CAR_Public/140925.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 191

                             Headlines


21VIANET: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Plaintiffs File Appeal Denying Certification
AEG LIVE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Concert Ticket Fraud
AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Settles Securities Class Action for $7 Million
AKORN INC: Court Approves Settlements in Wackstein & Karant Suits

AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Miller" Class Suit to C.D. California
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Whirlpool Offers Fully Indemnification
BANKRATE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Potassium Chloride Product
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Alberta Beekeepers Don't Support Class Action

BEYOND BROADWAY: More People Join "Pot Pavilion" Class Action
BFC FINANCIAL: Defending Against Class Action Over BBX Merger
BFC FINANCIAL: Facing Suits Over Bluegreen-Woodbridge Merger
BFC FINANCIAL: Dismissal of NJ Tax Sales Certificates Suit Filed
BLACK & DECKER: Settles Wage Class Action for $5 Million

CANON SOLUTIONS: Settles Illegal Background Check Class Action
CIM COMMERCIAL: Court Approved Settlement of REIT Redux Case
COLLECTO INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
COMSCORE INC: Settles Panelists' Privacy Class Action for $14MM

COMTEC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Savory" Antitrust Suit in S.D. New York
CONNECTONE BANCORP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Legal Proceedings
CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CVB FINANCIAL: Oral Arguments in Appeal Expected in Mid 2015
CYNOSURE INC: Second Circuit to Decide on Case Based on Briefs

CYNOSURE INC: Resolves Merger Class Actions
DEAN FOODS: Parties Agree to Defer Trial Court Proceedings
DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Remains Pending
DR. PEPPER: Removed "Solis" Suit to California District Court
DYNEX CAPITAL: Expects Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal

EBIX INC: Securities Class Action Now Concluded
EBIX INC: Court Narrows Class Action Over Goldman Sachs Merger
ECOTALITY INC: Judge Tosses Securities Suit in California
FORD MOTOR: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Product Liability Suit
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Participating in PLMBS Class Suit

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Bankruptcy Judge Clears Way for Class Action
GDF SUEZ: Class Action Over Hazelwood Mine Fire Gets Support
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Document Discovery Okayed
GENERAL MOTORS: Congress Grills NHSA Over Ignition-Switch Scandal
GENERAL MOTORS: Wants Discovery in Ignition-Switch Suits Halted

GERON CORPORATION: Response to Amended Complaint Due Nov. 19
GREAT SOUTHERN: Missouri Litigation Ongoing in Action vs. Bank
HARVEST NATURAL: Defending Against Stock Price Declines Lawsuit
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: ASB's Appeal Pending in Hawaii Supreme Court
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Printer Defects

HITACHI: LCD Panel Class Action Claimants May Get Checks in Nov.
HOME DEPOT: Removed "Harris" Suit to California District Court
HOME DEPOT: Merchant Law Group Files Data Breach Suit
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: "Employees Trust" Suit Moved to Minnesota
IEC ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Expects Final Accord Approval by Yearend
INTERNET ORDER: Wash. AG Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Tactics
J-M MANUFACTURING: Class-Action Status Sought for PVC Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Smith" Suit Moved From Florida to New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: At Least 40 Hunter Women to Join Mesh Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Approves Joint Case Management Plan
KO & C ENTERPRISES: Recalls SHJ Cookies
LAGRANGE COUNTY, IN: Class Action Fairness Hearing Adjourned
LE CIRQUE INC: Faces "Pena" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
LIN MEDIA: Permanent Injunction Hearing This Month

LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Organics Stoned Wheat Crackers
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
MARRONE BIO: Faces Four Securities Class Actions Over Financials
MARS CHOCOLATE: Recalls Milk Chocolate Theater Box
MEDICAL ACTION: Settlement in Product Liability Suit Approved

MEDICAL ACTION: Suit Over Owens & Minor Merger in Early Stage
MERCHANT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Claims
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Recalls Cixi Horngshy ArtMinds Craft Boa
MICHIGAN: Student Loan Borrowers Get Settlement Checks
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Nitroglycerin Spray

NATIONWIDE OPEN: Sent Fax Ads Without Prior Permission, Suit Says
NEIMAN MARCUS: Illinois Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Cycling Ticket Surcharges
NORTH VALLEY BANCORP: Entered Into Memorandum of Understanding
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Records on Settlement Legal Fees Sought

OASIS LEGAL: Removed "Fountain" Suit to Minnesota District Court
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
OGLETHORPE POWER: Defending Against Patronage Capital Litigation
OMNI HOTELS: Judge Certifies Class in Phone Recording Suit
OPKO HEALTH: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Class Action Dismissal

PDL BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Nevada
PERDUE FOOD: Recalls Raw Fresh Chicken Due to Processing Deviation
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Briefing Continues on Securities Case Dismissal
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Ohio Plaintiffs Drop Preliminary Injunction Bid
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Radiancy Faces "Mouzon" Class Action

PHOTOMEDEX INC: Radiancy Faces "Cantley" Class Action
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Application to Certify Class Suit Filed in Israel
POPULAR INC: BPNA in Class Certification-Related Discovery
POPULAR INC: Engaged in Discovery in Bank Tellers' Class Action
POPULAR INC: UBS Wants Case Moved to New York From Puerto Rico

