CAR_Public/140923.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 23, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 189

                             Headlines


3030 BAYSHORE: Architectural Barriers Violates ADA, Suit Claims
ABBVIE INC: Faces Shire Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
ACQUA ANCIEN: "Riedel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AHMSI INSURANCE: Sued for Overstating Insurance Premium Expenses
ALLIANCE DATA: Accused of Engaging in Deceptive Trade Practices

ALLIANCE DATA: Being Sold for Too Little to Conversant, Suit Says
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Shareholders Want Books and Records Produced
APOLLO GLOBAL: Responses Filed to Dismissal Motion in Conn. Suit
APPLE INC: Model Mulls Class Action Over Nude Photo Leak
AVANQUEST NA: Deceives Fix-It Utilities Consumers, Suit Claims

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Heard Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss
BACK YARD BURGERS: Wins Preliminary Approval of $2.7-Mil. Accord
BANCORP INC: Faces "Fletcher" Class Action in Delaware
BAYER CORP: In Contempt for Colon Supplement Claims, DOJ Says
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Has MOU to Settle Class Action in Washington

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
CBS CORP: David Letterman Intern Drops Labor Class Action
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ashkenazi" Suit Says
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
COZI FURNITURE: Fails to Pay All Wages Due to Salesmen, Suit Says

DANIELS NORELLI: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DAKOTA PLAINS: Removed From Quebec Train Derailment Class Action
DAKOTA PLAINS: Maine Court Stays Train Derailment Actions
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Workers Seek Class Recertification in OT Suit
DEX MEDIA: Briefing Complete in Appeal to 5th Circuit

DEX MEDIA: Supreme Court Remanded Former Employee's Suit
DEX MEDIA: Tentative Settlement Reached in Ex-Employees' Action
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Artist Wants New Judge in Cartoon Suit
DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
FLINT HILLS: Defending Against Class Actions in Delaware

GADSDEN, AL: Did Not Violate Firemen's Contract, 11th Cir. Says
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Notified Insurance Carrier of Class Suit Claims
GDF SUEZ: Latrobe Valley Residents Mull Mine Fire Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "William" Suit Over Defective Key System
GENIE ENERGY: IDT Faces Suit Over Winter 2014 Price Volatility

HADDAD PLUMBING: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Motions to Dismiss in MDL Due October 15
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: "Salva" FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
IKEA: Recalls GUNGGUNG Child's Swing Over Injury Risk
IL GUSTO: "Rubini" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

INTEGRYS ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Proposed Merger
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Atwood" and "Burton" Actions
IRADIMED CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
JACKSON, MI: Hearing Scheduled for Stomwater Fees Class Action
KCG HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Fully Briefed

KCG HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing in Class Suit on Sept. 26
KCG HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Trading Class Actions
KIOR INC: Oral Argument on Dismissal Bid Set for September 26
KKR FINANCIAL: Oral Arguments Heard in Del. on Motion to Dismiss
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Shareholders Can Inspect Company Records

MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Securities Case
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: "Weinberger" Case Remains Stayed
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Claim in Israeli Class Action Dismissed
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Suit Over Defective Rims May Be Amended
MIMEDX GROUP: Files Reply Memorandum in Support of Dismissal Bid

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Actuarial Data on Concussion Settlement Disclosed
NCC BUSINESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blumkin" Suit Claims
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
OFFICE DEPOT: "Fennell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Dismiss Smithtown-Related Case Denied

PEOPLE'S UNITED: "Farb" Suit Against Bank Dismissed
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Settlement in "Fracasse" Class Action Approved
PLATINUM OF ILLINOIS: Ill. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PRO AG CHB-LOGISTICS: Faces "Marulanda" Suit Over FLSA Violations
PYRO ENGINEERING: Faces "Beltre" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: 3rd Circuit Affirmed Denial of Certification
RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Actions in New Jersey
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Expects More Expenses Due to Class Actions
REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Pre-IPO Investors' Action in Early Stages

RJM ACQUISITIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Mehrotra" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
ROYAL BANK: Small Business Owners File Class Action
SKIPSMASHER INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
SPARK NETWORKS: Hearing Held on "Kirby" Class Action Settlement

SPARK NETWORKS: Response to Bids to Certify Classes Due October 1
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Brown" Suit Transferred From D.C. to Georgia
SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Freedman" Suit in District of Columbia
SWISHER HYGIENE: Court Okayed Deal, Dismissed Securities Actions
SWISHER HYGIENE: Faces "Edwards" Class Action in Ontario

SWISHER HYGIENE: Faces "Phillips" Class Action in Ontario
TANGOE INC: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss "Stein" Action
TOSHIBA AMERICA: "Pierce-Nunes" Suit Moved to C.D. California
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
TURTLE BEACH: VTB Filed Motion to Dismiss Merger Class Action

TURTLE BEACH: VTBH to Defend Against "Vasek" Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Puts Customers at Risk, Cab Companies Claim
UMPQUA BANK: $2.9-Mil. Settlement in Overdraft Fee Suit Approved
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: No Longer Insures Child Leukemia Claims
VELTI PLC: January 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

VENAXIS INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Still Pending
VERSANT SUPPLY: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Violation of FLSA & IMWL
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Faces Action Over Mentone Gardens Collapse
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Failure to Refund Returned Items


                            *********


3030 BAYSHORE: Architectural Barriers Violates ADA, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Cohan v. 3030 Bayshore Properties, LLC d/b/a The Shell and
Sable Resorts, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-62113-BB (S.D. Fla.,
September 16, 2014) accuses the Defendant of discriminating
against the Plaintiff and others, who are similarly situated, by
failing to remove architectural barriers at its property, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Howard Cohan is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.  He is
an individual with numerous disabilities, including spinal
stenosis that causes a restriction to his spinal canal, resulting
in a neurological deficit.  He alleges that he desired to stay at
the Defendant's property as a guest but could not due to the
Defendant's failure to provide access to the swimming pool for
disabled persons.

3030 Bayshore Properties, LLC, doing business as The Shell and
Sable Resorts, Inc., is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of
the real property in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Cohen, Esq.
          MARK D. COHEN, P.A.
          Presidential Circle
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962-1166
          Facsimile: (954) 962-1779
          E-mail: mdcohenpa@yahoo.com


ABBVIE INC: Faces Shire Merger-Related Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Plan, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated stockholders of AbbVie Inc. v.
Robert J. Alpern, M.D., Roxanne S. Austin, William H.L. Burnside,
Richard A. Gonzalez, Edward M. Liddy, Edward J. Rapp, Roy S.
Roberts, Glenn F. Tilton, Frederick H. Waddell, Abbvie Inc., and
Shire PLC, Case No. 10134-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., September 15, 2014)
arises from alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the AbbVie Board
in connection with the proposed combination of the Company with
its smaller European-domiciled competitor, Shire.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of AbbVie.

AbbVie is incorporated Delaware and is headquartered in North
Chicago, Illinois.  AbbVie is a global, research-based
biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following its separation
from Abbott.  AbbVie employs approximately 25,000 people worldwide
and markets medicines in more than 170 countries.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Shire is a leading global specialty biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on developing and marketing innovative specialty
medicines.  Shire is incorporated in Jersey (in the Channel
Islands) and has its headquarters in Dublin, Ireland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1225
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2540
          E-mail: cazar@labaton.com
                  nweinberger@labaton.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  mstocker@labaton.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          Spencer Oster, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER PLLC
          240 East 79th Street, Suite A
          New York, NY 10075
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108
          E-mail: soster@friedmanoster.com

Court Participant Sam Glasscock represents himself:

          Sam Glasscock, Esq.
          DE COURT OF CHANCERY CIVIL ACTION
          500 N King St., Suite 11400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          E-mail: sam.glasscock@state.de.us


ACQUA ANCIEN: "Riedel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Riedel, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Acqua Ancien Bath New York LLC, d/b/a Aire
Ancient Baths and Armando Prados, Case No. 1:14-cv-07238
(S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages , liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Acqua Ancien Bath New York LLC owns and operates a spa located 88
Franklin Street, New York, NY 10013 under the trade name Aire
Ancient Baths.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 465-1188
     Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
     E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


AHMSI INSURANCE: Sued for Overstating Insurance Premium Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Nungester, Shelia Nungester, Jeffrey Parker and Sandra
Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AHMSI Insurance Agency Inc. d/b/a Belt Line Insurance
Agency, Homeward Residential Holdings Inc. f/k/a American Home
Mortgage Servicing, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07338
(S.D.N.Y., September 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
perpetrated a scheme to overstate Homeward's lender-placed
insurance premium expenses, and, thereby, to recoup inflated
amounts from borrowers.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of mortgage loan
servicing in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Allen Strauss, Esq.
      Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
      KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
      E-mail: mstrauss@kmllp.com
              telrod@kmllp.com


ALLIANCE DATA: Accused of Engaging in Deceptive Trade Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prescott Lovern, Sr., On behalf of himself and the General public
in his capacity as Private Attorney General v. Alliance Data
Systems Corporation, Comenity Bank, Comenity Capital Bank, OSP
Group (a.k.a. Woman Within, Roaman's, Jessica London, Fullbeauty,
KingSize, BrylaneHome, OneStopPlus, BCO & Bargain Catalog Outlet),
Bracewell & Giuliana LLP and Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman
LLP, Case No. 2014-CA-005803 (D.C. Super. Ct., September 16, 2014)
is brought under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act ("CPPA").

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and the
general public, who have been allegedly victimized by the
Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and unlawful trade practices in
violation of the CPPA and federal laws that fall under the CPPA.

Alliance Data Systems Corporation is a public stock company who
owns Comenity Bank and Comenity Capital Bank.  Comenity Bank is
what's known as a credit card bank.  CB issues private label
credit cards to U.S. consumers.  Comenity Capital Bank is what's
known as an industrial bank.  CCB issues private label credit
cards to U.S. consumers.

OSP Group is a catalog retailer and online marketplace for plus-
size consumers.  Bracewell & Giuliana LLP represents ADSC.
Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP represents Comenity Bank.

The Plaintiff represented himself in the lawsuit:

          Prescott Lovern, Sr., Esq.
          15 E. Churchville Rd., Suite 150
          Bel Air, MD 21014
          Telephone: (941) 870-8072
          Facsimile: (941) 870-8091
          E-mail: prescottl@rlassociateslaw.com


ALLIANCE DATA: Being Sold for Too Little to Conversant, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that insiders are selling Alliance
Data Systems Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to
Conversant, in a cash and stock deal worth $2.3 billion,
shareholders claim in California Superior Court.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Shareholders Want Books and Records Produced
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company and certain of its officers are defendants in related
putative securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to represent a class
of the Company's stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013.

On April 24, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the
related actions, appointing lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of co-lead counsel. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's
fees and other relief.

"We believe the allegations to be unfounded and will vigorously
pursue its defenses; however, we cannot reasonably estimate the
potential range of loss, if any," the Company said.

The Company also has received two shareholder demands for
production, pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, of books and records that relate to the issues
raised in the litigations.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Responses Filed to Dismissal Motion in Conn. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is
affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of
Affinion's common stock.

Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in both cases,
plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its business partners,
who include e-merchants and credit card companies, developed a set
of business practices intended to create consumer confusion and
ultimately defraud consumers into unknowingly paying fees to clubs
for unwanted services. Plaintiffs allege that AGM is a proper
defendant because of its indirect stock ownership and ability to
appoint the majority of Affinion's board. The complaints assert
claims under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act;
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act; and the California Business and Professional
Code, and seek, among other things, restitution or disgorgement,
injunctive relief, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court
has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the
caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they
proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class
action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12-cv-1721), in
the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC.

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On June 13, 2013, the Court extended
all defendants' deadlines to respond to the Frank complaint until
21 days after a ruling on the motion to transfer and consolidate.

On July 24, 2013 the Frank court transferred the case to Judge
Bryant, who is presiding over In re: Trilegiant, and on March 28,
2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion to consolidate. On September
25, 2013, the Court held oral argument on Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

On March 28, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of
all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed
by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the Court
directed the Clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the
consolidated action.

On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of
certain of the Court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including
its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants
filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June
5, 2014.


APPLE INC: Model Mulls Class Action Over Nude Photo Leak
--------------------------------------------------------
TMZ reports that Apple is about to get sued by a model who claims
her nude pictures are now on public display thanks to the
company's crappy security, and she's rounding up others to join
her in court.

Joy Corrigan says she was hacked months before Kate Upton,
Jennifer Lawrence, Kirsten Dunst and others who suffered the same
fate.  Ms. Corrigan says she reached out to Apple in early July
. . . but the company blew her off, saying she was simply a victim
of phishing, so she needed to change her password.  She followed
orders, but days later she was hacked again.  Apple gave her the
same song and dance.

After the story broke late last month Apple contacted her and
again denied any responsibility.  Ms. Corrigan now lawyered up and
plans to round up other victims for a class action lawsuit against
Apple.

TMZ has also reached out to Apple, but so far no word back.


AVANQUEST NA: Deceives Fix-It Utilities Consumers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quincey Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Avanquest North America Inc., a California
corporation, and Avanquest Software S.A., a French company, Case
No. 2014-CH-14861 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 15, 2014)
seeks relief for injuries the Defendants allegedly caused to the
Plaintiff and a putative class of individuals through their
deceptive design, marketing, and sale of their Fix-It Utilities
Professional software.

Contrary to marketing materials (and reports generated by the
software's computer scan), Fix-It Utilities is not actually
capable of performing a credible diagnostic test of a PC and
cannot actually remove damaging PC errors, appreciably improve a
computer's boot time, nor prevent the common causes of system
freezes as promised, Mr. Robinson alleges.  In reality, he
contends, Avanquest intentionally designed Fix-It Utilities to
invariably report that harmful errors and threats exist on a
computer, regardless of its actual condition.

Avanquest North America Inc. is a California corporation
headquartered in Calabasas, California.  Avanquest Software S.A.
is a French company with its headquarters and principal place of
business located in La Garenne Colombes, France.

Avanquest Software S.A., through its subsidiary Avanquest North
America Inc., develops software that it claims will increase the
speed, performance, and stability of a personal computer, protect
against privacy risks, remove harmful errors, and improve Internet
speeds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Heard Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that two class action
lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain present
and former officers and members of the Company's board of
directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer
and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May
9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May
31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the
complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint
was filed on February 3, 2014.

The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally
alleges that the Company and certain of its present and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's
TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the
drug would receive approval from the FDA. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint with prejudice. Lead
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on June
10, 2014, and the Company filed a reply to the opposition on July
10, 2014. The Court heard oral argument on the Company's motion to
dismiss on July 22, 2014.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


BACK YARD BURGERS: Wins Preliminary Approval of $2.7-Mil. Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Backyard Burgers of Nebraska can pay $2.7 million to settle a
class action alleging that its older receipts improperly contained
the last five digits of customers' credit card numbers, rather
than the last four digits, Courthouse News Service reports, citing
a federal court ruling.

The case is Brady Keith v. Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc.;
Backyard Burgers, Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No. Case No. 8:11-cv-
00135-LSC-FG3, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska.


BANCORP INC: Faces "Fletcher" Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
The Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a class action
securities complaint, captioned Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et
al., was filed on July 17, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that,
during a class period beginning April 24, 2013 through June 10,
2014, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had under-
reserved for loan losses due to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's
operations and credit practices were in violation of the BSA, and
(iii) as a result, Bancorp's financial statements were materially
false and misleading during the relevant period. The complaint
further alleges that, as a result, the price of the Bancorp's
common stock fell, causing damage to plaintiff and other members
of the class. The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees.

"This litigation is in its preliminary stages. The Company
believes that the complaint is without merit and we intend to
defend vigorously," the Company said.


BAYER CORP: In Contempt for Colon Supplement Claims, DOJ Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to have Bayer Corp.
found in civil contempt in federal court for making allegedly
unsubstantiated claims about its Phillips' Colon Health product.

The government filed an order to show cause Sept. 12 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming the
company's promotion of the product violates a 2007 consent
agreement in which it promised not to make unsupported claims
about its dietary supplements.  The 2007 agreement, which was
accompanied by a $3.2 million civil penalty paid by Bayer, was
reached in connection with an investigation into advertising
claims promising that the company's One-A-Day WeightSmart
supplement would increase metabolism in users.

