, is a company with which Antech has
contracted to provide courier services in California.

The Company said, "The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC
to perform such courier services and alleges, among other
allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech
Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent
contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and
improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit
seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. We filed our answer to the complaint on
September 13, 2013. Written discovery is currently ongoing. We
filed a motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2014, and the
motion is scheduled for hearing on October 3, 2014."

"This case remains in an early procedural stage and we are
vigorously defending this action. At this time, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."

VCA Inc. is an animal healthcare company with the following four
operating segments: animal hospitals ("Animal Hospital"),
veterinary diagnostic laboratories ("Laboratory"), veterinary
medical technology ("Medical Technology"), and Vetstreet.


VCA INC: Faces "Graham" Class Action in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
VCA 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 an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of the Company's animal
hospitals filed on May 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA
Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc.

The Company said, "The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. This case is in an early procedural stage and we intend
to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."

VCA Inc. is an animal healthcare company with the following four
operating segments: animal hospitals ("Animal Hospital"),
veterinary diagnostic laboratories ("Laboratory"), veterinary
medical technology ("Medical Technology"), and Vetstreet.


WALGREENS CO: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Warner v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 9:14-cv-
81176-RLR (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2014) is a complaint pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Walgreen Co., doing business as Walgreens, is a foreign
corporation, incorporated in Illinois, and is duly authorized to
conduct business in the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Cullen, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Clearlake Plaza
          500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 543
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 640-9191
          Facsimile: (561) 214-4021
          E-mail: mailbox@cullenlawfirm.net


WASHINGTON, DC: Settles Civil Forfeiture Class Action for $855,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Sibilla, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Washington,
D.C. paid $855,000 to settle a class action filed by property
owners who argued that the city's policy of seizing and taking
their cash violated their constitutional rights.  Using a little-
known legal procedure known as civil forfeiture, District police
seized small amounts of cash -- with many seizures around $100 --
from approximately 9,000 people.  In a settlement approved by U.S.
District Judge Christopher Cooper, $500,000 was disbursed to pay
claims to 1,377 claimants, while nearly $300,000 was allocated for
attorney's fees and expenses.  Further abuses of civil forfeiture
could be curbed by reforms proposed by both the city council and
Congress.

In civil forfeiture cases, owners do not have to be convicted of a
crime to have their property taken by the government.  Anthony
Hardy, a lead plaintiff in the class action, was stopped by police
in December 2006, who then allegedly found narcotics in the trunk
of his car.  Police arrested Mr. Hardy, charged him with
possession and seized $127.  Three months later, his case was
dismissed.  But the District of Columbia continued to hold on to
his cash.  Additionally, the suit alleged that Hardy was never
notified about the forfeiture or granted an opportunity to contest
it.

Under D.C. law, after receiving a notice that their property has
been seized and is subject to forfeiture, owners have 30 days to
file a claim to try to get their property back.  Meanwhile, the
city has one year to file a civil forfeiture action.

Purportedly, these procedures were not followed with Mr. Hardy or
the thousands of people he represents as a class.  In 2009, the
Evidence Control Branch of the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) sent out 3,000 asset forfeiture notices.  But 2,000 of them
were returned to the division unsigned.  The Branch's manager even
testified that they usually did not search for other addresses to
mail the returned forfeiture notices.

Arguing that the District's forfeiture policy infringed their
Fifth Amendment right to due process, Mr. Hardy, along with
Donnell Monts, who had $823 taken after his arrest in 2006, filed
a class action in 2009.  Five years later, the two men will each
receive $2,500 as part of the settlement.

Altogether, the nearly 1,400 claimants in the class action lost
almost $700,000 to forfeiture, so the settlement will restore
roughly three-quarters of what was taken from them.  Yet the
claimants represent just 14 percent of those affected by this
particular D.C. forfeiture policy.  Over a six-year period, the
Metropolitan Police Department seized a staggering $2.9 million
from these owners collectively.