POPULAR INC: Court Stayed "Alvarez" Class Action
ROCK CREEK: Securities Action Settlement in Final Stages
ROCK CREEK: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Baldwin" Class Action
S & F FOOD: Recalls Salzburg Schokolade Wafers Due to Milk
S&S FOOD: Recalls Dried Roach (Vobla) Over Botulism Risk

SAVORY PIE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in New York
SHEUNG KEE: Recalls Maling Canned Szuhsien Bran Dough
SIEMENS: Recalls Audible Fire Alarm Base Due to Risk of Injury
SOTTO CINQUE: Accused of Harassing Hostess & Not Paying Overtime
SPACELABS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Ultraview SL2600, SL Compact Monitor

SUPER ASIA: Recalls Mitchell's Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
STRYKER COMMUNICATIONS: Recalls Infinity 3 Control System
TAKATA CORP: Honda Aware of Bag Defects Linked to Recalls
TARGET CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Baby Wipes Class Action
UNCLE T: Recalls Long Kow Traditional Tiny Noodles

UNISYS TECHNICAL: Removed "Renazco" Class Suit to N.D. California
UNITED STATES: Native Americans to Get Settlement Payments
VENTAS INC: Faces 13 Class Actions Over HCT Acquisition
WAL-MART STORES: Truck Drivers' Labor Suit Gets Class Status
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Challenge TCE Settlement

WILLY RUSCH: Recalls Nelaton Whistle Tip and Catheter


                            *********


21VIANET: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against 21Vianet Group, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and docketed
under 14-cv-02677, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased 21Vianet securities between
April 21, 2011 and September 10, 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 21Vianet securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 11, 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.

21Vianet is a Cayman Islands corporation with headquarters in the
People's Republic of China.  Founded in 1999, 21Vianet conducts
its business primarily in China through its operating subsidiaries
as a provider of carrier-neutral Internet data center ("IDC")
services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects, performance, and compliance with federal
law.  Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company overstated the number of cabinets in its Internet data
center network; (2) a significant portion of their outsourced data
center partnerships have been terminated; (3) the Company
misrepresented the financials of its Managed Network Entities; and
(4), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

In April 2011, the Company went public with an Initial Public
Offering in the United States underwritten by six American Banks.
The Company issued 13 million ADS, representing 78 million Class A
ordinary shares.  The ADSs are registered with the SEC.

On September 10, 2014, research firm Trinity Research Group issued
a 121-page report entitled "A Ponzi Scheme of Acquisitions:
21Vianet Group Exposed."  Among other things, Trinity Research
Group uncovered evidence that the Company misrepresented its IDC
network assets and performance, misrepresented the financials of
at least some if not all of its acquired companies, and derives
substantial revenue from a business unit that is almost
universally known as illicit in Chinese IDC circles.

On this news, 21Vianet shares plunged on this news, falling $1.76
per share, or over 8%, on unusually heavy volume from its previous
closing price in one day.

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.


ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Plaintiffs File Appeal Denying Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd. said in its Form F-1
Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2014, that on
July 24, 2011, a financial claim and a request for approval of the
claim as a class action were received in the offices of Agan
Chemical Manufacturers Ltd. ("Agan"), which were filed by two
residents of Moshav Nir Galim and a resident of Ashdod alleging
damages caused due to odor and noise nuisances. To the extent the
claim will be approved as a class action, the plaintiffs assess
that the amount claimed from Agan is about NIS 642 million. On
December 8, 2013, a decision was rendered by the District Court in
Be'er Sheva rejecting the request for certification of the claim
as a class action and charging the plaintiffs for expenses.
Subsequent to the date of the statement of financial position, on
February 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the court
decision to the Supreme Court. In the Company's estimation, based
on its legal advisors, the chances the appeal will be accepted are
less than the chances it will be rejected.


AEG LIVE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Concert Ticket Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Sept. 16 tossed a putative class action accusing
AEG Live LLC of driving up ticket prices for concerts by Bon Jovi
and Justin Bieber by wrongfully withholding tickets from
customers, ruling the suit's conclusory allegations lack factual
support.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler tossed
the putative class action brought by ticket purchaser
Rachel Pollard, which alleged AEG wrongfully held back more 5
percent of tickets from release to the general public in violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  Judge Chesler ruled that
simply alleging AEG held back the tickets without any proof of
such isn't enough, and tossed the allegation for being "conclusory
at best."

"[Defendants] correctly point out that plaintiff does not identify
any act of withholding tickets in which defendants allegedly
engaged," he wrote.  "Plaintiff appears to rely on the logic that
because she purchased tickets to the Bon Jovi and Justin Bieber
concerts on the secondary market and paid an amount in excess of
face value for the tickets AEG must have withheld tickets from
sale to the public in violation of [the NJCFA].  This conclusion
. . . does not necessarily follow from the sole factual premise
given in support."

Mr. Pollard's suit, filed Feb. 21, alleged AEG wrongfully withheld
tickets to Bon Jovi's "The Circle" tour, held at Metlife Stadium
in East Rutherford, New Jersey, and Justin Bieber's "Believe Tour"
at the Prudential Center in Newark, "by giving tickets to its
sponsors, artists, media outlets and other music insiders."