According to the DOJ, Bayer claims Phillips' Colon Health can
"'defend against'" occasional constipation, diarrhea, and gas and
bloating, and implies that the product treats and cures those
conditions.

But the company lacks competent and reliable scientific evidence
for those claims, the DOJ alleges.  The 2007 consent order
prohibits Bayer from making any claim about the performance or
efficacy of any dietary supplement, multivitamin or weight-control
product unless, at the time Bayer makes the claim, the company
possesses "competent and reliable scientific evidence" to support
the claim.

The "clear implication" of the ad campaign for the product is that
it does not merely "help defend against" constipation, diarrhea,
and gas and bloating, but "implies that Phillips' Colon Health can
prevent, cure or treat these specific symptoms, regardless of
frequency," the DOJ says.

Bayer has spent $100 million on television ads for Phillips' Colon
Health, which went on the market in 2008, according to the DOJ.

The government is asking the court, upon a finding of contempt, to
impose a fine of $25,000 a day on Bayer to "coerce" its compliance
with the 2007 order.  The government is also seeking damages equal
to the amount of consumers' loss resulting from Bayer's contempt.

Bayer said in a statement that it "strongly disagrees" with the
Federal Trade Commission's decision to ask for it to be found in
contempt.  The benefits of Phillips' Colon Health are "fully
substantiated and supported" and the company intends to mount a
vigorous defense, the statement said.  The company also said that
it "never made any claims suggesting that Phillips' Colon Health
should be used to mitigate, prevent or treat any disease."

In conjunction with its motion, the DOJ filed a declaration from
Loren Laine, a gastroenterologist and professor at Yale University
School of Medicine, who said that competent and reliable evidence
to support claims by Phillips' Colon Health should require human
clinical trials that are randomized, placebo-controlled and
double-blind; use the specific product for which the claims are
made; are performed in the population at which the claims are
directed; and use validated methods and appropriate statistical
methods to assess outcomes.

Bayer, in its statement, said the evidence standard proposed by
Ms. Laine "is generally required for drugs and is not necessary or
required to support dietary supplement claims such as those that
Bayer made in support of Phillips' Colon Health.  Furthermore, as
we've informed the government, Bayer has cutting-edge genomic
research supporting our structure-function claims.  Bayer
therefore believes that this assertion by the FTC is contrary to
law, the policy of the United States Food and Drug Administration,
and previous FTC guidance."

Phillips' Colon Health are pills containing three strains of
bacteria.  According to the DOJ, the front of the package states
that the product contains "three strains of good bacteria to
promote overall digestive health" and that it "helps defend
against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating," with
an asterisk.  The asterisk refers to a side panel, where, printed
in small type, are the words, "This product is not intended to
diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

The DOJ said in a statement that the 2007 agreement was reached in
response to a complaint that Bayer violated a 1991 FTC order
against the company's predecessor, Miles Inc., requiring all
claims about the benefits of One-A-Day brand vitamins to be
substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

In a statement, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery of the
DOJ's Civil Division said, "The Department of Justice will not
tolerate companies that seek to gain an unfair advantage over
their competitors by promoting to consumers unsubstantiated claims
about the health benefits of their products."


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Has MOU to Settle Class Action in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three purported
class action lawsuits relating to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of February 20, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by
and among the Company, Emeritus Corporation ("Emeritus") and
Broadway Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub"), were filed on
behalf of Emeritus shareholders in the Superior Court of King
County, Washington against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board
of directors, the Company and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-2-
06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action").

On June 26, 2014, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to
a proposed settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which
the parties agreed, among other things, that the Company and
Emeritus would make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which supplemental disclosures were made by
the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014 and
incorporated by reference into the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 and the joint proxy statement/prospectus of
the Company and Emeritus included therein.

The parties have agreed to use their collective best efforts to
obtain final approval of the settlement and the dismissal of the
Washington Action with prejudice. Subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the
Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Emeritus' shareholders.

As explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, if the settlement
is finally approved by the Washington court, the parties
anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to former
Emeritus shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Washington Action will
file a petition in the Washington court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by the Company. The Company will pay
or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by
the Washington court. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Washington court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may
be terminated.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is an owner and operator of senior
living communities throughout the United States.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efraim Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No.
1:14-cv-05436 (E.D.N.Y., September 16, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBS CORP: David Letterman Intern Drops Labor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Stony Kool, writing for KpopStarz, reports that a David Letterman
intern dropped her proposed class-action lawsuit against CBS and
Worldwide Pants, the production that produces The Late Show With
David Letterman.

Less than a week after Mallory Musallam, a former unpaid intern
for "Late Show With David Letterman" filed the class-action suit
against Worldwide Pants, David Letterman's production company, CBS
Broadcasting and CBS Corp. over unpaid labor, she dropped it and
apologized to David Letterman, citing lawyer coercion.

"I have nothing but respect for David Letterman and the whole
organization," Mallory Musallam told The Post.  "I wore that
internship as a badge of pride."

In a statement CBS defended their internship program, saying the
suit "is part of a nationwide trend of class action lawyers
attacking internship opportunities provided by companies in the
media and entertainment industry.  We pride ourselves on providing
valuable internship experiences, and we take seriously all of our
obligations under relevant labor and employment laws.  We intend
to vigorously defend against the claims."

The Post published some of the apology letter, part of which said
"While I am ultimately responsible for my actions as an adult, I
was caught in a weak, vulnerable time, facing student debt."

According to the New York Daily News, Ms. Musallam claims "lawsuit
hungry" attorneys persuaded her to file an action.  Ms. Musallam
says lawyers contacted her and pushed her to file the court papers
The suit claimed that she wasn't paid for the time she worked
there and that the CBS illegally classified her as exempt from
wage laws.  Ms. Musallam was joined by a group of interns who
claim the network used them for cheap labor.

The notice of discontinuance is "is discontinued in its entirety
without prejudice."  The notice was filed on Sept. 10 in New York
Supreme Court.

Deadline reported Mallory Musallam "initiated this action seeking
for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees
that also worked on The Late Show with David Letterman, all
compensation, including minimum wages and overtime compensation,
which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs," according to the filing.

The court document said "Named Plaintiff has initiated this action
seeking for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees that also worked on The Late Show With David Letterman,
all compensation, including minimum wages and overtime
compensation, which they were deprived of, plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs."  Ms. Musallam typically worked more
than 40 hours a week as a "Late Show" intern from September
through December 2008.  Her tasks included "research for interview
material, deliver film clips from libraries, running errands,
faxing, scanning, operating the switchboard and other similar
duties."  The suit claims the interns received no "academic or
vocational training" when they were working at the network and
that they were hired simply as a means to keep payroll costs down
on the show.

David Letterman is stepping down from the long-running CBS show.
This is Letterman's last year with Late Night With David
Letterman.  He is set to be replaced by Comedy Central's Colber
Report host Stephen Colbert in 2015.


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ashkenazi" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Ashkenazi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05619 (D.N.J., September 10, 2014), seeks to
redress the Defendant's actions of using unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is a collection agency with
its principal office located at PO Box 336, Raritan, New Jersey
08869.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Commvault Systems, Inc., N. Robert
Hammer, and Brian Carolan, Case No. 3:14-cv-05628 (D.N.J.,
September 10, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statement, specifically by failing to disclose that the
Company is experiencing decelerating software revenue growth and
that the investments in its sales force were insufficient to
offset employee attrition and drive the level of growth that the
Company had assured investors it could achieve.

Commvault Systems, Inc. is an independent provider of data and
information management software, which is sold under the Simpana
brand name.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric T. Kanefsky, Esq.
      Gianina Carlie Jean-Baptiste, Esq.
      Thomas R. Calcagni, Esq.
      CACAGNI & KANEFSKY
      One Newark Center
      1085 Raymond Blvd., 14th Floor
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (862) 397-1796
      E-mail: eric@ck-harris.com
              tcalcagni@ck-harris.com
              gjean-baptiste@ck-harris.com

         - and -

      Thomas R. Calcagni, Esq.
      OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY
      970 Broad Street, Suite 700
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 645-2918
      E-mail: thomas.calcagni@usdoj.gov

         - and -

     Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1285 Avenue ofthe Americas
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (212) 554 1400
     Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
     E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com

        - and -

     Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
     Adam P. Levinson, Esq.
     KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN &LEVINSON
     10059 Northwest 1st Court
     Plantation, Florida 33324
     Telephone: (954) 916-1202
     Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
     E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
             adam@robertdklausner.com


COZI FURNITURE: Fails to Pay All Wages Due to Salesmen, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Nelson, 3325 Stanton Road SE, Apt 203, Washington, D.C.
20020 v. Cozi Furniture, Inc., Charity Ezenwa and Christopher
Onuaku, #103, 7777 Riverdale Rd., New Carrollton, Prince Georges
County, MD, Case No. 8:14-cv-02932-GJH (D. Md., September 16,
2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
numerous other similarly situated employees all wages due and
owing under federal and state laws.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were employed as
commissioned furniture sales associates at the Defendants'
furniture stores.

Cozi Funiture, is a for-profit corporate entity that conducts
business activities associated with selling furniture and
accessories to the public sector.  Cozi Furniture was originally
formed on June 26, 2007, under the name Mattress Clearance, Inc.,
by Defendants Charity Ezenwa and Christopher Onuaku.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard P. Neuworth, Esq.
          Devan Michael Wae Wang, Esq.
          LEBAU AND NEUWORTH PA
          606 Baltimore Ave., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 296-3030
          Facsimile: (410) 296-8660
          E-mail: rn@joblaws.net
                  dw@joblaws.net


DANIELS NORELLI: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Levy, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case No. 1:14-
cv-05428 (E.D.N.Y., September 16, 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


DAKOTA PLAINS: Removed From Quebec Train Derailment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., Dakota Plains Marketing, LLC and
Dakota Plains Transloading, LLC were removed on June 18, 2014, as
parties to the potential Canadian class-action pending in the
Quebec Superior Court related to the Lac-M‚gantic train
derailment, Dakota Plains Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On July 15, 2013, four named parties filed a petition in the
Canadian Province of Quebec seeking permission from the court to
pursue a class action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive
damages along with costs. On June 18, 2014 the petitioners sought
permission from the Quebec Superior Court to discontinue the
proceedings without prejudice against Dakota Plains Holdings,
Inc., Dakota Plains Marketing LLC and Dakota Plains Transloading
LLC. The Court granted permission for the discontinuance, and
consequently those companies have been removed from the
proceeding.

The most recent iteration of the petition, filed on July 7, 2014,
removes the Company and certain of its subsidiaries pursuant to
the discontinuance but still includes DPTS and DPTSM, along with
over 30 third parties, including Canadian Pacific Railway ("CPR"),
Montreal Main & Atlantic Railroad, Ltd. ("MM&A") and certain of
its affiliates, several manufacturers and lessors of tank cars, as
well as the intended purchaser and certain suppliers of the crude
oil. The petition generally alleges wrongful death and negligence
in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation
of crude oil.

"We believe these claims against DPTS and DPTSM are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against such claims and pursue any
and all defenses available," the Company said.

Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. is an integrated midstream energy
company, principally focused on developing and owning transloading
facilities and marketing and transporting crude oil and related
products within the Williston Basin.


DAKOTA PLAINS: Maine Court Stays Train Derailment Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that around July 29,
2013, nineteen individuals filed lawsuits in Cook County, Illinois
seeking unspecified damages for their injuries from the train
accident. The lawsuits assert claims for negligence against the
eight defendants. On August 7, 2013, Montreal Main & Atlantic
Railroad, Ltd. filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition in the
bankruptcy court in Maine. On August 29, 2013, the defendants
jointly removed the cases from state court in Cook County to the
United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 13, 2013, the bankruptcy trustee for MM&A, and World
Fuel Services, Corp. and Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC filed
motions seeking to transfer the nineteen personal injury cases
from federal court in Illinois to the United States District Court
for the District of Maine (the "ME District Court").

On March 21, 2014, the ME District Court granted the transfer
motion.

On April 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order granting the transfer motion and a
motion requesting the ME District Court abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over the cases. The motion for reconsideration was
denied and the motion for abstention remains pending.

On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice stating their
intention to appeal the order granting the transfer motion to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17, 2014, the ME District
Court entered a consent order staying proceedings in the
transferred cases pending the appeal.

Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc. is an integrated midstream energy
company, principally focused on developing and owning transloading
facilities and marketing and transporting crude oil and related
products within the Williston Basin.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Workers Seek Class Recertification in OT Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report
that a proposed class of Deloitte & Touche LLP unlicensed
accountants and audit employees urged the Ninth Circuit on Sept.
12 to reverse a lower court's decision to decertify their
statewide class action, arguing that a lower court wrongly ignored
the fact that putative class members shared the same minimum
training requirements.

A California federal judge abused her discretion by decertifying
the class after finding that unlicensed accountants are eligible
for a professional exemption from overtime rules, argued the
plaintiffs' attorney, Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptabeck.com -- of
Gupta Beck PLLC.  The fact that Deloitte requires its new hires to
be ready to sit for the Certified Professional Accounting
examination is enough to give them a common question for class
certification, he argued.

However, they have other issues in common -- such as that they did
not qualify as overtime-exempt because they were not working on
management-related issues, Mr. Gupta argued.

Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta noted that the lower court
judge said in her ruling that the issue of the plaintiffs'
"specialized instruction" didn't appear to predominate and the
court would need to look at their qualifications on a case by case
basis.

That court also said that the instruction issue could partially be
satisfied on a classwide basis, Mr. Gupta said.

"But the court seemed to think it wasn't an interesting question
and that it wasn't efficient because there are so many other
issues to deal with," Judge Ikuta said.

"If we win on this issue, it disposes of everything else,"
Mr. Gupta argued.

Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz asked whether there would still
be individualized questions about the potential class members'
management-related work, which could make them exempt from
overtime.

Mr. Gupta said the test is to look at what the job requirements
are -- not what the workers are actually doing.  "They're not
engaged in the management of clients, and it's illegal for them to
do so," he argued.

Deloitte's attorney, Peter Walker of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, argued
that the fact that all of the potential class members met the same
minimum requirements isn't enough.  They come from a "whole
panoply of educational backgrounds," which takes away from
commonality, he said.

"But isn't the question whether the minimum training requirement
is a common question?" Judge Hurwitz asked.

"It is a common question, but it may not dispose of the case in
one stroke," Mr. Walker said.  "It doesn't justify class
treatment."

If the class were to be recertified, the differences among the
class members are substantial enough that the case would turn into
a series of "mini-trials," which would be a burden for everyone
involved, Walker argued.

The panel took the arguments under submission and didn't indicate
how it would rule.

Circuit Judges Sandra Segal Ikuta, Andrew Hurwitz and Carlos Bea
sat on the panel.

The plaintiffs are represented by William A. Baird, Daria Dub
Carlson -- dcarlson@mzclaw.com -- and Jeffrey K. Compton --
jcompton@mzclaw.com -- of Markun Zusman & Compton LLP; Steven
Elster of Law Office of Steven Elster; Deepak Gupta of Gupta Beck
PLLC; and Jason J. Jarvis -- jjarvis@laklawyers.com -- of Levinson
Arshonsky & Kurtz LLP.

Deloitte & Touche is represented by Peter Arnold Walker and others
of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is James Brady, et al v. Deloitte & Touche, case number
12-16384, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


DEX MEDIA: Briefing Complete in Appeal to 5th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Briefing is complete in an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals and oral argument has been scheduled for the first week of
September 2014, Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On November 25, 2009, three retirees brought a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee
benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon and the employee
benefits committee ("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia.  All
three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to
SuperMedia pension plans at or near the SuperMedia's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both
the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary
duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other
class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The
plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages
and a reversal of the employee transfers.  The SuperMedia
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on
March 10, 2010.

On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion
dismissing all the claims against the SuperMedia pension plans and
all of the claims against SuperMedia's EBC relating to the
production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to
produce same. The only claims that remained against SuperMedia
were procedural ERISA claims against SuperMedia's EBC. On November
1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the complaint. On
November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one
of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.
Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs obtained class
certification against the Verizon defendants.

After obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed
another amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against
SuperMedia's EBC. SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before
the deadline set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the
court denied SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss.

On September 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' summary
judgments, denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment, and entered a
take nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC. Plaintiffs
filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The
briefing is complete and oral argument has been scheduled for the
first week of September 2014.