Among the owners represented in the lawsuit, the median amount of
cash seized was a mere $120.  In fact, the MPD seized as little as
$1 from some owners.  There is little indication trivial amounts
of money can be plausibly tied to the drug trade, noted Sean Day,
who was co-counsel on the class action.

Nor is Washington, D.C. an outlier in using civil forfeiture to
seize small sums of cash.  Research by the Institute for Justice
challenges the notion, frequently perpetuated by law enforcement,
that civil forfeiture is primarily wielded against sprawling
criminal enterprises.  In Minnesota, the average value of
forfeited property was $1,250, while in Georgia half of the
property seized by law enforcement in 2011 was worth less than
$650.  Since the cost to litigate is often worth more than the
property that was taken, many owners do not even contest these
seizures.

Yet the class-action settlement does not alter the scant
safeguards and perverse incentives created by the District of
Columbia's civil forfeiture regime.  To forfeit property, the
District only needs to show probable cause, the same standard used
to obtain a warrant.  Not only do 36 states have a higher standard
of proof in all civil forfeiture cases, but probable cause is a
far cry from requiring "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is
needed to convict someone of a crime.  After a property is
forfeited, law enforcement can keep all of the proceeds.

These lax laws create potent incentives to police for profit.
Between 2010 and 2012, Washington, D.C. generated $4.8 million in
forfeiture revenue.  "It's become a cash cow for a lot of
jurisdictions frankly," said Mr. Day.

Moreover, the MPD makes liberal use of a federal loophole known as
"equitable sharing."  Under this program, local and state law
enforcement can collaborate with federal agencies to forfeit
property under federal law, thereby bypassing local and state
civil forfeiture laws.  Local law enforcement can then take a cut
of the proceeds from forfeited property.  From 2010 to 2012, the
Asset Forfeiture Unit of the MPD processed $9.2 million worth of
property seized by both joint task forces and the MPD.  The MPD
kept $2 million in equitable sharing proceeds.

Meanwhile, property owners have to contend with legal proceedings
that can be downright baffling, like having to pay for their right
to challenge a seizure in court.  This "penal sum" is 10 percent
of what the property is worth (as determined by the MPD) and can
range anywhere from $250 to $2,500.  If owners do not pay, the
government automatically wins and keeps the property.

After police seized his car in June 2012, Keith Chung, a
firefighter, was told to pay a bond of $2,075 before he could
challenge the seizure in court. Police never charged Chung with
any crime.  After the Public Defender Service for the District of
Columbia intervened, he got his car back.

Moreover, unlike criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the
owners -- they are assumed guilty unless they prove their
innocence.  In order to retrieve their property, owners have to
show by a "preponderance of the evidence" they have no connection
to a crime to prevail, a higher burden of proof than what the D.C.
government needs to forfeit property.  Since these forfeiture
cases are in civil court, owners do not have a right to court-
appointed counsel, even if they are indigent.

In the class action that was settled, the attorneys' hourly rate
was just north of $250.  So an hour of legal help was worth twice
as much as the property taken from Hardy and many others.  As the
case makes clear, many owners simply do not have the means to
challenge the government in court.

Nor is the government required to maintain or preserve property it
has seized.  In a separate, currently-pending forfeiture class
action filed against the District, police seized and held onto
Takia Jenkins' car for almost a year.  She was never charged with
a crime nor was her car involved in any criminal prosecution.
When she finally got her car back, the windows were damaged and
the car wouldn't start. Mold had even formed on the inside.

Last year, six members of the D.C. city council introduced a bill
that would have overhauled civil forfeiture in the District.
While it did not pass, the council is expected to reconsider
forfeiture reform when it reconvenes in the fall.  On the federal
level, Rep. Tim Walberg and Sen. Rand Paul have introduced
legislation that would either restrict or outright eliminate
participation in equitable sharing, preventing law enforcement
from trying to circumvent forfeiture reforms at the local level.

Speaking at a panel in July on civil forfeiture at the Heritage
Foundation, Congressman Walberg described his bill as "common-
sense," as it "does not detract from good law enforcement."
Americans, he added, should live "without the fear of overweening
government."


                              *********

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  * * *