Mr. Pollard alleged she paid $175 each for four tickets to the Bon
Jovi concert, and $213 each for three concerts to see Justin
Bieber, "far in excess" of the tickets' face value.

AEG moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that because Pollard is a
New York resident, she must avail herself of that state's consumer
protection statute -- which has a three-year statute of
limitations, versus the NJCFA's six-year limitations period, and
unlike the NJCFA doesn't permit treble damages in a class action.

On Sept. 16, Judge Chesler disagreed, ruling that applying the
NJCFA is appropriate because the concert took place in New Jersey,
was marketed there, and the consumer protection law would be
rendered toothless by AEG's interpretation.

"For the statute to have the intended of effect of regulating the
conduct of event promoters . . . the NJCFA's limitation on ticket
withholding must apply to the claims of ticket purchasers
patronizing such events, regardless of each purchaser's home
state," Judge Chesler wrote.

Judge Chesler's ruling dismissed Pollard's claim for unjust
enrichment with prejudice, ruling that even if she alleged her
tickets were overly expensive, she did not allege she purchased
them from AEG.

The judge did, however, rule that Pollard should get another crack
at supplying the necessary facts to support her claim under the
NJCFA, and granted leave to amend the complaint on that claim.

"The court can discern the outlines of a potentially viable claim
for relief under the NJCFA, but sufficient factual content as to
the misconduct in violation of Section 35.1 must be provided,"
Judge Chesler wrote.

Mr. Pollard's attorney, Bruce H. Nagel of Nagel Rice LLP, told
Law360 on Sept. 16 that the suit "is an easy replead."

"The critical finding is that the consumer fraud act is applicable
regardless of whether residents of other states bought tickets for
a New Jersey event," he said.

Mr. Pollard is represented by Bruce H. Nagel, Robert H. Solomon --
rsolomon@nagelrice.com -- and Greg M. Kohn -- gkohn@nagelrice.com
-- of Nagel Rice LLP.

AEG is represented by Neal R. Marder, James S. Richter and Jeffrey
P. Catenacci of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is  Jessica Pollard v. AEG Live LLC et al., case number
2:14-cv-01155 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Settles Securities Class Action for $7 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Jeff Sistrunk and Jamie Santo, writing for Law360,
report that AgFeed Industries Inc. agreed to pay $7 million to end
a putative class action brought by investors who said the bankrupt
animal nutrition and commercial hog-production company and its
executives lied about the company's financial health, according to
a filing in Tennessee court on Sept. 17.  The deal ends a three-
year-old suit in which the investors contended AgFeed lied about
the company's animal nutrition business, artificially inflating
the stock price for two years until the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission forced it to change its accounting practices,
according to court records.  The company agreed to pay the SEC an
$18 million settlement.

The proposed deal gives the class about 27 percent of what it was
originally asking for, a number the plaintiffs attorneys said in
the Sept. 17 proposal was fair for the class, given the bankruptcy
proceeding.  Some class members will get more than 27 percent of
their losses back, the attorneys for the class wrote in the
filing.

"Lead plaintiffs believe that the proposed settlement . . . is an
excellent result, especially since it exceeds the average
settlement amount in securities litigations of this nature when
looked at as a percentage of the maximum damages amount, and
especially in light of the uncertainties of continued litigation
and future recovery given the bankruptcy proceeding," the class
wrote in its proposal.

AgFeed denied having done anything wrong, according to the
settlement agreement.

AgFeed filed for bankruptcy protection last year, and the
plaintiffs in the investors' suit filed a claim for $26 million,
according to court records.  Then, in March, the SEC joined the
fray, filing a suit against the hog farmer in March that alleged
four of AgFeed's executives used a variety of methods to inflate
revenue by approximately $239 million from 2008-11, such as faking
invoices for sales of feed and nonexistent hogs, the latter of
which executives later tried to cover up by claiming the bogus
hogs had died.  The AgFeed principals also lied about the weight
of hogs, as heavier hogs bring higher market prices, then inflated
the sales revenues for those animals, according to the SEC.

The commission said a total of eight former officers and directors
were involved in the scheme or its cover-up.  One director and
chair of AgFeed's audit committee, K. Ivan Van Gothner, became
aware of the accounting fraud but ignored outside warnings,
internalizing the situation while the scheme continued, the
commission said.

AgFeed gave up its securities registration in the SEC proceeding
in late March.  Then, on Sept. 11, AgFeed struck an $18 million
deal with the SEC, some of which will be distributed to the
company's equity holders.  That deal allowed the company's Chapter
11 liquidation plan to move forward, gaining on Sept. 15 a federal
judge's nod to go to a vote, according to court records.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Kent Bramlett and Robert
Preston Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices; Patrick V. Dahlstrom,
Joshua B. Silverman, Louis C. Ludwig, Marc I. Gross and Jeremy A.
Lieberman of Pomerantz LLP; and Laurence Rosen, Phillip Kim and
Sara Fuks of The Rosen Law Firm PA.

The defendants are represented by William R. Baker --
william.baker@lw.com -- and J. Christian Word --
christian.word@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP.