The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Dex Media, Inc. is a provider of local marketing solutions to over
500,000 business clients across the United States.


DEX MEDIA: Supreme Court Remanded Former Employee's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a former employee with
a history of litigation against SuperMedia, filed on December 10,
2009, a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against
certain of SuperMedia's current and former officers, directors and
members of SuperMedia's EBC. The complaint attempts to recover
alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly
caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by
the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006
to March 31, 2009.

The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed
all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the
defendants made material misrepresentations regarding SuperMedia's
financial performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had
divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets,
and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and
inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation
expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. SuperMedia filed a
motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010.

On March 16, 2011, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants'
motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs
have repleaded their complaint. SuperMedia's defendants filed
another motion to dismiss the new complaint.

On March 15, 2012, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants'
second motion dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal.

On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On July 23,
2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied.

The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court.  After the Supreme Court's decision
in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, the court granted
plaintiffs' writ, vacated the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
opinion and remanded the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals to rule in conformity with the Fifth Third opinion.

The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Dex Media, Inc. is a provider of local marketing solutions to over
500,000 business clients across the United States.


DEX MEDIA: Tentative Settlement Reached in Ex-Employees' Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 1, 2011,
several former employees filed a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action against SuperMedia, all its subsidiaries, the
current chief executive officer and the former chief executive
officer in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division. The complaint alleges that SuperMedia improperly
calculated the rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly
sales employees.

On July 29, 2011, SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
allege that the individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims
for unpaid overtime. Subsequently, SuperMedia amended its motion
to dismiss in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a
collective action and to issue notice.

On March 29, 2012, the court denied the SuperMedia's motion to
dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify the class. SuperMedia's motion seeking permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied and a notice has
been sent to SuperMedia's former and current employees. The time
for opting into the class has expired.

On February 24, 2014, SuperMedia filed a motion to decertify. The
plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a
companion case with the same allegations. In early August, 2014,
terms of a tentative settlement were reached by the parties;
however, the settlement has not been documented nor presented to
the court for approval.

Dex Media, Inc. is a provider of local marketing solutions to over
500,000 business clients across the United States.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Artist Wants New Judge in Cartoon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
former DreamWorks employee suing animation studios wants the
federal judge handling a similar lawsuit against major tech
companies to take over his class action.

Robert Nitsch Jr., a former character-effects artist for
DreamWorks, sued the company and several others -- including Walt
Disney and its subsidiaries Pixar and Lucasfilm -- on Sept. 8 for
allegedly fixing wages and restricting career opportunities for
artists.

Nitsch requested September 15, 2014, that the Northern District of
California consider reassigning his case to Judge Lucy Koh, who is
overseeing a 2010 lawsuit in which an estimated class of 64,000
software engineers are taking on Adobe, Apple, Lucasfilm, Pixar
and other tech companies, saying executives like Steve Jobs
restricted competition and kept wages down through illegal
"gentlemen's agreements."

The U.S. Department of Justice revealed the conspiracy in 2010 but
the plaintiffs filed the action privately and on behalf of a
proposed class because the government could not compensate victims
of the conspiracy.

Nitsch's lawsuit, which claims that major animation studies
cooperated to eliminate competition, is along the same lines.
Alleged practices include companies agreeing not to cold call each
other's employees, not to offer higher pay if the employee's
current employer makes a counter offer and to notify each other
when making an offer to an employee -- even if that employee
applied for a job on their own.

"Much of the same evidence will be central to both cases," Nitsch
said in his Sept. 15 motion, which outlines the similarities
between the two cases.  "A substantial portion of both cases
concerns identical parties, facts, evidence, witnesses, and legal
theories."

Nitsch's class covers employees who worked in "technical,
artistic, creative and/or research and development positions" for
the defendant companies since 2004.

Pixar and LucasFilms settled the 2010 case for $9 million last
year.  Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe proposed a $325 million
settlement, but Koh rejected it in August as too low.

Nitsch's case is currently under U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The case is Robert A. Nitsch, Jr. v. DreamWorks Animation SKG,
Inc.; Pixar; Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC; The Walt Disney Company; Digital
Domain 3.0, Inc.; ImageMovers; ImageMovers Digital; Sony Pictures
Animation and Sony Pictures Imageworks, Case No. 14-cv-4062-VC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mordche Mozes, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Dynia & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05435-MKB-RER (E.D.N.Y., September 16, 2014) is brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLINT HILLS: Defending Against Class Actions in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Flint Hills Resources Houston Chemical, LLC said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on
June 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint by unitholders of
PetroLogistics, captioned Klemesrud v. PetroLogistics LP, et al.,
C.A. No. 9723-VCP, which we refer to as the "Klemesrud Action,"
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
Between June 4 and June 25, 2014, two additional putative class
action complaints by unitholders of PetroLogistics, captioned
Swanson v. PetroLogistics LP, et al., C.A. No. 9737-VCP, which we
refer to as the "Swanson Action," and Henry v. PetroLogistics LP,
et al., C.A. No. 9759-VCP, which we refer to as the "Henry
Action," were filed in the Delaware Court, and three additional
putative class action complaints by unitholders of PetroLogistics,
captioned Basaraba v. PetroLogistics LP, et al., No. 4:14-cv-1558,
which we refer to as the "Basaraba Action," Wolfson v.
PetroLogistics LP, et al., No. 4:14-cv-1723, which we refer to as
the "Wolfson Action," and Maggi v. Petrologistics, LP, et al., No.
4:14-cv-1786, which we refer to as the "Maggi Action," were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

Each of the complaints names PetroLogistics and the General
Partner, the members of the board of directors of the General
Partner, Propylene Holdings LLC, New Parent and Merger Sub as
defendants, and the complaints in the Klemesrud Action and the
Henry Action also name Koch Industries, Inc. or Koch Industries,
LLC as defendants.  In each of the complaints, the plaintiffs
generally allege that the members of the board of directors of the
General Partner breached their duties to the unitholders of
PetroLogistics by entering into the Merger Agreement and further
allege that the other defendants aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of duty by the members of the board of directors of the
General Partner.  The Henry Action also alleges that the
defendants breached the terms of our partnership agreement, and
the Wolfson Action and the Maggi Action allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing an information statement that omits and/or
misrepresents material information concerning the Merger.  In each
of the complaints, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, to
enjoin the Merger and/or money damages.

No plaintiff in any of the actions sought injunctive relief before
the merger closed.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.


GADSDEN, AL: Did Not Violate Firemen's Contract, 11th Cir. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gadsden, Ala., did not violate its firefighters' employment
contract by raising their required pension contribution from 6% to
8.5% to finance the city's unfunded pension liability, reports
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing an 11th
Circuit ruling.

"This case presents a problem common to most cities in the United
States," the 25-page opinion begins.  "Their pension funds have
been operating at a substantial loss, and the cities' long term
liabilities are becoming unfunded at an exponentially increasing
rate.  That is, the contributions employees and cities are making
to pension funds -- as a percentage of the employees' salaries --
are being used to pay the pensions earned by retirees instead of
being set aside and invested for employees' retirements."

In 2011, the city's pension program had an unfunded liability of
$50.9 million, and anticipated that it would have to pay 24.5
percent of employees' compensation out of public funds, leaving it
with a $1.5 million shortage in its proposed budget for the
following year.

With its back against the wall, Gadsden raised its employees'
pension contributions by 2.5 percent.  The decision closed the
city's budget gap by $500,000.

A class of city firefighters, whose contribution rate was raised
from 6 percent to 8.5 percent, sued the city for allegedly
breaching their employment contracts.

But a federal judge dismissed the suit, finding no contractual
breach, and the 11th Circuit affirmed on September 16, 2014.

"Despite ample discovery, no party has produced the written
agreement between the firefighter-employees and the City, nor is
there much evidence about what the terms of such a writing might
contain," Judge Gerald Tjoflat said, writing for the three-judge
panel.

Once employees have retired, the benefits to which they are
entitled may not be reduced, under Alabama law.  But until that
time, the city may amend employees' interest in the retirement
plan, the court said.

"Plaintiffs argue that Gadsden firefighters who have complied with
the statutory requirements possess a 'vested' right to a 6 percent
employee contribution rate.  This argument relies on the
assumption that there exists an implied promise not to raise the
employee contribution rate once a firefighter becomes eligible for
retirement benefits.  We can find neither hide nor hair of such a
promise," Tjoflat said.

There is a "well-worn" distinction between pension benefits and
pension obligations, the court found.

"Nothing in the challenged legislation divests plaintiffs of their
earned pension benefits.  Instead, the increased contribution rate
simply reduces plaintiffs' anticipated compensation by deducting
an additional 2.5 percent from their future take-home pay," the
judge said.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately return a request
for comment.

The appellate case is Joe Taylor, et al. v. City of Gadsden, et
al., Case No. 13-13885, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.  The District Court case is Joe Taylor, et
al. v. City of Gadsden, et al., Case No. 4:11-cv-03336-VEH, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.


GALENA BIOPHARMA: Notified Insurance Carrier of Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in March and April
2014, five purported securities class action complaints- Deering
v. Galena Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-367 (D. Or.), Hau v. Galena
Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-389 (D. Or.), Clavijo v. Galena
Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-410 (D. Or.), Baya v. Galena
Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-558 (D. Or.) and Jang v. Galena
Biopharma, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-435 (D. Or.) - were filed against the
company and certain of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon. The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements in press releases and
in filings with the SEC arising out of the same circumstances that
are the subject of the derivative actions described above.

Consolidation of the class actions and appointment of lead
plaintiff are currently pending.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing complaints.
Based on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not
possible to estimate the amount or range of possible loss that
might result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of these
matters. At June 30, 2014, no material liabilities with respect to
the foregoing claims have been recorded in our consolidated
financial statements. We have notified our insurance carrier of
the claims, and believe our insurance is sufficient to cover such
claims."


GDF SUEZ: Latrobe Valley Residents Mull Mine Fire Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Fettes, writing for ABC, reports that residents from
Victoria's Latrobe Valley are considering launching legal action
over the Hazelwood mine fire.

The fire burned for 45 days near Morwell in Victoria's south-east
in February, putting thick, acrid smoke over the nearby town.

About 150 residents met with lawyers at a community meeting on
Sunday to discuss the potential for a class action lawsuit.

"I think the community need to get closure of some sort.  They're
not getting that at the moment," Ron Ipsen, from the community
group Voices of the Valley, said.

A report from the board of inquiry investigating the blaze found
the mine's operator, GDF Suez, was ill-equipped to handle the
fire.  It also said the State Government's chief health officer,
Rosemary Lester, was too late to advise vulnerable residents to
leave.

Class action lawyer Andrew Watson said there was strong merit for
a lawsuit.

"We think GDF Suez have a case to answer, in terms of their
negligence having caused the fire," Mr. Watson said.

"We're wanting to engage with the community and get a sense of the
level of interest and concern in running a potential class
action."

Residents want inquiry reopened

The Latrobe Valley community also called on the board of inquiry
to reconvene, after new analysis indicated the fire may have been
fatal.  Statistician Adrian Barnett found there was a high
probability there had been 11 premature deaths in the Latrobe
Valley that could be attributed to the mine fire.

Voices of the Valley president Wendy Farmer said the board needed
to consider that data.

"We think it was a very important point that was missed," she
said.

"People are sick now.  People are possibly dying now, and we need
to address that immediately."


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "William" Suit Over Defective Key System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Williams, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. General Motors LLC, and General Motors
Holding, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02069 (E.D. La., September 10,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose
key and airbag system defects of its 2010-2014 Chevrolet Camaro
Vehicles.

General Motors LLC, and General Motors Holding, LLC manufacture,
sell, distribute, advertise, market, and warrant Chevrolet Camaro
Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      106 W. Seventh St.
      P. O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com


GENIE ENERGY: IDT Faces Suit Over Winter 2014 Price Volatility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that IDT Energy has been
sued in separate putative class action suits in New York, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, partially related to wholesale
electricity price increases during the winter of 2014.

IDT Energy does not believe that it was at fault or acted in any
way improperly with respect to the events of winter 2014.

"However, we cannot predict the outcome of the regulatory or
putative class action litigation or the impact on us of these or
other actions, or whether there will be other impacts from the
conditions that existed in winter 2014. Further, although we have
taken action to insulate us and our customers from future similar
events, we cannot assure that those actions will be effective,"
Genie said.

Genie owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy International
Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of IDT Energy and 92% of
Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. ("GOGAS").


HADDAD PLUMBING: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Gonzalez, Oscar Perez, Jose Gonzalez, Angel Sanchez, Daniel
Hernandez, Jose Sanchez, and Jose Rodas individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Haddad Plumbing & Heating Inc.
(d/b/a Haddad Plumbing & Heating) and Shallan Haddad, Case No.
2:14-cv-05633 (D.N.J., September 10, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Haddad Plumbing & Heating Inc. owns, operates, and controls a
plumbing, heating and air conditioning company located at 1223
Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07114 under the name of Haddad
Plumbing & Heating.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bennet Dann Zurofsky, Esq.
      17 Academy Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 642-0885
      Facsimile: (973) 642-0946
      E-mail bzurofsky@zurofskylaw.com

         - and -

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


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Motions to Dismiss in MDL Due October 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss or for summary judgment are due to be filed by
October 15, 2014 in the Multidistrict Litigation proceedings
involving Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institutions.

The Company said, "On September 23, 2009, the financial
institution plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint in the MDL
proceedings, which we moved to dismiss on October 23, 2009. On
December 1, 2011, the Court entered an order granting in part our
motion to dismiss the financial institution plaintiffs' master
complaint against us, but allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend
to re-plead certain claims. Plaintiffs elected not to file an
amended complaint. The parties then jointly moved for the entry of
final judgment on those claims in the master complaint that the
Court had dismissed. On August 16, 2012, the Court entered final
judgment on the dismissed claims and, on September 17, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that final judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On
September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with
prejudice of the remaining claims pending before the District
Court. Briefing on Plaintiffs' appeal was complete on February 8,
2013. On September 3, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the
economic loss doctrine under New Jersey law does not preclude the
financial institution plaintiffs' negligence claim at the motion
to dismiss stage, but declined to address in the first instance
Heartland's other arguments for affirming the District Court. The
Fifth Circuit remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings. On March 14, 2014, the District Court set a schedule
for further proceedings. On July 18, 2014, the financial
institution plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. By Order dated August 1, 2014, the District
Court extended the schedule for further proceedings, with limited
discovery on choice-of-law issues to be completed by August 18,
2014, and motions to dismiss or for summary judgment to be filed
by October 15, 2014."

The Company's primary business is to provide card payment
processing services to merchants throughout the United States.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: "Salva" FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Salva, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, Case No. 6:12-cv-06324, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The Southern New York District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-07484-UA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all current and former HP
employees, who work or worked for HP in the ITO Service Delivery,
Services Information Development, and Technical Consulting job
families at HP's locations within the United States.  The
Plaintiffs allege that HP violated the FLSA by failing to pay
members of the Collective Action Class for all hours worked and
failing to pay the Collective Action Class overtime.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: Charles@hgrlawyers.com

               - and -

          Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq.
          Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
          Michael John Palitz, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  SLesser@klafterolsen.com
                  mjp@employmentlawyernewyork.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Ybarra, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 795-3207
          Facsimile: (312) 372-7880
          E-mail: jybarra@littler.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
          Richard W. Black, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1150 17th St. N.W., Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 842-3400
          Facsimile: (202) 478-2623
          E-mail: jwaxman@littler.com
                  rblack@littler.com

               - and -

          Lisa A. Schreter, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3344 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 760-3938
          Facsimile: (404) 233-2361
          E-mail: lschreter@littler.com

               - and -

          Margaret A. Clemens, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          400 Linden Oaks, Suite 110
          Rochester, NY 14625
          Telephone: (585) 203-3400
          Facsimile: (585) 203-3414
          E-mail: mclemens@littler.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Sutton, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          3200 National City Center
          1900 East Ninth Street
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-6165
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: ssutton@bakerlaw.com


IKEA: Recalls GUNGGUNG Child's Swing Over Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
FindLaw reports that consumers should be aware of two new recall
notices recently issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.