The case is Lawrence Blitz et al. v. AgFeed Industries Inc. et
al., case number 3:11-cv-00992, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee.


AKORN INC: Court Approves Settlements in Wackstein & Karant Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn 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 connection with the Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Akorn Inc.
("Akorn") and Akorn Enterprises, Inc., providing for the merger of
Akorn Enterprises, Inc. with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on August 30, 2013, captioned Karant v.
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8854-VCP, alleging,
among other things, that Hi-Tech and Hi-Tech's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that Akorn aided and abetted
the alleged breaches. The Karant complaint sought, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from completing
the Merger and directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff and the purported class for damages allegedly sustained,
and an award of fees, expenses and costs.

In addition, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Suffolk
County, New York, captioned Wackstein v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co.,
Inc., et al., Index No. 063450/2013, similarly alleging, among
other things, that Hi-Tech and Hi-Tech's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that Akorn aided and abetted
the alleged breaches. The Wackstein complaint sought, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from completing
the Merger and directing the defendants to account to the
plaintiff and the purported class for damages.

The defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiff's counsel, dated November 26, 2013, in connection with
the Karant and Wackstein actions (the "Memorandum of
Understanding"), pursuant to which Hi-Tech, Akorn, the other named
defendants and Wackstein agreed to dismiss the Wackstein action
with prejudice effective with the settlement and dismissal of the
Karant lawsuit.

On July 30, 2014 the Delaware Court entered judgment, granted
final settlement approval, and dismissed the action.

Akorn, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries through its
Prescription Pharmaceuticals reportable segment manufactures and
markets a full line of diagnostic, therapeutic and disease
specific ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, antidotes, anti-allergics,
anti-infectives, vaccines, and controlled substances for pain
management and anesthesia as well as niche hospital drugs of
various dosage forms and injectable pharmaceuticals.  In addition,
through its Consumer Health reportable segment, the Company
manufactures and markets a line of over-the-counter ("OTC")
ophthalmic products for the treatment of dry eye under the
TheraTears(R) brand name, as well as a portfolio of private label
OTC ophthalmic products and other consumer health products.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Miller" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Christine Miller, et al. v.
American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, et al., Case
No. 30-2014-00715498-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01512-AG-RNB to the
proceeding.

The complaint asserts employment discrimination claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq.
          Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614-7220
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: bianca@carterlawfirm.net
                  roger@carterlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614-7220
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
          E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614-7220
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200
          Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
          E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher A. Rheinheimer, Esq.
          Esra Acikalin Hudson, Esq.
          Margaret Levy, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: crheinheimer@manatt.com
                  ehudson@manatt.com
                  mlevy@manatt.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Whirlpool Offers Fully Indemnification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, 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 28, 2014, that
various individuals commenced in February 2012, a class action
lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool") and various
distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears, The Home
Depot, Lowe's and Appliance Recycling, alleging certain appliances
sold by Whirlpool through its distribution chain, which includes
Appliance Recycling, were improperly designated with the ENERGY
STAR(R) qualification rating established by the U.S. Department of
Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Company said, "The claims against us include breach of
warranty claims, as well as various state consumer protection
claims.  The amount of the claim is, as yet, undetermined.
Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and defend its
distributors in this lawsuit, including us, and has engaged legal
counsel to defend itself and the distributors.  We are monitoring
Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the possibility of a
material loss is remote."

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. and subsidiaries are
in the business of providing turnkey appliance recycling and
replacement services for electric utilities and other sponsors of
energy efficiency programs.


BANKRATE INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Sept. 17 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Bankrate, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between March 1, 2013 and September 15,
2014. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Bankrate
shareholders under the federal securities laws.

To join the Bankrate class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-362.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

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

According to the lawsuit, Bankrate issued materially false and
misleading financial statements because (1) Bankrate's financial
statements contained errors related to the improper recognition of
revenues and expenses; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, on September 15, 2014, Bankrate
disclosed that the SEC has requested documents related to its
financial reporting during 2012, and that Chief Financial Officer,
Edward DiMaria has resigned.  The Company also announced that in
connection with the SEC's investigations, investors should no
longer rely on its 2011, 2012, and 2013 financial statements. That
day, the Company's stock price fell as much as 22%, damaging
investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 17, 2014. If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-362.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact,
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Potassium Chloride Product
--------------------------------------------------------
Eric Palmer, writing for FiercePharmaManufacturing, reports that
Baxter International is again recalling a potassium chloride
product, but this time, instead of particulate contamination, it
is because another product was mistakenly mixed in the shipment.

According to an FDA MedWatch notice, Baxter is voluntarily
recalling one lot of potassium chloride injection 10mEq per 100mL
because of a labeling error on the shipping cartons, which was
uncovered by three different customers.  The company said shipping
cartons which are labeled as potassium chloride injection may
contain units of gentamicin sulfate injection, 80 mg in 100 mL.

Potassium chloride is used to treat potassium deficiency, while
gentamicin sulfate is an antibacterial drug.  In one scenario,
someone needing potassium chloride might not receive it, while in
another there is a chance for a medical error if gentamicin is
given to the wrong patient.  Gentamicin can cause severe hearing
and kidney problems.  The company said so far there have been no
reports of adverse events.

Baxter has had a series of recalls of late.  In July, the company
initiated a worldwide recall of three lots of sodium chloride as
well as one of highly concentrated potassium chloride.  The recall
of the saline came even as hospitals for months have been facing a
shortage of the essential product.  Because they were small volume
products, Baxter said the recall should not have much impact on
the shortage.  Then in August, the Deerfield, IL-based company
recalled one lot of large-volume sodium chloride bags in the U.S.
because of contamination.

In March, the company recalled a single lot of a peritoneal
product used on dialysis patients which had been contaminated with
mold.  In that case, the company acknowledged there had been three
reported adverse reactions.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Alberta Beekeepers Don't Support Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Brodhagen, writing for Farms.com, reports that the Alberta
Beekeepers Commission, which dubbed themselves as "leaders of the
Canadian honeybee industry," in a province which is home to more
than 45 per cent of the honeybee industry in Canada, say that they
do not support the class action suit recently filed by some
Ontario beekeepers against Bayer CropScience and Syngenta over
their neonicotinoid seed treatment products.

Earlier this month, a $450 million class action lawsuit was filed
against Bayer and Syngenta -- makers of neonicotinoid pesticides.
Siskinds LLP filed the suit on behalf of two Ontario beekeepers,
Sun Parlor Honey Ltd. and Munro Honey.  Plaintiffs claim that the
companies in question "were negligent in their manufacture, sale
and distribution of neonicotinoids in Ontario that caused
beekeepers to suffer significant losses and damage."

The industry group notes that while it recognizes that the use of
certain agrochemicals can adversely affect honeybees, it also
understands that the use of modern seed treatment technology is
important for agriculture and should be made accessible to
farmers.  They compare the use of current seed treatment
technology (neonicotinoids) to that of organophosphates and foliar
applications used in the past, arguing that that the use of
neonicotinoid treated seed "significantly reduces honeybee
exposure to pesticides."

The commission says it would like to see agricultural stakeholders
work together, not against one another when tackling issues
related to bee health.  It firmly believes that the agrochemical
industry recognizes the important role that honeybees and other
pollinators play in agriculture, specifically maintaining a
reliable food supply.  "We believe that working together with
appropriate research, management and education of all stakeholders
will ensure that modern agriculture and honeybees can coexist,"
the commission said in a September 17 release.


BEYOND BROADWAY: More People Join "Pot Pavilion" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Gathright, writing for 7NEWS, reports that more people have
joined a class-action lawsuit against a company accused of giving
people samples of marijuana-laced chocolate at the Denver County
Fair's "Pot Pavilion," which was supposed to be drug-free.

Seven named plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit's amendment
complaint, which Boulder attorney Corey T. Zurbuch filed in Denver
County Court.  It names as the defendant Beyond Broadway LLC,
which does business as Full Melt Chocolate and LivWell.

However, the lawsuit, which was originally filed on Aug. 7, now
states that the class-action suit "as initially defined includes
in excess of 100 individuals."

The victims were sickened while eating "free samples" of Full Melt
Chocolate, provided by LivWell at a Pot Pavilion exhibit during
the County Fair, which ran from Aug. 1 through Aug. 3, the lawsuit
states.

The Denver County Fair's website for the Pot Pavilion expressly
provided that "No marijuana will be onsite."

"This civil action is for personal injuries arising from the
defendants' negligent distribution of marijuana-infused chocolate
bars under the guise that they contained no Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the principal psychoactive constituent (or cannabinoid) of
the cannabis plant," the lawsuit states.

Yet, after eating the free chocolate, victims named in the lawsuit
began "to feel strange" and "physically ill."

Last month, a Denver County Fair spokeswoman said the fair was
investigating at least three separate cases of attendees reporting
they were drugged after eating a Full Melt Chocolate bar.  She
said at least two of those people went to the hospital after they
became dizzy, sick and confused. They tested positive for THC.

One lawsuit plaintiff, Jordan Coombs, of Longmont, was forced to
leave the fair after eating the chocolate on Sunday, Aug. 3,
because of his "deteriorating health."  As his wife was driving
him away, Coombs "projectile vomited uncontrollably" in the car,
the lawsuit states.

According to the suit, Mr. Coombs' wife drove him to Swedish
Medical Center, where "physicians at the emergency room diagnosed
the plaintiff as overdosing on THC."

Another fair-goer, Richard Jones, told 7NEWS he was drugged by the
same chocolate at the Pot Pavilion that Sunday.

Mr. Jones, who has not joined the class-action lawsuit, told 7NEWS
that an hour after eating the chocolate he became dizzy and had to
sit down.

"I was sweaty.  I was nauseous.  I was panicking.  I was afraid it
was a stroke or a heart attack," Mr. Jones said.

On-site EMTs first attended to the Arvada man before calling him
an ambulance.  Tests at the hospital revealed Mr. Jones had more
than 100 nanograms of THC in his system, or about 20 times the
legal driving limit.

Plaintiff, Jerelyn Jayme, after eating chocolate at the Pot
Pavilion during the weekend of the fair, said she was still so
"adversely affected" on Monday that she had to leave work -- on
her first day at a new job, the lawsuit states.  She went to an
urgent-care center where she was treated with anti-nausea
medication, but continued to be sick for several days.