Retailer IKEA is recalling the GUNGGUNG child's swing, while
safety products maker Kidde is recalling its hard-wired smoke and
combination smoke/carbon monoxide alarms.  Both products are being
recalled because of possible mechanical failures that could lead
to injury or death.

Here's what consumers need to know:

IKEA GUNGGUNG Child Swing Recall

The GUNGGUNG swing is an indoor or outdoor swing for children ages
3 to 7, sold exclusively at IKEA stores and on the IKEA website.
The swing hangs from a plastic suspension fitting attached to
steel hooks.  According to the CPSC alert, there have been
multiple reports of the suspension fitting breaking, which can
cause a child to fall to the ground.

Although the CPSC reports there have been about 2,000 of the
swings sold in the United States, all four of the reports of the
suspension fitting breaking have come from other countries: two in
Austria, one in Germany, and one in Canada.  In one of the
reported incidents, a child who fell sustained a broken leg.

Consumers who may have purchased the swing can return it for a
full refund at any IKEA store. Proof of purchase is not required.

Kidde Smoke and Combination Smoke/CO Alarms

The Kidde smoke alarm recall affects more than 1.2 million of the
company's hard-wired smoke and combination smoke/CO alarms.
According to the CPSC, the recall was issued after it was
discovered that the alarms could fail following a power outage.

The recalled devices include the Kidde residential smoke alarm
(Model No. i12010S) with manufacture dates between December 18,
2013 and May 13, 2014; combination smoke/CO alarm (Model No.
il2010SCO) with manufacture dates between December 30, 2013 and
May 13, 2014; and combination smoke/CO alarm (Model KN-COSM-IBA)
with manufacture dates between October 22, 2013 and May 13, 2014.

No incidents have been reported yet, and the CPSC advises that
consumers should continue to use the alarms until they are able to
obtain a replacement from Kidde.  Consumers who have a recalled
model can obtain a free replacement smoke alarm or combination
smoke/CO alarm from Kidde free of charge by calling the toll-free
hotline at (844) 553-9011 or online at the Kidde website.

Consumers who would like to report an incident involving the
recalled products, or other defective consumer products, can do so
using the CPSC's online reporting form.  If you have been injured
by a defective product, a products liability lawyer may be able to
help you recover compensation for your injuries.


IL GUSTO: "Rubini" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Rubini and other similarly situated individuals v. IL Gusto
Italiano, LLC, Italian Food Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Il Gusto Italian
Cafe and Mauro Megna, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-62072 (S.D.
Fla., September 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Telephone: (305) 503-5131
     Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


INTEGRYS ENERGY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett R. Collison, Derivatively and on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Charles A. Schrock, Albert J. Budney,
Jr., William J. Brodsky, Ellen Carnahan, Michelle L. Collins, John
W. Higgins, Kathryn M. Hasselblad-Pascale, Paul W. Jones, Holly
Keller Koeppel, William F. Protz, Jr., Michael E. Lavin, Wisconsin
Energy Corporation, and Integrys Energy Group, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-07011 (N.D. Ill., September 10, 2014), seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Merger of Integrys Energy Group, Inc. with Wisconsin
Energy Corporation because it undervalues the Company and
represents the Board's failure to maximize value to public
shareholders through an unfair process. The Merger Agreement
signed by Integrys and Wisconsin Energy was drafted to improperly
deter alternative offers for the Company and includes numerous
preclusive deal protection devices.

Integrys Energy Group, Inc. is a holding company focused on
regulated and non-regulated energy delivery in the United States.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation is engaged in the business of
providing electric and natural gas service to customers in areas
of Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Integrys
Energy Group, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      E-mail pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Atwood" and "Burton" Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on February 21,
2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions,
styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain
of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by
stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits allege the Company made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged improper disclosures relate to the Company's January 9,
2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early
based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically,
the lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was
misleading because it did not contain information regarding
certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated
patients compared to placebo.

On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to
treat chronic liver and intestinal diseases with high unmet need
utilizing the Company's proprietary bile acid chemistry.


IRADIMED CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Iradimed Corporation, Roger Susi, and Chris Scott,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23337 (S.D. Fla., September 10, 2014), alleges
that the registration statement and prospectus made by the
Defendants were materially misleading because the company failed
to disclose that the Company's IV infusion pump systems had been
significantly modified which could significantly affect the safety
or effectiveness of the devices, as such under applicable federal
regulations the Company's products are "adulterated" and
"misbranded", the Company's mRidium 3860+ infusion pump requires
separate FDA clearance from the mRidium 3860 and mRidium 3850; and
the Company failed to disclose the material uncertainties and
risks that their products were adulterated or misbranded.

Iradimed Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and
distributes magnetic resonance imaging compatible products in the
United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


JACKSON, MI: Hearing Scheduled for Stomwater Fees Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will Forgrave, writing for MLive, reports that a Sept. 16 hearing
was scheduled to determine how a year's worth of stormwater fees
will be given back to Jackson city property owners who are part of
a class action lawsuit regarding the city's illegal stormwater
tax.

Originally scheduled for Friday, Sept. 5, officials rescheduled
the hearing for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 16, before Circuit Court
Judge John McBain.

At the hearing, McBain may take other action with regard to the
refund.  A refund will be given pursuant to the court's order and
instructions.

Due to a statute of limitations, the city is required to pay back
a maximum of one year's worth of payments, which would total about
$811,500 to 13,355 accounts after some opted out of the class
action lawsuit.  The stormwater utility fee generated nearly $3
million in billings.

Jackson City officials enacted the stormwater fee in 2011 to help
pay for street sweeping, leaf pickup, catch-basin cleaning and
other services.  Following a Michigan Court of Appeals' decision
ruling the fee unconstitutional, city officials suspended those
services indefinitely.  The Court of Appeals ruling only granted a
refund to those named in the lawsuit.

In August, Saline resident Phillip Panzica, who owns property in
Jackson, filed a class action lawsuit against the city, asking
everyone who paid be refunded.   According to Judge McBain's
ruling in October 2013, a property owner who paid the fee, or owed
payment, after Aug. 15, 2012, is eligible for a refund.

City officials made a settlement offer Sept. 10, which to date has
not been accepted by Panzica's attorney Brian Surgener.


KCG HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Fully Briefed
------------------------------------------------------------
KCG Holdings, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on
litigation related to the August 1, 2012 technology issue.

On October 26, 2012, Knight, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay, were
named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v. Knight
Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Case No. 2:12-cv-06760. Generally, this putative class
action complaint alleged that the defendants made material
misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the
events of August 1, 2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities
laws, claiming that he and a purported class of Knight's
stockholders who purchased Knight's Class A Common Stock between
January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price.

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it
and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased
Knight's securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012
paid an inflated price.

On May 13, 2013, Knight filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was fully briefed as of August 2013. Before the
court rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on December 20, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. More specifically, the plaintiff referred to KCA's October
2013 settlement with the SEC and alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning Knight's risk
management procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity,
Value at Risk and internal controls over financial reporting. The
plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule
10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a
purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's
securities between May 10, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an
inflated price.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on February 18, 2014. The motion was fully briefed as of
June 5, 2014, and is before the court for decision.


KCG HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing in Class Suit on Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of merger-related litigation as set forth
in the Stipulation, conditionally certifying a non-opt-out class
of former Knight Capital Group, Inc. ("Knight") stockholders for
settlement purposes only pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), and scheduling a final settlement
hearing to be held on September 26, 2014, KCG Holdings, Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

Delaware Litigation. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder
class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 8163-VCP. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO,
LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting
an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges
that Knight, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought
includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the
extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder
class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 8159-VCP. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO,
LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting
an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed
by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number
of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less
likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers
for Knight. The complaint also alleges that Knight and GETCO aided
and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers
(to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and
attorneys' fees and costs. On January 31, 2013, the Court of
Chancery consolidated for all purposes the McMillan and Dominique
actions into a single action captioned In re Knight Capital Group,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8159-VCP. On March 5, 2013,
the co-lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action filed
an amended complaint and motions for expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction. In addition to the allegations in the
initial complaints, the Delaware amended complaint contains
allegations that the Knight Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly
deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the
Company's Preliminary Form S-4, filed with the SEC on February 13,
2013 (the "Preliminary Proxy").

New Jersey Litigation. On December 31, 2012, a purported
stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned
Charles Bryan v. Knight Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13.
The complaint names as defendants Knight, the Individual
Defendants, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield
Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital
Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC
L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens
Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic
Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The
complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger
price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices
and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that
other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight
and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of
interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group
that included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity
defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged
fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants'
approval of the Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and
GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants'
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers
have already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company,
Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment
Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel
Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding
Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the
Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission
of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 20, 2013,
Knight moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the New
Jersey actions in deference to the first-filed Delaware actions.
The New Jersey court granted the motion on March 28, 2013, and
ordered that the New Jersey actions be stayed for all purposes in
deference to the first-filed Delaware actions.

New York Litigation. On January 15, 2013, Knight, the Individual
Defendants, GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named as
defendants in an action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York (New York County). The plaintiff, Joel
Rosenfeld, is one of the stockholders mentioned above who
previously sent Knight a derivative demand letter. Generally, this
complaint asserts both derivative and class action claims. First,
it purports to assert derivative claims, which allege, among other
things, that the seven Knight directors who were serving as of
August 1, 2012 breached their fiduciary duties and wasted
corporate assets by failing to erect and oversee effective
safeguards to prevent against technology issues, such as the one
that occurred on August 1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a
realized pre-tax loss of approximately $457.6 million. Second, it
asserts putative class action claims resulting from the proposed
Mergers for (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Individual
Defendants; and (2) aiding and abetting the purported breach of
fiduciary duty against GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic.
The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Mergers at an
inadequate price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection
devices and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely
that other bidders would make successful competing offers for
Knight, and that certain of Knight's directors have conflicts of
interest in connection with the transaction, including that
certain directors sought to enter into the transaction to avoid
potential liability relating to the derivative claims asserted in
the complaint. With respect to the merger claims, the plaintiff
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed Mergers,
rescission of the proposed Mergers (to the extent they have
already been consummated) and attorneys' fees. With respect to the
derivative claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, an
order requiring the Knight directors who were serving as of August
1, 2012 to pay restitution and/or compensatory damages in favor of
Knight and/or the proposed class of Knight stockholders. On March
14, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, in
addition to the allegations in the initial complaint, contains
allegations that the Knight Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly
deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the
Preliminary Proxy. On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff moved by order
to show cause for expedited discovery in support of his claims.
The New York court issued an order on March 25, 2013, setting a
hearing on the plaintiff's motion for April 4, 2013. On March 28,
2013, the parties in the New York action reached an agreement with
respect to the matters raised in the plaintiff's motion and other
aspects of the action, and as a result, on March 29, 2013, the
plaintiff withdrew his motion for expedited discovery. On April 9,
2013, the New York court granted permission for the plaintiff to
withdraw his motion.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder
actions and New York shareholder action regarding the settlement
of those actions. In connection with the settlement, Knight and
GETCO agreed to make supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 28, 2013 (the
"Proxy Statement"). In addition, Knight and GETCO agreed to make
certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as
to KCG's risk committee charter.

The memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Knight's former stockholders. It also
contemplated that in the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing would be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery would consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it would resolve and release all
claims that were brought or could have been brought in the
Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder actions, including
claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers, the Merger
Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Knight's former
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplated that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by KCG.

On June 5, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release (the
"Stipulation"). As contemplated in the memorandum of
understanding, the Stipulation provides, among other things, that
in exchange for the supplemental disclosures and changes to
Knight's and KCG's risk committee charters discussed above, and
upon final approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the
Delaware and New York stockholder plaintiffs, and a class of
former Knight stockholders that includes such plaintiffs, will
finally and fully resolve and release all claims that were brought
or could have been brought in the Delaware, New York, and New
Jersey shareholder actions, including claims challenging any
aspect of the Mergers, the Merger Agreement, or any disclosure
made in connection therewith. The Stipulation further provides
that counsel for the Delaware and New York shareholder plaintiffs
will seek, and the defendants will not oppose, court approval of
an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an amount not to exceed
$490,000. The Stipulation and the settlement it contemplates, is
not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any of the defendants. Nonetheless, the defendants
entered into the settlement to avoid the risk of the stockholder
actions delaying or adversely affecting the Mergers, to minimize
the substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of
continued litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the claims
in the stockholder actions.

On June 9, 2014, the parties to the Stipulation filed the
Stipulation and associated exhibits with the Delaware Court of
Chancery, seeking among other things, preliminary approval of the
settlement, conditional certification of a non-opt-out class of
former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only, and the
scheduling of a final settlement hearing.

On June 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation, conditionally certifying a non-opt-out class of
former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only pursuant
to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), and
scheduling a final settlement hearing to be held on September 26,
2014. The Court's preliminary order provides that at the final
settlement hearing, the Court will, among other things, determine
whether to finally certify the non-opt-out class of former Knight
stockholders, determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class and should be approved by
the Court, determine whether to enter a final order and judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice, consider the application for
attorneys' fees and costs by counsel for the Delaware and New York
shareholder plaintiffs, and rule on such other matters as the
Court may deem appropriate. The Court's preliminary order further
provides that members of the conditionally-certified class shall
receive notice of the settlement hearing at least 45 days prior to
the hearing, which notice shall describe, among other things, the
material terms of the settlement and the procedures for class
members to follow if they wish to object to the settlement and/or
be heard at the final hearing. If the Court finally approves the
settlement, it will dismiss the Delaware shareholder action with
prejudice. Within ten days of such an order, the New York
shareholder plaintiff is required by the Stipulation to seek
dismissal with prejudice of the New York shareholder action.


KCG HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Trading Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
KCG Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on April 18, 2014, KCG
and 40 other market participants were named as defendants in a
purported class action complaint entitled City of Providence v.
BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-2811, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of public
stockholders who purchased and/or sold stock in the United States
during the period from on and after April 18, 2009 on a U.S.-based
public stock exchange or alternative trading venue. Generally, the
complaint alleges that defendants engaged in manipulative, self-
dealing and deceptive conduct in connection with the trading of
securities. The claims against KCG are made pursuant to Sections
10b and 20A and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks, among other things, equitable and injunctive
relief, as well as unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
and disgorgement.

Between May 2, 2014 and June 13, 2014, three other groups of
plaintiffs filed similar complaints in the same court under the
following captions:  American European Insurance Co. v. BATS
Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-3133; Harel Insurance Co., Ltd.
v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-3608; and Flynn et al.
v. Bank of America Corp. et al., 14-cv-4321.

On July 2, 2014, the court consolidated the four actions and
appointed the original plaintiffs - primarily institutional
investors - lead plaintiffs and their chosen counsel as lead
counsel.


KIOR INC: Oral Argument on Dismissal Bid Set for September 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
KiOR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that on August 20, 2013, Michael
Berry, a purported purchaser of the Company's common stock, filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer, captioned Michael
Berry v. KiOR, Inc., Fred Cannon, and John Karnes. The plaintiff
alleges 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 under the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
August 14, 2012 to August 7, 2013, and alleged that during this
period the market price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated by allegedly false or misleading statements
principally concerning the timing of projected biofuel production
levels at the Company's Columbus, Mississippi facility.

On October 21, 2013, two other purported purchasers of the
Company's common stock, Sharon Kegerreis and Dave Carlton, filed
motions to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in connection with this
putative class action and to have their attorneys approved as lead
counsel. Mr. Berry did not file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.

On November 25, 2013, Sharon Kegerreis and Dave Carlton were
appointed Lead Plaintiffs and their selection of co-lead counsel
was approved by the Court. Lead Plaintiffs then filed an amended
class action complaint on January 27, 2014, alleging the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 violations of the original complaint and
seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from August 14, 2012 to January 8, 2014. Lead
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in favor of all members of
the class, as well as attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

On March 25, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on grounds that it failed to satisfy the pleading
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Instead of responding to this motion to dismiss, Lead Plaintiffs
moved for leave to file a second amended complaint on May 19,
2014, which the Court granted.

On May 27, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, which asserts the same claims against the same
defendants, but seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities from November 8, 2012 to March 17, 2014.

On July 3, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Lead Plaintiffs are expected to file a response to this
motion on August 11, 2014, to which the defendants will thereafter
respond.

The Court has scheduled oral argument on the defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint for September 26, 2014.