After eating the chocolate, Gregory C. Lindfors, feared he was
having a stroke and sought treatment from an EMT at the fair, the
lawsuit states.  He was taken to the emergency room at University
of Colorado Hospital, where he was given a CT scan, blood tests
and a urinalysis.  "He was diagnosed as having an overdose of
THC," the lawsuit states.

Soon after returning from the fair to her Denver apartment,
plaintiff Haillee Passow became ill, began to shake and have
trouble breathing. She experienced tunnel vision and began
vomiting, the lawsuit said.  She called her parents in Wisconsin,
who in turn called 911, where dispatchers had Passow transported
by ambulance to Denver Health Medical Center. She tested positive
for THC and was diagnosed with tachycardia -- an abnormally fast
heartbeat, the lawsuit states. She missed a week of work, costing
her $480 in wages.

Another plaintiff, Brian Ruden, of Golden, was sickened for 24
hours, at times losing consciousness and the ability to
communicate, the lawsuit said.  He also missed a week of work.

The lawsuit seeks damages for several causes of action, including
allegations that LivWell distributed an "unreasonably dangerous"
food product, committed negligence, breach of warranty, and
negligent infliction of emotional distress.  LivWell is also
accused of failing to label the product as required under state
marijuana laws.

Under each allegation, the lawsuit calls for a judgment that is
"fair and reasonable" to cover costs and for any "relief the Court
deems proper."

Beyond Broadway LLC, located at 5141 Franklin Street in Denver,
appears on the list of retail marijuana product manufacturers
licensed by the state of Colorado.

Last month, the company released the following statement about the
allegations:  "We are aware that someone made a complaint to 7NEWS
alleging that chocolate samples distributed at the Denver County
Fair contained cannabis.  If this occurred it was without our
knowledge and was not sanctioned by our company.  We are currently
investigating the matter."


BFC FINANCIAL: Defending Against Class Action Over BBX Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial 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 on May 30, 2013, Haim
Ronan filed a purported class action against BFC, BBX Merger Sub,
BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's board of directors
seeking to represent BBX Capital's shareholders in a lawsuit
challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC and BBX
Capital. In this action, which is styled Haim Ronan, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B. Levan, John
E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian,
Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis N. Holcombe,
Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC Financial
Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and was filed in the Circuit
Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida, Mr. Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty and good faith, in part, by failing to obtain a high
enough price for the shares of BBX Capital's Class A Common Stock
to be acquired by BFC in the merger. Mr. Ronan also asserted a
cause of action against BFC and BBX Merger Sub for aiding and
abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Ronan is
seeking an injunction blocking the proposed merger.

On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital
Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren,
Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B.
Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto,
Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation
and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P.
Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the
defendants named in Mr. Ronan's complaint, challenging the
currently proposed merger for substantially the same reasons as
set forth in Mr. Ronan's complaint, but asserting an additional,
direct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties against BFC,
Alan B. Levan and John E. Abdo. Mr. Lauterbach also added as
defendants Norman H. Becker, who was appointed to BBX Capital's
board of directors on May 7, 2013, as well as Seth M. Wise, who
serves as an executive officer and director of BFC and as an
executive officer of BBX Capital, and John K. Grelle, who serves
as an executive officer of BFC and BBX Capital.

On September 4, 2013, the Ronan and Lauterbach actions were
consolidated into a single action styled In Re BBX Capital
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, with the complaint filed in
the Lauterbach action being the operative complaint in the
consolidated action. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the consolidated action.  In the amended
complaint, which includes the same causes of action set forth in
the Lauterbach complaint, the plaintiffs: (i) allege that the
merger, including the exchange ratio and other terms and
conditions of the merger agreement, is unfair to BBX Capital's
minority shareholders and is the product of unfair dealing on the
part of the defendants; (ii) allege that the defendants initiated,
timed, negotiated and structured the merger for the benefit of BFC
and to the detriment of BBX Capital's minority shareholders,
including that BFC and its and BBX Capital's management caused BBX
Capital to engage in transactions which had the effect of reducing
BBX Capital's intrinsic value; (iii) challenge the independence of
the members of BBX Capital's special committee and the process
pursuant to which BBX Capital's special committee engaged its
legal and financial advisors, and negotiated and approved the
merger agreement, including limitations on its ability to pursue
alternative transactions; (iv) assert that BBX Capital's
shareholders' rights to appraisal do not constitute an adequate
remedy; and (v) allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus
relating to the merger contains material misrepresentations and
does not contain adequate disclosure regarding the merger and
specifically the value of BBX Capital and the shares of its Class
A Common Stock, and fails to provide the plaintiffs and BBX
Capital's minority shareholders the information necessary to
determine whether the merger consideration is fair.

On November 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint arguing that plaintiffs' remedies were limited
to an action for appraisal under Florida law.  On April 8, 2014,
the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On April 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The Second Amended Class Action Complaint added
allegations with respect to BBX Capital's March 21, 2014
definitive proxy statement.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege that
the definitive proxy statement failed to provide full and accurate
disclosure regarding: (i) the timing of the merger, (ii) the
status of the listing of the shares of BFC's Class A Common Stock
to be issued in the merger; (iii) transactions impacting valuation
following the negotiation of the exchange ratio; (iv) the per
share value of shares held by BBX Capital's minority shareholders
and (v) the fundamental assumptions underlying the opinion of BBX
Capital's financial advisor.