KiOR, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), is a next-
generation renewable fuels company based in Houston, Texas. The
Company was incorporated and commenced operations in July 2007 as
a joint venture between Khosla Ventures, LLC ("Khosla Ventures"),
an investment partnership, and BIOeCON B.V.


KKR FINANCIAL: Oral Arguments Heard in Del. on Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that from December 19, 2013
to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits have
been filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of
Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of
KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and certain of KKR & Co.'s
affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement
pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR & Co. The
merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court have been consolidated
but an operative complaint has not been filed or designated.  The
complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was
never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed on May
6, 2014.  Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed,
and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.

On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014.  On July 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery heard oral arguments on defendants' motion to dismiss.

The complaints in these actions allege variously that the members
of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders; and failing
to disclose material information necessary for KFN shareholders to
make a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction.

The actions also allege variously that KKR & Co., and certain of
KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. is a controlling shareholder
of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR
Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in these actions includes,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and the proposed
transaction, rescission, an accounting by defendants, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

KKR Financial Holdings LLC together with its subsidiaries (the
"Company" or "KFN") is a specialty finance company with expertise
in a range of asset classes.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Shareholders Can Inspect Company Records
---------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
shareholders of financial services provider McGraw-Hill can
inspect portions of the corporation's books and records to
investigate alleged mismanagement of its credit rating agency
subsidiary during the run-up to the financial crisis, the
Appellate Division, First Department, held on Sept. 11.

In Retirement Plan for General Employees of the City of North
Miami Beach v. McGraw-Hill Companies, 650349/2013, a unanimous
panel reversed a lower court's dismissal of a petition brought
under a special Commercial Division proceeding to force McGraw
Hill to comply with a written demand for materials.

The November 2011 demand by the Florida pension fund and an
individual stockholder, Robin Stein, relates to Standard & Poor's
alleged practice of issuing favorable credit ratings for subprime
residential mortgage-backed securities and credit default
obligations that masked the actual risk of these products, later
relegated to junk status.

The shareholders sought records concerning the McGraw-Hill board's
oversight of S&P -- including policies and procedures of credit
ratings, policies that addressed conflicts of interest when debt
issuers with rated securities were also clients of S&P, and the
board's level of independence.

The petitioners sought the records pursuant to New York Business
Corporation Law Sec. 624 and the common law, saying they were
necessary to investigate potential wrongdoing by the corporate
board, including breach of fiduciary duty to stockholders, and to
determine if the board had limited independence.

In order to bring such a derivative suit against a corporate
board, shareholders must first make a demand upon the board to
prosecute the claim.  That such a demand would be "futile" is one
exception to the requirement.

McGraw-Hill argued the request was too broad and refused to
disclose any records that fell outside the limits of BCL Sec. 624,
which requires boards to turn over records such as annual
shareholder meeting minutes.

Nevertheless, under common law, the shareholders argued, they were
entitled to a much broader swath of documents if they had a "good
faith" reason and "valid purpose."

The board's alleged mismanagement of S&P -- McGraw Hill's "cash
cow" in the years preceding the financial crisis, the petition
asserted -- established a proper purpose, the shareholders said,
to allow them to enforce their rights under both statutory and
common law.

To bolster their position, the shareholders noted the number of
state and federal investigations into S&P's role in the financial
crisis.  They pointed out actions taken by more than a dozen state
attorneys general, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and
the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Investigations.  They also noted a
$6 billion February 2013 U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit
against McGraw-Hill and S&P on federal fraud claims arising from
the inflated ratings of RMBS and CDOs.

The shareholders asserted in their petition that S&P was a
"critical business segment of the company, contributing more than
25 percent of the company's revenues from 2008 to 2010."

Although the pension fund and McGraw-Hill attempted to compromise
on the scope of the records sought during out-of-court
discussions, they failed to reach an agreement, prompting the
shareholders to file their petition.

In a May 2013 bench ruling, Justice Jeffrey Oing dismissed the
action, telling the parties in oral arguments he believed the
shareholders would get a "head start" in obtaining the requested
records.

The "depth of the information you are seeking is so extreme that
it just smacks of full-blown discovery under Article 31 rather
than under the common law," he said to petitioners' counsel
Robert Roseman -- rroseman@srkw-law.com -- a partner at Spector
Roseman Kodroff & Willis, according to the transcript.

Justice Oing said the shareholders should first make a demand upon
the board to act.  If it was rejected, they could file a
derivative suit.

In reversing, the First Department panel said "shareholders have
both statutory and common law rights to inspect a corporation's
books and records so long as the shareholders seek the inspection
in good faith and for a valid reason," reinforcing the holding in
Matter of Dwyer v. Di Nardo & Metschl, 41 AD3d 1177, 1178 (4th
Dept. 2007).

The panel further said the "multiple" civil actions and
investigations against S&P formed a proper basis for the letter
demand.  It sent the case back to the trial court so the judge
could determine the "proper scope of inspection" among nine
categories sought.

The panel included Justices David Saxe, Karla Moskowitz,
Helen Freedman, Judith Gische and Barbara Kapnick.

"We're very pleased with the panel's ruling and their recognition
of the rights of shareholders of a New York corporation,"
Mr. Roseman said in an interview.  "Our intention has always been
to gather enough information to see if there is a basis to bring a
lawsuit or whether the board is independent or not."

Brian Markley -- bmarkley@cahill.com -- a partner at Cahill Gordon
& Reindel who represents McGraw-Hill, declined to comment.
Through a spokesman, the company's corporate office also declined
comment.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Dismiss Amended Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate putative class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging purported violations of the
securities laws. On May 14, 2013, the court consolidated the
complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On July
12, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint
against the same defendants. On October 11, 2013, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
transferred the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for Northern California ("the Court"). On March 31, 2014,
the Court dismissed the Amended Consolidated Complaint for its
failure to allege adequately falsity or scienter.

On May 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint. The Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and violations of
Israel Securities Law, 1968.  It alleges that defendants made
false or misleading statements (or failed to disclose certain
facts) regarding the Company's business and outlook and seeks
unspecified damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed
just and proper. Lead plaintiffs seek to represent themselves, and
all persons purchasing the Company's common stock between July 19,
2012 and January 2, 2013.

On July 7, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint. Defendants' motion is currently pending,
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The matter is captioned, In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04909-JD.

Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor company
that designs, manufactures and sells high-performance interconnect
products and solutions primarily based on the InfiniBand and
Ethernet standards.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: "Weinberger" Case Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli Claim was
filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant").  The Israeli
Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the Company's
President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO are
responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court.

On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural
agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the
completion of the In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities
Litigation.

On April 24, 2013, the Israeli court approved this procedural
agreement and stayed the Israeli proceedings.

Based on currently available information, the Company believes
that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor company
that designs, manufactures and sells high-performance interconnect
products and solutions primarily based on the InfiniBand and
Ethernet standards.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Claim in Israeli Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint was filed on June 6, 2013, in the Tel-Aviv District
court (the "Israeli Court") in Tel Aviv, Israel (Mordechay
Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13)), in which
the plaintiff alleged that the Company's decision to delist from
the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange ("TASE") was a breach of the duty of
loyalty of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"), as well
as a breach of the duty of care and the duty of loyalty by the
Company's president and chief executive officer (the "Claim"). In
addition, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the complaint as
a class action. The Company was served with the complaint on June
16, 2013. On December 22, 2013, the Company and the Board filed
their Response to the motion to certify the complaint as a class
action (the "Response").

On January 7, 2014 the plaintiff, with the consent of the Company,
filed a request to withdraw the Claim (and related class action
claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the facts and arguments
presented in the Response, reached the conclusion that it would be
difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Claim and have the
complaint approved as a class action. Neither the plaintiff nor
its attorneys have received or will receive any benefit in return
for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2014, the Israeli Court ordered that a notice should
be published in two newspapers in Israel in which potential class
members, the Israeli attorney general, the director of Israeli
courts and the Israeli Securities Authority were notified that any
such party has 45 days from the date of the notice to present its
position to the Israeli Court objecting to or relating to the
Withdrawal Petition. On January 9, 2014 the Israeli court approved
the form of the notice, and the notice was published on Sunday,
January 12, 2014.

During the 45 day period, which expired on February 26, 2014, no
objection to the Withdrawal Petition was filed with the Israeli
Court. As a result, on March 6, 2014, the Israeli Court approved
the Withdrawal Petition and dismissed the Claim, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor company
that designs, manufactures and sells high-performance interconnect
products and solutions primarily based on the InfiniBand and
Ethernet standards.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Suit Over Defective Rims May Be Amended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers may amend claims that Mercedes-Benz sells cars with
supposedly state-of-the-art rims that warp or fracture, costing
consumers millions, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News
Service, citing a ruling by a magistrate judge.

Vincent Luppino and Cliff Stern filed a putative nationwide class
action in Newark, N.J. in 2009, claiming that Mercedes-Benz USA
LLC and Daimler AG knowingly misrepresented the quality of certain
17-inch to 19-inch wheels in print, online, and television ads
since 2006.

Though the AMG and non-AMG wheels are made of a lightweight alloy
designed to withstand various difficult on and off-road terrains,
they bend, deform, dent, warp, or fracture -- even if the driver
dodges potholes -- the complaint states.

While the rims supposedly meet "high standards for safety,
dependability and performance -- not to mention aesthetics,"
according to a 2006 catalog, the plaintiffs say the wheels are
defective.

The complaint further alleges that Mercedes-Benz of North America
and its German parent company failed to honor their four-year,
50,000-mile warranty.

Plus, the manufacturers forced consumers to incur a total of $5
million in out-of-pocket costs for necessary repairs or
replacements the companies refused to cover.

The plaintiffs' third amended complaint sought compensatory and
treble damages, as well as a tolling of the statute of limitations
on claims that Mercedes violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Nearly four years after the original complaint was filed, U.S.
District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh held in September 2013 that a
special master should oversee discovery.  After the drivers
amended their complaint a fourth time to add a breach of implied
warranty claim against Daimler, the German company was dismissed
as a defendant.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares ordered a fifth amended complaint
on March 17, 2014, so the plaintiffs could omit all claims against
Daimler.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion to amend to add a
breach of implied warranty claim against Mercedes about a month
later, which U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Dickson granted Sept. 4.

The judge tossed aside the defendant's claim that the amendment is
"unduly" delayed.

"Defendant argues that plaintiffs wasted previous opportunities to
amend the complaint and that waiting 'until the eve of their class
certification deadline' qualifies as undue delay under Rule 15,"
the unpublished ruling states.  "The court finds defendant's
argument ultimately unpersuasive.  Although defendant argues that
the passage of two years justifies a finding of undue delay, it
fails to point to any resulting prejudicial burden."

Dickson later added: "The court agrees that plaintiff could have
asserted this theory against the defendant at an earlier stage in
the litigation; however, despite this head-scratching delay, there
is no prejudice to the defendant and no real burden on the court."

The judge accepted the plaintiffs' claim that their amendment
"does not inject any new factual allegations" and that "the
importance of adding [the] claim" only crystallized recently when
they received and inspected a large supply of wheels from New
Jersey dealerships.

"Here, plaintiff has represented to the court that no additional
discovery will be needed to add this claim for implied breach of
merchantability and thus no prejudice will result," Dickson wrote.

The case is Vincent Luppino, Cliff Stern and Noel Spiegel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 2:09-cv-05582-JLL-JAD, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


MIMEDX GROUP: Files Reply Memorandum in Support of Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that following the
publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA regarding the
Company's injectable products in September 2013, the trading price
of the Company's stock dropped sharply and several purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of the
Company's executive officers asserting violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related
to the Company's belief that FDA approval was not required to
market its products, including its micronized products.

These cases have now all been removed to, and consolidated in, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
By order dated December 9, 2013, the Court approved the
appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel.

A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, containing
substantially the same causes of action and claims for relief as
the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014.

On February 26, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on
various grounds. The plaintiff filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in
opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 28, 2014.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in
further support of its Motion to Dismiss.

The Company currently believes that the outcome of this litigation
will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Actuarial Data on Concussion Settlement Disclosed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that number-
crunchers for both the NFL and the former players who sued the
league after they suffered head injuries found that the original
settlement amount of $760 million -- which was rejected in January
by the federal judge handling the case -- would have been able to
cover the claims former players are likely to make over the next
65 years.  That actuarial information, which had been kept
confidential from all but a small number of lawyers representing
the thousands of plaintiffs in the case, has been a source of
contention over the last year as dozens of lawyers in the case
sought to get access to it.  The two reports were disclosed on
Sept. 12.

Although each report takes a different route to get to its
conclusion, they both find that with the amount of interest likely
to accrue on the bulk of the original settlement -- $675 million
-- that the National Football League had agreed to put in the fund
from which former players would have drawn based upon their
injuries, there would have been enough to last for the 65-year
expected life of the fund.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania rejected that proposed agreement -- which had
included $75 million for testing players to establish the extent
of the injuries to determine how much they could claim from the
$675 million fund and $10 million for an education fund -- because
she was concerned that there wouldn't be enough money to cover all
of the claims from former players.

The judge ordered both sides -- the NFL and the co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs -- to submit their actuarial data to Perry
Golkin, the special master she had appointed to assess the
structure of the original proposed accord.

Six months later, the parties reached a new settlement with no cap
on the amount of money going into the medical benefits fund.  In
early July, Judge Brody gave preliminary approval to that
settlement agreement.

"The revised proposed settlement is a significant improvement over
the proposed settlement presented in January," Judge Brody had
said in her opinion granting preliminary approval.  "The new
settlement ensures that there are sufficient funds available to
pay all claims through the 65-year term of the settlement and
improves the manner in which diagnoses are made to protect against
fraud.  The original proposed settlement with a monetary fund
'capped' at $675 million -- no matter how well supported by the
parties' actuarial analyses -- entailed some degree of uncertainty
of payment over the 65-year term.  That risk should not be imposed
on the settlement class members."

That had been the major sticking point for the judge when she
rejected the first deal, since she had been troubled by the lack
of empirical support for the figure and was unsure that there
would be enough money to cover all of the players with potential
claims.  The litigation includes claims lodged by more than 5,000
former players and it could reach a total of more than 20,000
former players.

According to the actuarial report submitted by the co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, of those players, about 3,600 of them are
likely to have injuries that will trigger a claim to the medical
fund and will make for a total of about $950 million in claims.

"The majority of these compensable diseases, about 98 percent,
will be cases of Alzheimer's or Level 2 neurocognitive disorders,"
the report says.  "The total nominal cost for all compensable
diseases including administration costs is estimated to be $933
million over the life of the program."

The report submitted by the NFL -- which emphasized that it had
taken a conservative approach in order to yield a projection at
the high end of the spectrum -- estimated a total of $900 million
as the ultimate cost for compensating the 12,500 players it
estimated would collect from the fund.

"We of course cannot project with absolute certainty how many
players, which players, and when such players will develop
qualifying diagnoses at specific ages over the next 65 years," the
NFL report said, stressing that it took a conservative approach.

The NFL report was prepared by the Segal Group and the plaintiffs'
report was prepared by Analysis Research Planning Corp.

William Gibbs -- WTG@CorboyDemetrio.com -- of Corboy & Demetrio in
Chicago, one of the firms that had sought the actuarial data, said
shortly after the reports were released on Sept. 12 that the firm
was still sifting through the information and wouldn't yet be able
to comment.


NCC BUSINESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blumkin" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Blumkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NCC Business Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13604
(D. Mass., September 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently placed automated calls to the Plaintiff's cellular
phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

NCC Business Services, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection
agency, which maintains its United States headquarters at 9428
Baymeadows Road, Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES
      1100 Summer Street, Fl. 3
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Division, and
docketed under 14-cv-81064, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Ocwen securities between May
2, 2013 and August 11, 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 Ocwen securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 14, 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.

Ocwen is a financial services holding company which, through its
subsidiaries, is engaged in the servicing and origination of
forward and reverse mortgage loans in the United States and
internationally.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material information
regarding the Company's improper business and operational
practices including, among other things, that Ocwen's mortgage
servicing practices violated applicable regulations and laws; that
the Company's executives allowed related company Altisource
Portfolio Solutions, S.A. -- a company of which Defendant William
C. Erbey, Ocwen's Chairman of the Board, owns approximately 27% of
its shares outstanding-to impose wholly unreasonable rates for
services provided to Ocwen; and that Defendant William C. Erbey,
along with other directors and officers, were directly involved in
approving Ocwen's conflicted transactions with Altisource.  In
addition, the Company's financial results were artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

On December 19, 2013, the first of several partial disclosures
regarding the Company's illicit practices in connection with its
mortgage servicing business was published.  A New York Times
article titled "Big Subprime Mortgage Loan Servicer Agrees to $2.2
billion Settlement" announced a $2.2 billion settlement entered
into by Ocwen with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in
connection with the Company's mortgage servicing business.  The
article stated that the Bureau "believe[s] that Ocwen violated
federal consumer financial laws at every stage of the mortgage
servicing process[.]"

On February 26, 2014, an article by Bloomberg titled, "Lawsky
Cites Ocwen Conflicts as He Reviews Wells Fargo Deal," continued
to expose Ocwen's deficient operational practices.  The article
disclosed that the New York Department of Financial Services
issued a letter to the Company expressing concerns regarding
Ocwen's business transactions with related companies and Defendant
Erbey's and other officers' and directors' involvement in
approving transactions with said affiliates.

On August 4, 2014, the NY Department of Financial Services issued
a second letter to Ocwen stating that it was reviewing what it
called "a troubling transaction" with Altisource relating to the
provision of force-placed insurance which is "designed to funnel
as much as $65 million in fees annually from already-distressed
homeowners to Altisource for minimal work."  The article went on
to question the "the role that Ocwen's Executive Chairman
William C. Erbey played in approving this arrangement" which
"appears to be inconsistent with public statements Ocwen has made,
as well as representations in company SEC filings."

The full truth finally emerged on August 12, 2014, when the
Company disclosed yet more problems with its business and
operations when it announced that certain transactions with
another related company in which Defendant Erbey holds a
substantial stake-Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. would lead
to the Company restating its financial results for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended March 31, 2014.  As
a result of the restatement, the Company announced that it expects
to report material weaknesses in its internal controls.  As a
result of this disclosure, Ocwen's stock price declined an
additional $1.18 per share, or 4.48%, on higher than average
trading volume.

Overall, in response to these disclosures, the Company's stock
price plummeted an aggregate 55%, from a closing of $56.00 on
December 18, 2013 to a closing price of $25.16 on August 12, 2014.

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


OFFICE DEPOT: "Fennell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Fennell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02506 (D. Colo.,
September 10, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, a
declaratory judgment, liquidated damages, and the costs and
attorneys' fees.

Office Depot, Inc. owns and operates stores in the Denver,
Colorado metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Beth O'Connor, Esq.
      BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC
      1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
      Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 893-9800
      Facsimile: (303) 893-9900
      E-mail: karen.oconnor@coloradolaw.net


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Bid to Dismiss Smithtown-Related Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district court denied People's United Financial Inc.'s
motion to dismiss litigation relating to the Smithtown
transaction, People's United Financial said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On February 25, 2010 and March 29, 2010, Smithtown and several of
its officers and directors were named in two lawsuits commenced in
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
(Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown Bancorp,
Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et al.,
respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March 13,
2008 and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete. As a result of the merger of Smithtown
with and into People's United Financial on November 30, 2010,
People's United Financial has become the successor party to
Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel. The Court
approved the consolidation of the two suits, with Waterford
Township named the lead plaintiff. On March 22, 2012, People's
United Financial filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On March
29, 2013, the Court granted People's United Financial's Motion to
Dismiss.

On April 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a second Amended
Complaint, and on June 6, 2013, People's United Financial filed a
Motion to Dismiss the second Amended Complaint.

The Court denied People's United Financial's Motion to Dismiss on
July 18, 2014.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: "Farb" Suit Against Bank Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
The court dismissed a class action against People's United Bank in
its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because all
of the claims are preempted by federal law, People's United
Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
(Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People's United Bank) arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.

The Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011 and alleges that
the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in the posting of
electronic debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar
amount. The Complaint also alleges that such practices were
inadequately disclosed to customers and were unfairly used by the
Bank for the purpose of generating revenue by maximizing the
number of overdrafts a customer is assessed. The Complaint seeks
certification of a class of checking account holders residing in
Connecticut and who have incurred at least one overdraft fee,
injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and treble damages,
disgorgement and restitution of overdraft fees paid, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 16, 2011, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
Court. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on May 15, 2012, the Bank filed a Motion to Strike
the Amended Complaint.

On April 10, 2013, the Bank renewed its Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Court denied the Bank's Motion to
Strike and its renewed Motion to Dismiss.

On September 23, 2013, the Bank filed its Revised Answer, Special
Defenses and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint. A Court hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Strike certain
of the Bank's Defenses and a Counterclaim was held on January 30,
2014. The Court postponed consideration of that Motion and, on
April 28, 2014, held a hearing to consider whether it has
jurisdiction to hear the case.

On July 28, 2014, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because all of the claims are
preempted by federal law.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Settlement in "Fracasse" Class Action Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court approved a settlement in the "Fracasse" class action,
People's United Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a
lawsuit (Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. People's United Bank) based
on allegations that the Bank failed to pay overtime compensation
required by (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and (ii) the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs allege that they were
employed as "underwriters" and were misclassified as exempt
employees. The plaintiffs further allege that they worked in
excess of 40 hours per week and were erroneously denied overtime
compensation as required by federal and state wage and hour laws.
The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
on May 3, 2012. Since the Complaint is brought under both federal
and state law, the Complaint seeks certification of two different
but overlapping classes. The plaintiffs seek damages in the amount
of their respective unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2012, the Bank filed its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses. On June 17, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification for the plaintiff's state law claims.

On April 25, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter. On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel filed
a Withdrawal of the Constructive Discharge Complaint as to the
state law claims. A hearing to consider the settlement was held
and, on July 15, 2014, the Court approved the settlement, the
amount of which has been adequately reserved for.


PLATINUM OF ILLINOIS: Ill. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Webb on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Platinum of Illinois Incorporated, Case No.
3:14-cv-00982 (S.D. Ill., September 10, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, court
costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Platinum of Illinois Incorporated owns and operates an adult
entertainment facility in Brooklyn, Illinois under the assumed
name PT's of Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
      John Neuman, Esq.
      Gabriel Assaad, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com
              jneuman@kennedyhodges.com
              gassaad@kennedyhodges.com


PRO AG CHB-LOGISTICS: Faces "Marulanda" Suit Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jovany Marulanda and all others similarly situated v. Pro AG CHB-
Logistics, Inc., a Florida corporation, Glenn Wadler, Scott A.
Frane, and Amy Felsen, Case No. 1:14-cv-23348 (S.D. Fla.,
September 10, 2014) is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the overtime and record keeping provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pro AG CHB-Logistics, Inc. is a freight transportation arrangement
company located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Domingo Carlos Rodriguez, Esq.
      Sarah Dawn Schooley, Esq.
      RODRIGUEZ SCHOOLEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 730
      Miami, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 774-1477
      Facsimile: (305) 774-1075
      E-mail: domingo@rslawmiami.com
              sarah@rslawmiami.com


PYRO ENGINEERING: Faces "Beltre" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Frias Beltre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Pyro Engineering, Inc. and Dennis Brady, Jr., in his
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 2:14-cv-05302
(E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pyro Engineering, Inc. is engaged in the business of doing pyro
display fireworks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cherice Patrice Vanderhall, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: cpv@employmentlawyernewyork.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: 3rd Circuit Affirmed Denial of Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Quest
Diagnostics should not face a class action on overbilling claims,
the 3rd Circuit ruled, finding the proposed classes too broad, too
plentiful and stretching across too many state lines.

Richard Grandalski leads the complaint against the diagnostic-
testing giant, claiming that the company overbills patients for
various testing services.  The action sought certification for "a
proposed class of all persons who were billed by Quest and who
paid an amount in excess of that stated on an EOB or ERA provided
to Quest prior to the date of the bill."

The patients also sought a second class certification for "a class
who were members, participants, subscribers or beneficiaries of
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield and the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program."

Citing the law of the class members' home states, however, a
federal judge in Newark, N.J., concluded that "applying so many
different fraud statutes would be unwieldy and inappropriate for
class treatment at trial."

The District Court additionally found that "there were numerous
explanations for overbilling that would not be wrongful or
unjust," according to the 3rd Circuit's summary published on Sept.
11.

The highly individualized evidence each class member would present
on unjust enrichment also meant that common issues of fact did not
predominate between the class members, the court found.

A three-judge panel with the 3rd Circuit affirmed, noting that
"the nationwide classes proposed by appellants were for purposes
of trial, not settlement.  Under such facts, it was reasonable for
the District Court to inquire at the certification stage as to
whether the classes posed 'intractable management problems' for
trial," Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote for the court.

For the panel, it is the homes states of the plaintiffs, not of
Quest Diagnostics, that presents a major concern.

Citing circuit precedent from last year's case, Maniscalco v.
Brother Int'l, Rendell said that "nothing else about the
relationship between the parties, other than the fortuitous
location of [the defendant's] headquarters, took place in the
state of New Jersey."

"[Plaintiff's] home state, in which he received and relied on [the
defendant's] alleged fraud, has the 'most significant
relationship' to his consumer fraud claim," the ruling continues.

Rendell Said that "the same conclusion applies here" and "controls
our analysis here and confirms that the laws of class members'
home states apply to their state law claims for the Post-EOB
Billing Class and Anthem BCBS FEHB Program Class."

The plaintiffs failed to show the court that, "even if each class
member's home state law controlled their claims, the District
Court erred in finding such claims impractical for class
treatment."

"In this case, appellants did not provide enough information or
analysis to justify the certification of the classes they
proposed," Rendell wrote.

Ultimately the plaintiffs "have failed to provide a sufficient, or
virtually any, analysis describing how the grouped state laws
might apply to the facts of this case," Rendell added.  "They
assert only that the differences between the state laws within
each group are 'insignificant or non-existent.'"

Rendell also agreed that "the District Court properly found that
individual inquiries would be required to determine whether an
alleged overbilling constituted unjust enrichment for each class
member," nothing that "such specific evidence is incompatible with
representative litigation."

The Plaintiffs- Appellants are represented by:

          Nicole M. Acchione, Esq.
          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP
          Woodland Falls Corporate Park
          220 Lake Drive, East, Suite 200
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
          Telephone: (856) 482-5222
          Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
          E-mail: nacchione@schnader.com
                  ljrodriguez@schnader.com

               - and -

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          P. O. Box 566
          Southold, NY 11971

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Diane A. Bettino, Esq.
          Mark S. Melodia, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          Princeton Forrestal Village
          136 Main Street, Suite 250
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 514-5962
          Facsimile: (609) 951-0824
          E-mail: dbettino@reedsmith.com
                  mmelodia@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-2936
          E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com

               - and -

          James S. Murphy, Esq.
          GARRITY, GRAHAM, MURPHY, GAROFALO & FLINN
          72 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 350
          P. O. Box 438
          East Hanover, NJ 07936
          Telephone: (973) 509-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 509-0414
          E-mail: JSM@GarrityGraham.com

The appellate case is Richard Grandalski, et al. v. Quest
Diagnostics Inc., et al., Case No. 13-4329, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The District Court case
is Richard Grandalski, et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2-04-cv-04362, in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.


RAINERI CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------Jason
Diebling, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Raineri Construction, LLC, Anthony Raineri & Ashley Raineri,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01556 (E.D. Mo., September 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay employees overtime
compensation.

Raineri Construction, LLC is a general building contractor
operating in and around the St. Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com

         - and -

      Eli Karsh, Esq.
      LIBERMAN & GOLDSTEIN
      230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 862-3333
      E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Actions in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 10, 2014, the
first of two purported securities class action lawsuits was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The Company said, "The lawsuits allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
us related to our Phase 3 trial of Revolixys in patients
undergoing certain percutaneous coronary intervention procedures.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that we failed to disclose
facts related to the potential risk of several allergic reactions
following the administration of Revolixys and therefore made false
or misleading statements about Revolixys' safety. Plaintiffs seek
damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees."

The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of novel, first-in-class, actively
controllable antithrombotic drug systems for acute and sub-acute
cardiovascular indications.


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Expects More Expenses Due to Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, that
general and administrative expenses for the second quarter of 2014
were $2.8 million, compared to $1.1 million for the comparable
2013 period. The increase in general and administrative expenses
primarily reflected increased personnel as well as increased
accounting, legal and other administrative costs associated with
being a public company. The company expects general and
administrative expenses to potentially increase during the
remainder of the year in connection with the purported class
action lawsuits and derivative lawsuit recently filed against the
company.

The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of novel, first-in-class, actively
controllable antithrombotic drug systems for acute and sub-acute
cardiovascular indications.


REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Pre-IPO Investors' Action in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on October 3,
2013, two pre-IPO investors filed a putative class action
purportedly brought on behalf of the investors in RIF III in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court. On February 14, 2014, a First
Amended Complaint was filed adding an additional individual pre-
IPO investor and putative class claims on behalf of investors in
RIF IV.  This complaint also alleged that the communication of the
proposed accommodation (in which Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and
Ziman, together with certain other pre-IPO owners of the pre-IPO
management companies agreed to return up to $32.1 million that
they received in connection with the Company's IPO and formation
transactions) was materially misleading by not including
disclosures regarding the lawsuit and claims asserted by
plaintiffs.

On July 15, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint was filed withdrawing
the class action allegations and the allegations concerning
communication of the accommodation, and adding four additional
plaintiff investors.  Plaintiffs assert claims against the
Company, RIF III, RIF IV, RILLC and Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and
Ziman for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of certain
California securities laws, negligent misrepresentation, and
fraud. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the terms of
the Company's formation transactions were unfair to investors in
RIF III and RIF IV, that the consideration received by investors
in RIF III and RIF IV in the formation transactions was
inadequate, that the pre-IPO management companies were allocated
unfair value in the formation transactions and that the disclosure
documents related to the formation transactions were materially
misleading.  Plaintiffs also request to inspect the books and
records of RIF III and RIF IV, which entities no longer exist, and
further seek declaratory relief, unspecified recessionary damages,
disgorgement, compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, an
accounting for unjust enrichment, and an award of costs including
pre-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other
unspecified relief. Defendants have answered the Second Amended
Complaint denying all allegations and asserting affirmative
defenses.

"While we believe that the action is without merit and intend to
defend the litigation vigorously, we expect to incur costs
associated with defending the action. At this early stage of the
litigation, the ultimate outcome of the action is uncertain and we
cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome, or estimate the
amount of loss, if any, or its effect, if any, on our financial
condition," the Company said.

Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. is a self-administered and self-
managed full-service real estate investment trust ("REIT") focused
on owning and operating industrial properties in Southern
California infill markets.


RJM ACQUISITIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ozer Y. Babad, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05411
(E.D.N.Y., September 16, 2014) is brought for alleged 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


ROCKET FUEL: Faces "Mehrotra" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjiv Mehrotra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter
Bardwick, Susan L. Bostrom, Ronald E. F. Codd, William Ericson,
Richard Frankel, John Gardner, Clark Kokich, Monte Zweben, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Needham & Company, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Piper Jaffray &
Co., BMO Capital Markets Corp., and Luma Securities LLC, Case No.
4:14-cv-04114 (N.D. Cal., September 10, 2014), alleges that the
registration statement made by the Defendants was false and
misleading because the Defendants failed to disclose that the
Company was not adequately detecting and preventing digital ad
fraud and that a significant portion of the advertisements that
the Company brokered were being viewed by computer programs rather
than humans.

Rocket Fuel Inc. delivers a programmatic media-buying platform at
Big Data scale that uses artificial intelligence to purportedly
improve marketing return on investment in digital media across
web, mobile, video, and social channels.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Needham & Company, LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Piper Jaffray &
Co., BMO Capital Markets Corp., and Luma Securities LLC, served as
an underwriter and joint book-running manager of the Rocket Fuel
Inc. Initial Public Offering.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Rocket
Fuel Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
              lglancy@glancylaw.com
              mgoldberg@glancylaw.com


ROYAL BANK: Small Business Owners File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Professional Adviser reports that hundreds of business owners
affected by Royal Bank of Scotland's "turnaround" division for
struggling companies are planning to sue the bank through a group
legal action.