BFC and BBX Capital believe the claims to be without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action.

At special meetings of the companies' shareholders held on April
29, 2014, the shareholders of both BFC and BBX Capital approved
the merger.  However, consummation of the merger remains subject
to certain other closing conditions.  It is not currently expected
that the merger will be consummated prior to the first quarter of
2015.


BFC FINANCIAL: Facing Suits Over Bluegreen-Woodbridge Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial 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 between November 16,
2011 and February 13, 2012, seven purported class action lawsuits
related to the previously proposed stock-for-stock merger between
BFC, which at that time was the sole member of Woodbridge
Holdings, LLC, and Bluegreen Corporation were filed against
Bluegreen, the members of Bluegreen's board of directors, BFC and
BXG Florida Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodbridge
formed for purposes of the merger ("BXG Merger Sub").  Four of
these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action in
Florida, and the other three lawsuits have been consolidated into
a single action in Massachusetts and stayed in favor of the
Florida action.

The four Florida lawsuits, captioned and styled Ronald Kirkland v.
Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Richard
Harriman v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 22,
2011); Alfred Richner v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on
December 2, 2011); and BHR Master Fund, LTD et al. v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on February 13, 2012), were consolidated
into an action styled In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder
Litigation. On April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which alleged that the individual
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i)
agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure
adequate, fair and maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a
transaction to benefit themselves and not the shareholders, and
(iii) failing to protect the interests of Bluegreen's minority
shareholders.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that
BFC breached its fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority
shareholders and that BXG Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC.  In
addition, the complaint included allegations relating to claimed
violations of Massachusetts law.  The complaint sought declaratory
and injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The three Massachusetts lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
for Suffolk County in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and styled
as follows: Gaetano Bellavista Caltagirone v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Alan W. Weber and
J.B. Capital Partners L.P. v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed
on November 29, 2011); and Barry Fieldman, as Trustee for the
Barry & Amy Fieldman Family Trust v. Bluegreen Corporation et al.
(filed on December 6, 2011).   In their respective complaints, the
plaintiffs alleged that the individual director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Bluegreen
without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum
consideration.  The Fieldman and Weber actions contained the same
claim against BFC.  In addition, the complaints included claims
that BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the Fieldman action, BFC and
BXG Merger Sub, in the case of the Caltagirone action, and
Bluegreen, in the case of the Weber action, aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On January 17, 2012, the
three Massachusetts lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action styled In Re Bluegreen Corp. Shareholder Litigation, which
is presently stayed in favor of the Florida action.

Following the public announcement of the termination of the stock-
for-stock merger agreement and the entry into the Bluegreen-
Woodbridge Cash Merger Agreement during November 2012, the
plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a motion for leave to file
a supplemental complaint in order to challenge the structure of,
and consideration received by Bluegreen's shareholders in, the
Bluegreen-Woodbridge Cash Merger.  On November 30, 2012, the
Florida court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the supplemental
complaint was deemed filed as of that date.  The supplemental
complaint alleges that the merger consideration remained
inadequate and continued to be unfair to Bluegreen's minority
shareholders.

On January 25, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint that set forth more fully
their challenge to the Bluegreen-Woodbridge Cash Merger.  The
Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims for (i)
breach of fiduciary duties against the individual director
defendants, BFC, and Woodbridge, (ii) aiding and abetting breaches
of fiduciary duties against Bluegreen, BFC, Woodbridge, and BXG
Merger Sub, and (iii) a violation of the section of the
Massachusetts Business Corporation Act regarding the approval of
conflict of interest transactions.  During December 2013, class
action certification was granted to the plaintiffs in the Florida
action.

The Bluegreen-Woodbridge Cash Merger was consummated on April 2,
2013.  However, the actions related to the transaction remain
pending, with the plaintiffs seeking to recover damages in
connection with the transaction.  BFC and Bluegreen believe that
these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.


BFC FINANCIAL: Dismissal of NJ Tax Sales Certificates Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial 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 on December 21, 2012,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported
class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding
BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
CAM, among others, as defendants.  The class action complaint is
brought on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned
real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax
Certificate issued with respect to their property that was
purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction. During this period, Fidelity
Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was
contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in
the BB&T Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on
January 6, 2014.  BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax have moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
all claims, and are awaiting the Court's decision on the fully-
briefed motion.  BBX Capital believes the claims to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


BLACK & DECKER: Settles Wage Class Action for $5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham, writing for Law360, reports that Stanley Black &
Decker Inc. and a slew of its subsidiaries agreed to pay nearly $5
million in California federal court on Sept. 15 to settle a
proposed class action accusing the power tool company of depriving
field technicians of proper wages, as well as failing to give
hundreds of workers accurate pay stubs.

Black & Decker, which was listed as a co-defendant with 14 of its
affiliated companies, will fork over $4.97 million to settle
claims that the company failed to properly compensate California
field technicians for time spent driving to worksites.  The
settlement also lays rest to claims that the company neglected to
pay the field technicians minimum wage and overtime payments, or
give them appropriate meal and rest breaks.