Small and medium-sized companies who claim that they were
exploited and, in some cases, destroyed as a result of the
activities of the bank's global restructuring (GRG) division are
joining forces to seek compensation from the lender.

The RBS GRG Business Action Group has appointed Clyde & Co, the
law firm, to review allegations that viable companies were forced
out of business, the Times reports.  It said that about 800
companies had come forward with complaints.


SKIPSMASHER INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berenice Armas-Lopez, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Skipsmasher Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-
01885 (C.D. Cal., September 10, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Skipsmasher Inc. sells nationally a report to debt collectors and
entities involved in the debt collection industry generally, to
assist with the collection of delinquent credit accounts, and the
location of debtors and debtors' assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
      TATAR LAW FIRM APC
      3500 West Olive Avenue Suite 300
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (323) 744-1146
      Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
      E-mail: Stephanie@TheTatarLawFirm.com


SPARK NETWORKS: Hearing Held on "Kirby" Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of settlement
in the class action Kirby, et al. v. Spark Networks USA, LLC, was
scheduled for August 21, 2014, Spark Networks, Inc., said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On October 16, 2012, Kristina Kirby, Christopher Wagner and Jamie
Carper (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, filed a putative
class action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles alleging claims against Spark
Networks USA, LLC for violations of California Business &
Professions Code section 17529.5.  Plaintiffs allege that certain
e-mail communications advertising websites of Spark Networks USA,
LLC and received by Plaintiffs violate a California statute
prohibiting false and deceptive e-mail communications (namely,
California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5).
Plaintiffs generally allege that they seek damages in excess of
$25,000.

As of March 28, 2013, the e-mail publishers responsible for
distributing the e-mails at issue in this litigation have agreed
to furnish a complete defense to the Company, through independent
counsel at their own expense, pursuant to contractual
indemnification provisions.  The parties reached a settlement to
resolve the action on a classwide basis.  They have executed a
settlement agreement and filed the necessary approval paperwork
with the Court.

The hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was scheduled for August 21, 2014.  The next step would
be to provide notice to putative class members and secure final
approval (likely in later 2014 or early 2015, although more
precise deadlines are likely to be set on August 21, 2014).

Spark Networks, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiaries provide
online personals services in the United States and
internationally, whereby adults are able to post information about
themselves ("profiles") on the Company's websites and search and
contact other individuals who have posted profiles.


SPARK NETWORKS: Response to Bids to Certify Classes Due October 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three class action law
suits have been filed in Israel alleging violations of the Israel
Consumer Protection Law of 1981.  Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks
(Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland
vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd.

Spark was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify
it as a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014.
The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. refused to
cancel her subscription and provide a refund for unused periods
and claims that such a refusal is in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.  Spark was served with a Statement of Claim and a
motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on
January 21, 2014.

The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. renewed
his one month subscription without receiving his positive
agreement in advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited
under the Consumer Protection Law. Spark was served with a
Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in
the Korland action on February 12, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges
that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. refused to give her a full
refund and charged her the price of a one month subscription to
the JDate website in violation of the Consumer Protection Law.  In
each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal
damages and damages on behalf of a defined group.

On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark's motion to consolidate
all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be
litigated jointly. Spark's combined response to their motions to
certify the classes is due October 1, 2014.

Spark Networks, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiaries provide
online personals services in the United States and
internationally, whereby adults are able to post information about
themselves ("profiles") on the Company's websites and search and
contact other individuals who have posted profiles.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Brown" Suit Transferred From D.C. to Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01090, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(Atlanta).  The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-02965-ODE to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of participants in the SunTrust
Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan against the Plan's fiduciaries pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Brian McTigue, Esq.
          James A. Moore, Esq.
          MCTIGUE LAW, LLP
          4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 364-6900
          Facsimile: (202) 364-9960
          E-mail: bmctigue@mctiguelaw.com
                  jmoore@mctiguelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Darren A. Shuler, Esq.
          David Tetrick, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP-ATL 39
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 39th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2790
          E-mail: dshuler@kslaw.com
                  dtetrick@kslaw.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Faces "Freedman" Suit in District of Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shana Freedman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. and Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01575-CKK (D.D.C., September 16, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Peter Relman, Esq.
          RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC
          1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036-2456
          Telephone: (202) 728-1888
          Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
          E-mail: jrelman@relmanlaw.com


SWISHER HYGIENE: Court Okayed Deal, Dismissed Securities Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western District of North Carolina approved a settlement, and
issued an Order and Final Judgment that, among other things,
dismissed the securities class actions with prejudice and provided
for full and complete releases to defendants, Swisher Hygiene Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

There have been six stockholder lawsuits filed in federal courts
in North Carolina and New York asserting claims relating to the
Company's March 28, 2012 announcement regarding the Company's
Board's conclusion that the Company's previously issued interim
financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31,
2011, June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011, and the other
financial information in the Company's quarterly reports on Form
10-Q for the periods then ended, should no longer be relied upon
and that an internal review by the Company's Audit Committee
primarily relating to possible adjustments to the Company's
financial statements was ongoing.

On March 30, 2012, a purported Company stockholder commenced a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, the former President and
Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and the former Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer ("former CFO"). The
plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the
Company's public filings. In April and May 2012, four more
putative securities class actions were filed by purported Company
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina against the same set of defendants. The
plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged
false and misleading disclosures in the Company's public filings.
In each of the putative securities class actions, the plaintiffs
seek damages for losses suffered by the putative class of
investors who purchased Swisher common stock.

On May 21, 2012, a stockholder derivative action was brought
against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's
then directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another
purported Company stockholder in the Southern District of New
York. In this derivative action, the plaintiff seeks to recover
for the Company damages arising out of the then possible
restatement of the Company's financial statements.

On May 30, 2012, the Company, its former CEO and former CFO filed
a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the cases in the
Western District of North Carolina by requesting that the actions
filed in the Southern District of New York be transferred to the
Western District of North Carolina.  In light of the motion to
centralize the cases in the Western District of North Carolina,
the Company, its former CEO and former CFO requested from both
courts a stay of all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling.
On June 4, 2012, the Southern District of New York adjourned all
pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer
filed before the MDL Panel. On June 13, 2012, the Western District
of North Carolina issued a stay of proceedings pending a ruling by
the MDL Panel.

On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to centralize
transferring the actions filed in the Southern District of New
York to the Western District of North Carolina as part of MDL No.
2384, captioned In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and
Derivative Litigation. In response, on August 21, 2012, the
Western District of North Carolina issued an order governing the
practice and procedure in the actions transferred to the Western
District of North Carolina as well as the actions originally filed
there.  On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North
Carolina held an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed
lead counsel and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions,
and set a schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action
complaint and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to
the consolidated class action complaint. The Western District of
North Carolina stayed the derivative action pending the outcome of
the securities class actions.

On April 24, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint")
asserting similar claims as those previously alleged as well as
additional allegations stemming from the Company's restated
financial statements. The Class Action Complaint also named the
Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer as an
additional defendant who has since been dismissed from the case.
On June 24, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the Class Action
Complaint.  Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on
August 9, 2013.

On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned
Miller, et al. v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., No. 0:13-CV-
61292-JAL, against the Company, its former CEO and former CFO, and
a former Company director, bringing state and federal claims
founded on the allegations that in deciding to sell their company
to the Company, plaintiffs relied on defendants' statements about
such things as the Company's accounting and internal controls,
which, in light of Swisher's restatement of its financial
statements, were false. On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the
MDL Panel of this action, and requested that it be transferred and
centralized in the Western District of North Carolina with the
other actions pending there. On July 23, 2013, the MDL Panel
issued a Conditional Transfer Order (the "Miller CTO"),
conditionally transferring the case to the Western District of
North Carolina. On July 29, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL
Panel that they would seek to vacate the Miller CTO. In light of
the proceedings in the MDL Panel, defendants requested that the
Southern District of Florida stay all proceedings pending the MDL
Panel's ruling. On August 6, 2013, the Southern District of
Florida issued a stay of all proceedings pending a ruling by the
MDL Panel.  On October 2, 2013, following briefing on the issue of
whether the Miller CTO should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an
order transferring the action to the Western District of North
Carolina.

The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint on March 20, 2014.  Briefing on the motions to
dismiss was completed on May 12, 2014.  On June 2, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion with the Western District of North
Carolina seeking a suggestion for remand from that Court to the
MDL Panel. Briefing on that motion was completed on June 26, 2014.
Oral argument on the motions to dismiss and motion for suggestion
for remand were heard on July 22, 2014.

On August 5, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina denied
plaintiffs' motion for suggestion for remand.

On July 11, 2013, a purported stockholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina,
Mecklenburg County, captioned Borthwick v. Berrard , et. al., No.
13-CVS-12397. The action asserts claims against the Company as a
nominal defendant, its former CEO and former CFO, and certain
former and current Company directors for breaches of fiduciary
duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste of corporate
assets, and aiding and abetting thereof in connection with the
Company's restatement of its financial statements. Among other
things, the action seeks damages on behalf of the Company and an
order directing the Company to implement corporate governance
reforms. On August 7, 2013, the Company filed a notice to remove
the action from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division in the State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County to the
Western District of North Carolina. On August 30, 2013, the
Company moved to consolidate this action with the actions
previously consolidated before the Western District of North
Carolina, and to stay the action. On September 25, 2013, the
Western District of North Carolina granted the Company's motion to
consolidate and stay the action.

Although the Company continues to believe it has meritorious
defenses to the asserted claims to the securities class actions in
the United States, the defendants and plaintiffs agreed to the
terms of a settlement and on February 5, 2014 executed a
settlement agreement that, following approval by the Western
District of North Carolina, will resolve all claims in the
securities class actions pending there (the "Settlement").  The
Settlement provides that the defendants will make a set cash
payment totaling $5,500,000, all from insurance proceeds, to
settle all of the securities class actions, and full and complete
releases will be provided to defendants.  On March 11, 2014, the
Western District of North Carolina issued a preliminary order
approving the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing for August 6,
2014.  That same day, the Western District of North Carolina also
issued an order terminating defendants' pending motions to dismiss
the Class Action Complaint as moot in light of the Settlement.

On August 6, 2014, following a hearing, the Western District of
North Carolina approved the Settlement, and issued an Order and
Final Judgment that, among other things, dismissed the securities
class actions with prejudice and provided for full and complete
releases to defendants.

Swisher Hygiene sells consumable products such as detergents,
cleaning chemicals, soap, paper, water filters and supplies,
together with the rental and servicing of dish machines and other
equipment for the dispensing of those products as well as
additional services such as the cleaning of restrooms and other
facilities.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Faces "Edwards" Class Action in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported stockholder
commenced on December 17, 2013, a putative securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Edwards v. Swisher
Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 13-20282 CP, against the Company, the
former CEO and former CFO.  The action alleges claims under
Canadian law for alleged misrepresentations of the Company's
financial position relating to its business acquisitions.

Swisher Hygiene sells consumable products such as detergents,
cleaning chemicals, soap, paper, water filters and supplies,
together with the rental and servicing of dish machines and other
equipment for the dispensing of those products as well as
additional services such as the cleaning of restrooms and other
facilities.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Faces "Phillips" Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported stockholder
commenced on March 28, 2014, a putative securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Phillips v. Swisher
Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 14-00501096-0000, against the Company,
the former CEO, the former CFO and the Company's former Senior
Vice President and Treasurer. The action alleges claims under
Canadian law stemming from Swisher's restatement.

Swisher Hygiene sells consumable products such as detergents,
cleaning chemicals, soap, paper, water filters and supplies,
together with the rental and servicing of dish machines and other
equipment for the dispensing of those products as well as
additional services such as the cleaning of restrooms and other
facilities.


TANGOE INC: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss "Stein" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district court has not yet ruled on Defendants' motion to
dismiss the "Stein" class action, Tangoe, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On March 1, 2013, Lewis Stein, a purported
purchaser of our common stock, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us,
our President and Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial
Officer, Stein v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and Gary
R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges 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 under the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of our
common stock from December 20, 2011 through September 5, 2012 and
alleges that during this period the market price of our common
stock was inflated by false or misleading statements principally
concerning the results of our business."

"On April 30, 2013, Mr. Stein and another purported purchaser of
our common stock, James Gibson, filed a motion to be appointed as
lead plaintiffs in connection with this putative class action and
to have their attorneys approved as lead counsel.  The court held
a hearing on May 13, 2013 to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel for all of the cases consolidated with this action.  The
court denied without prejudice Mr. Stein's and Mr. Gibson's motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in connection with this
putative class action and to have their attorneys approved as lead
counsel.  On May 17, 2013, Mr. Gibson withdrew his request to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in connection with this putative class
action, and Mr. Stein filed a renewed request to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in connection with this putative class action and
to have his attorneys approved as lead counsel.  On August 19,
2013, the court allowed Mr. Stein's motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in connection with this putative class action and to
have his attorneys approved as lead counsel.

"On October 18, 2013, Mr. Stein filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act.  In the Amended Complaint, Mr.
Stein seeks to represent a class of purchasers of our common stock
from July 27, 2011 through September 4, 2012 and alleges that
during this period the market price of our common stock was
inflated by false or misleading statements principally concerning
the results of our business.  The Amended Complaint asserts claims
against us, Mr. Subbloie, Mr. Martino, and Gary P. Golding, one of
our directors.  On November 18, 2013, the Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.  On December 18,
2013, Mr. Stein opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On January
17, 2014, the Defendants submitted a reply brief in further
support of their motion to dismiss.  The court has not yet ruled
on Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The outcome of this matter is
not presently determinable."

The Company also said, "On March 15, 2013, Calvin Rector, a
purported purchaser of our common stock, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against us, our President and Chief Executive Officer and our
Chief Financial Officer, Rector v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R.
Subbloie, Jr. and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of purchasers of our common stock from
December 20, 2011 through September 5, 2012 and alleges that
during this period the market price of our common stock was
inflated by false or misleading statements principally concerning
the results of our business.  On April 3, 2013, the court
consolidated this case with the Stein case."

The Company also said, "On April 12, 2013, Timothy Kelley, a
purported purchaser of our common stock, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against us, our President and Chief Executive Officer and our
Chief Financial Officer, Kelley v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R.
Subbloie, Jr. and Gary R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of purchasers of our common stock from
December 20, 2011 through September 5, 2012 and alleges that
during this period the market price of our common stock was
inflated by false or misleading statements principally concerning
the results of our business.  On April 26, 2013, the court
consolidated the case with the Stein case."

Tangoe, Inc. provides connection lifecycle management software and
related services to a wide range of global enterprises and service
providers.


TOSHIBA AMERICA: "Pierce-Nunes" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Stacey Pierce-Nunes v. Toshiba
America Information Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00796, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The California Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07242-DMG-MAN to the proceeding.

The action seeks to recover damages and restitution in connection
with the purchase of Toshiba-brand televisions that were falsely
marketed and advertised by Toshiba as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs" or
"LED televisions."  The Plaintiff alleges that the televisions at
issue are not "LED TVs," but instead are LCD TVs that use light
emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of cold cathode fluorescent lights
(CCFLs) to light the liquid crystal display (LCD) panel that is
present in each of the televisions at issue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
          Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
          Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com
                  jzahid@zelle.com
                  pclayton@zelle.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Hayward J. Kaiser, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
          E-mail: hjk@msk.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
          Gregory R. Merz, Esq.
          Kathryn J. Bergstrom, Esq.
          Dean C. Eyler, Esq.
          GRAY PLANT & MOOTY
          500 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 632-3000
          Facsimile: (612) 632-4444
          E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
                  gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com
                  katie.bergstrom@gpmlaw.com
                  dean.eyler@gpmlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
          Thomas Owen Powell, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6010
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: scommons@sidley.com
                  topowell@sidley.com

               - and -

          Theodore Robert Scarborough, Jr., Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: tscarborough@sidley.com

               - and -

          Alex Doherty, Esq.
          ALLEN MATKINS
          Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
          Telephone: (415) 273-7464
          Facsimile: (415) 837-1516
          E-mail: adoherty@allenmatkins.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eliezer T. Preisler, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Transworld Systems, Inc., d/b/a/ North Shore
Agency, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-05418 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 16, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TURTLE BEACH: VTB Filed Motion to Dismiss Merger Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") and Parametric Sound Corporation
("Parametric") on August 5, 2013, announced that they had entered
into the Merger Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an
approximately 80% ownership interest and existing shareholders
would maintain an approximately 20% ownership interest in the
combined company.

Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that following the
announcement, several of shareholders filed class action lawsuits
in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The
plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of Parametric's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued Parametric.
VTBH was named as a defendant in these lawsuits under the theory
that VTBH aided and abetted Parametric's Board of Directors in
allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both
cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of
the Merger, which by agreement was heard by the Nevada court with
the California plaintiffs invited to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
seeks monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and seeks monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH moved to dismiss the action, which motion
was scheduled to be heard on August 28, 2014. VTBH believes that
the plaintiffs' claims against it are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company is unable to estimate a possible
loss or range of possible loss in regards to this matter;
therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements, Turtle Beach said.

Turtle Beach is a premier audio innovation company with deep
expertise and relevant experience in developing, commercializing
and marketing audio technologies across a range of large
addressable markets under the Turtle Beach and HyperSound brands.


TURTLE BEACH: VTBH to Defend Against "Vasek" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Shana Vasek, a
purported shareholder of Turtle Beach (f/k/a Parametric), filed on
November 20, 2013, a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, under the caption Vasek
v. Parametric Sound Corp., Case No.2:13-cv-02148-JAD-GWF, naming
the same defendants, asserting substantially the same allegations
and seeking substantially the same relief as named, asserted and
sought in the consolidated action pending in Nevada state court.

In addition to asserting substantially the same claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting as asserted in the
above-referenced consolidated action pending in Nevada state
court, the plaintiff in the federal court action asserts a claim
for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9.

VTBH has not be served with the complaint in the federal court
action. VTBH believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
litigation.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company is unable to estimate a possible
loss or range of possible loss in regards to this matter;
therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements, Turtle Beach said.

Turtle Beach is a premier audio innovation company with deep
expertise and relevant experience in developing, commercializing
and marketing audio technologies across a range of large
addressable markets under the Turtle Beach and HyperSound brands.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Puts Customers at Risk, Cab Companies Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internet ride-share services such as Uber and Lyft put customers
at risk, traditional cab companies claimed in a class action
lawsuit on September 16, 2014, according to Victoria Prieskop at
Courthouse News Service.

More than 20 cab companies around the nation have sued Uber this
year on similar charges.  Lead plaintiff Albuquerque Cab Co.
claims that Uber's business clearly constitutes offering
transportation services for hire and therefore should be regulated
under the Motor Carrier Act.  But drivers for Uber and Lyft are
not certified by the state, and so are not held to the same
standards as drivers of traditional cabs.

Certificated drivers and their vehicles in New Mexico are held to
standards to protect the public safety.  Yet the plaintiffs cite
an incident in which a Lyft driver collided with an Albuquerque
Cab Company vehicle, but didn't provide insurance information or
even his name.

The cabbies also point out that cab drivers are required by the
Motor Carrier Act accept any customer without discrimination,
whenever reasonable.  Drivers for Uber and Lyft aren't required to
hold to the same standards and so can pick and choose longer and
more expensive fares, competing unfairly.

Lyft and Uber have been under a Cease and Desist Order from the
Public Regulation Commission since May this year, ordering them to
cease operations in New Mexico, but have continued operating
despite the order, the cabbies say.  They seek a preliminary
permanent injunction Uber, Lyft and Hinter-NM, and their drivers,
and damages for lost revenue.

Albuquerque Cab Company, Yellow Checker Cab Company, Giant Cab,
Socorro Taxi, Carey Southwest Limousine and Lucky Boyz Limousine
are represented by Michael J. Cadigan and Kristina Caffery of
Albuquerque.


UMPQUA BANK: $2.9-Mil. Settlement in Overdraft Fee Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge approved a $2.9 million settlement between Umpqua
Bank and customers who claim they were squeezed for overdraft
fees, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar vacated a trial scheduled for April
2015 after plaintiffs Amber Hawthorne, Christopher Kneer and
Victoria Kneer announced a settlement agreement with Umpqua.

The plaintiffs filed a class action against the bank in December
2011, and a third amended complaint in California's Northern
District in January 2014.  They claimed Umpqua uses special
software to maximize the amount of overdraft fees it charges
customers.  They also called Umpqua's account agreement misleading
and said the bank "provides inaccurate balance information to its
customers through its electronic network," informing them "that
they have a positive balance when, in reality, they have a
negative balance, despite the bank's actual knowledge of
outstanding debits and transactions."

The parties signed the settlement agreement in June 2014 after
three additional months of negotiations, and filed a motion for
preliminary approval on June 19.

Tigar granted preliminary approval on September 15, 2014.

"The settlement was reached at arms-length with the use of a
professional mediator and over the course of months of effort by
both parties," Tigar said in his order.  "The settlement amount is
adequate when compared to the total potential damages in the case.
Plaintiffs estimate that class members will receive 37.6 percent
of the total damages they would receive at trial should they
prevail.  The court finds that a net recovery of 37.6 percent is
fair, adequate and reasonable in light of the strength of
plaintiffs' case, and the risk, expense, complexity and likely
duration of this litigation."

The case is Amber Hawthorne, et al. v. Umpqua Bank, Case No. 11-
cv-06700-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: No Longer Insures Child Leukemia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Massey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
taxpayers have subsidized insurance costs for the University of
New Mexico for cases that the state has paid $48 million for in
medical malpractice claims over the treatment of children with
leukemia, according to a top official in Gov. Susana Martinez's
administration.

But that subsidy ended in July when the state's taxpayer-financed
insurance program stopped providing liability coverage for UNM
hospital for claims stemming from the alleged substandard
treatment of children with leukemia from 1979 to 1996.

Instead, UNM has assumed responsibility for future liability
claims and legal costs for the child cancer lawsuits.  The state
will continue to provide insurance for all other coverage.

"In the past, we were not acting like an insurance company, and
going forward, we will not have any more of these sweetheart deals
for any entity," A. J. Forte, director of the state's Risk
Management Division, said in an interview last week.

The university's medical malpractice insurance premiums have been
too low, he said, because the state didn't properly factor in the
costs of past settlements, ongoing attorney expenses and potential
future liability of child cancer claims.

But Billy Sparks, a spokesman for the UNM Health Sciences Center,
said, "There was definitely no sweetheart deal."

"It's our understanding that the rates were adjusted to compensate
for the claims that were paid, and we were not subsidized,"
Mr. Sparks said in an interview on Sept. 17.

He said the university paid the annual insurance premiums
calculated by Risk Management.

Mr. Sparks said Risk Management proposed in late 2013 that UNM
self-insure the child cancer litigation and "after careful
consideration, we agreed."

Mr. Forte said the state offered to continue providing insurance
coverage for the cancer claims but at an increase of several
million dollars in medical malpractice rates.

The state charged about $5.9 million for malpractice insurance for
UNM hospital in the last budget year and boosted that to about
$8.7 million this year even without coverage for leukemia claims,
according to the state agency.

Overall, UNM will pay nearly $23 million to the state this year
for all types of insurance, including medical malpractice, general
liability, claims for civil rights violations and unemployment
compensation.

A government agency's insurance rates are supposed to be high
enough to set aside money to cover anticipated losses.  When that
didn't happen with UNM hospital, Mr. Forte said, the cost of
covering claims was shifted to all other agencies that obtain
insurance from the state's insurance program.

"We believe that every entity should pay their fair share of their
claims, and they should not be subsidized by everyone else in our
pool," Mr. Forte said.  "Agencies are funded by taxpayer dollars.
So it makes no sense for the general public to be subsidizing UNMH
in this case."

The state has paid about $146 million in medical malpractice
claims involving UNM -- $48 million of that for child leukemia
cases -- while collecting about $80 million in premiums from 1998
through the 2014 fiscal years, Mr. Forte said.

"At the end of the day, they've been subsidized at a minimum $66
million," said Mr. Forte.

The UNM health system has a $1.7 billion yearly budget and 7
percent of its funding comes from the state, according to
Mr. Sparks.  Most revenue is from patient fees and insurance
payments, including government-financed Medicaid and Medicare.

Mr. Sparks said UNM has paid the state $169 million from 2005 to
2014 for all insurance coverage, including medical malpractice.


VELTI PLC: January 14 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Weiser Law Firm, P.C., Berman DeValerio, and Labaton Sucharow,
LLP on Sept. 15 announced the Pendency and Proposed Partial
Settlement of Class Action involving Velti plc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN
FRANCISCO DIVISION

Master File No. 3:13-cv-03889-WHO

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE SECURITIES OF VELTI PLC ("SHARES") BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2011
AND AUGUST 20, 2013, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, a
hearing will be held on January 14, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge, at the
San Francisco Courthouse of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Courtroom 2, San Francisco, CA, for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for
purposes of the Partial Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the Partial Settlement of the
Action consisting of Nine Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($9,500,000.00) in cash plus accrued interest on the Settlement
Fund should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3)
whether, thereafter, this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Released Defendants as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement dated May 23, 2014; (4) whether the Plan of
Distribution of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; (5) the reasonableness
of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys'
fees and expenses in connection with this Action, together with
interest thereon, which will be subtracted from the Settlement
Fund prior to distribution of any award to the Class Members; and
(6) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

IF YOU PURCHASED VELTI SHARES, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS
ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT THEREOF, WHETHER OR NOT YOU TAKE ANY
ACTION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may view and print copies at
www.veltisecuritieslitigation.com

You may also obtain copies by writing to In re Velti plc
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims
Services P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA
19063.  If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely
submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release form, either by U.S.
Mail and postmarked no later than midnight on December 2, 2014, or
submitted by electronic means not later than midnight PST/PDT on
December 2, 2014.  Instructions for electronic submission of the
Proof of Claim are available at www.veltisecuritieslitigation.com

The submitted Proof of Claim must establish that you are entitled
to a recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Action unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the above
address, postmarked by December 2, 2014 in the manner detailed in
the Notice.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than December 2, 2014, and
received by the following law firms no later than December 2, 2014
in the manner detailed in the Notice:

Clerk of the Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
ROBERT WEISER
22 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI,
Professional Corporation

BORIS FELDMAN
CYNTHIA A. DY
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Counsel for Settling Defendants

EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED, PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR
THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: AUGUST 19, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Contacts
The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.
James M. Ficaro, Esquire
610-225-2677


VENAXIS INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on October 1, 2010, the
Company received a complaint, captioned John Wolfe, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma,
Inc. (now Venaxis, Inc.)  et al., Case No. CV10 7365 ("Wolfe
Suit").  This federal securities purported class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of the Company during the period between February 22,
2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint named as
defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during
such period.  The complaint included allegations of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based acute
appendicitis test in development.

On the Company's motion, this action was also transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated
January 21, 2011.  The action has been assigned a District of
Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-KMT.  On July 11, 2011,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel.
On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative
class action complaint, alleging the same class period.

Based on a review of the amended complaint, the Company and the
individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, have vigorously defended against these claims, and
intend to continue to do so.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the United States
District Court for Colorado granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants
without prejudice. On September 14, 2012, the court entered final
judgment without prejudice on behalf of all defendants and against
all plaintiffs in the Wolfe Suit. The order to dismiss the action
found in favor of the Company and all of the individual
defendants.

On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of
the order granting the motion to dismiss and of the Final Judgment
in the Wolfe Suit.   Following oral argument, the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals took the fully-briefed appeal under submission on
September 26, 2013.

The Company and the individual defendants believe that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, have vigorously
defended against these claims, and intend to continue to do so.


VERSANT SUPPLY: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Violation of FLSA & IMWL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deandre Mayfield on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Versant Supply Chain, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-07024 (N.D. Ill., September 10, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Versant Supply Chain, Inc. provides supply chain services in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      Facsimile: (312) 929-2207
      E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com
              cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com
              jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Faces Action Over Mentone Gardens Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Longbottom, writing for ABC News, reports that the
Victorian Government has come under attack for failing to prevent
dozens of elderly residents from losing millions of dollars when a
Melbourne aged care center went into administration last year.

The ABC has learned the Government-regulated nursing home was
allowed to continue to take bonds of up to $250,000 from elderly
residents despite the Department of Health having evidence the
home was in financial trouble as early as 2011.

Mentone Gardens, in Melbourne's south-east, went into
administration in June last year and residents were told there was
little hope of recovering the bonds paid to the facility.  The
former residents and their families are lobbying the Government to
reimburse their $4.5 million in losses, arguing the system has
failed them.

Allan Lorraine, 91, said the group would also pursue a class
action.

"It was a great chunk [of our savings] and we couldn't afford to
lose it by any stretch," he said.

"[The Government] had a responsibility.  I think we've got to make
them realise, they're not going to get away with this."

Department knew of financial issues in 2011

Mentone Gardens was a Supported Residential Service (SRS) -- a
private nursing home regulated by the State Government.

The Minister for Ageing, David Davis, had previously told the
Opposition the first his department knew of any financial troubles
at Mentone Gardens was in January 2013, six months before the home
went bust.  However after inquiries from the ABC, Mr. Davis said
the department had since told him it knew there were issues with
unpaid bonds in 2011.

"I've recently been informed that those were isolated incidents
that were resolved in 2011, and the information the department has
provided to me is there was no systemic issue to that -- that they
were isolated incidents," he said.

He denied the department should have seen this as a warning sign
that the home was in trouble.

"There are more than 100 SRS's across Victoria and there are cases
and reports from time to time that are dealt with by the
department in the normal way," he said.

Labor and the Greens will call on the Ombudsman to investigate the
Department of Health's actions.  Opposition Spokeswoman for Ageing
Jenny Mikakos said the situation needed to be resolved.

"The Minister needs to come clean. What did he know and when and
what action did his department take, if any?" Ms. Mikakos said.

"There needs to be a thorough investigation of what's gone wrong
here and some answers need to be provided to these elderly
residents who've lost their life savings."

Mr. Lorraine is one of those leading the charge to get the bonds
reimbursed by the Government.  He and his wife Rose Lorraine paid
$400,000 when they moved into Mentone Gardens in 2010.  Under
Victorian legislation, the bond was meant to be placed in a trust
account to be returned to their families when they died.

"Here we have [the home's owners] who were running this thing
knowing full well that people who were aged, unwell, infirm and
vulnerable were their targets," Mr. Lorraine said.

"And the Government had registered the company."

Among the 35 residents who lost their bonds when Mentone Gardens
went into administration were ex-servicemen and four women over
the age of 100. Thirteen of them have since died.  Some families
are yet to tell their loved ones that they had lost the money,
because they fear the news would be too much.

New regulations in place to protect pensioners

The Government said new legislation that came into place in 2012
should prevent future cases like Mentone Gardens.

"I have enormous sympathy for the people involved," Mr. Davis
said.

"Obviously the tighter regulations are needed and we're
administering the tighter regulations.

"The things that happened before the regulations came in, the
contracts and arrangements, aren't dealt with by the previous
legislation."

Liquidators are still pursuing the former proprietor of Mentone
Gardens for money, while Australian Securities and Investments
Commission is investigating.


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Failure to Refund Returned Items
-----------------------------------------------------------
Myriam Fejzulai, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sam's West, Inc., Sam's East, Inc., and Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. (all d/b/a "Sam's Club" and/or "Sam's Wholesale
Club"), Case No. 6:14-cv-03601 (D.S.C., September 10, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to refund 200 percent of
the purchase price of any returned item subject to the 200 percent
Freshness Guarantee or refund 100 percent the purchase price of
any returned item subject to the 200 percent Freshness Guarantee
and replace the item.

Sam's West, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation registered to do
business in South Carolina with its principal place of business at
702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716 and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered to do
business in South Carolina with its principal place of business at
702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William D. Herlong, Esq.
      HERLONG LAW FIRM
      PO Box 2003
      Greenville, SC 29602
      Telephone: (864) 238-5111
      Facsimile: (888) 501-1278
      E-mail: william@herlonglaw.com

         - and -

      Dennis Charles Dukes II, Esq.
      RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN
      PO Box 1007
      Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
      Telephone: (843) 727-6647
      E-mail: cdukes@rpwb.com

         - and -

      Terry Edward Richardson Jr., Esq.
      RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN
      PO Box 1368
      Barnwell, SC 29812
      Telephone: (803) 541-7850
      Facsimile: (803) 541-9625
      E-mail: trichardson@rpwb.com


                              *********

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  * * *