Further, the agreement will resolve allegations that Black &
Decker neglected to provide California employees with accurate
wage statements, including having the wrong name of their employer
listed on the pay stub, according to the Sept. 15 agreement.

The class action is therefore divided into two subclasses:
California field technicians and related employees who worked for
Black & Decker from June 27, 2009, to the present, and all Black &
Decker employees who worked in California from June 27, 2012, to
the date of the deal's preliminary approval hearing and received
at least one pay stub.

According to the settlement, the field technician class will
receive a net settlement of about $2.4 million for unpaid wages,
while the pay stub class will receive about $1,025,000.  The
average field technician member, of which there are currently
about 300, will take home $7,965 if he or she was employed for the
entire class period, the agreement states.  The estimated 888 pay
stub class members, on the other hand, could each walk away with
an average of $1,280.

The deal stressed that Black & Decker and its subsidiaries
continue to deny the claims in the suit, but agreed to the
settlement in order to avoid further expense and litigation.  The
plaintiffs contended that the nearly $5 million agreement was
"fair, reasonable and accurate," and provides substantial benefits
to the class.

"[The settlement] brings substantial and certain monetary value to
class members now, rather than uncertain value to an uncertain
number of people at an uncertain time after protracted litigation
involving complex and changing law," the agreement said.

The deal comes roughly a year after former Black & Decker field
technician David Horn, who is no longer listed as a named
plaintiff, filed the suit in June 2013 in the Superior Court of
California.

Horn alleged that the company required workers to subtract the
first and last 30 minutes from their time sheets when driving from
home to a work site, and failed to pay them proper overtime and
minimum wage payments, in violation of California labor code,
among other grievances.

After being amended several times to add Black & Decker's
co-defendant subsidiaries, the suit was removed to California
federal court in May.  The current named plaintiffs, Donovan Long
and Lloyd Conard, worked mostly as field construction workers for
the company in the San Diego region, and primarily assembled
doors, according to the agreement.

The settlement notes that the deal was reached after the parties
participated in mediation with attorney Mark Rudy in San Francisco
in May.  Black & Decker and the plaintiffs agreed to the mediated
proposal June 6, the deal stated.

The agreement also asks the court to certify the two subclasses
for settlement purposes.  A hearing on preliminary approval of the
deal has been requested for Oct. 30, the agreement said.

Black & Decker is represented by Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Monique Ngo
Bonnici and Audrey Shen Chui of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas D. Rutledge --
thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com -- of the Law Offices of Thomas D.
Rutledge.

The case is Long et al v. Stanley Black & Decker Inc. et al, case
number 3:14-cv-01246, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


CANON SOLUTIONS: Settles Illegal Background Check Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Basso, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Canon
Solutions America Inc. and the lead plaintiff of an illegal
background check class action lawsuit indicated on Sept. 16, 2014,
they have come to a settlement agreement.  This Canon class action
litigation filed in New Jersey federal court alleged that the
camera and imaging technology manufacturer ran illegal background
checks on their employees.

Anya McPherson, a former Canon data entry worker, originally filed
this illegal background check class action lawsuit in 2012 after
she was allegedly fired by Canon based on the information given in
the background check.  At the time of the alleged firing,
Ms. McPherson had been employed in Canon's Burlington, N.J. branch
as a temporary data-entry worker and had decided to apply for a
full-time data entry position.

During Ms. McPherson's transitional hiring period from temporary
employee to possible full-time data entry employee, Canon
allegedly ran a background check on Ms. McPherson and inquired as
to whether or not she had ever been convicted of a crime in the
last seven years.  Ms. McPherson replied that she had not and was
offered the position.

Four days into her permanent data entry position at the beginning
of May 2012, Ms. McPherson was allegedly contacted by the human
resources manager of Canon corporate and informed her that she had
failed the background check due to a felony allegedly committed 12
years prior.  The plaintiff alleges that she was fired the same
day as the phone call from HR and she was not provided with a copy
of the background check, a potential violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Ms. McPherson alleges that had Canon given her a fair chance to
explain the circumstances surrounding her alleged felony, she
claims she would have been able to explain to her employer that
she was eligible to have said felony expunged.

Since Ms. McPherson filed this Canon illegal background check
class action lawsuit, Canon has attempted on several occasions to
dismiss the class action allegations.  In February of this year,
U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Simandle denied Canon's motion for
dismissal based on the insufficiency of the proposed Class to meet
the predominance requirement of certification.

This ruling also allowed Ms. McPherson to access Canon's
electronic employee termination and job applicant rejection
records, through the established Class Period of two to five years
prior to the December 2012 filing of the illegal background check
class action lawsuit.

Two months after Judge Simandle's ruling, Canon submitted a motion
for settlement, followed by another similar item discussing
settlement terms, though this document was heavily redacted.  The
settlement agreement submitted yesterday by both parties states
that Ms. McPherson has agreed to permanently dismiss all class
action allegations against Canon.

Canon denies all liability regarding the illegal background check
allegations in this Canon class action lawsuit.

Ms. McPherson is represented by Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- and Patrick F. Madden -- pmadden@bm.net
-- of Berger & Montague PC and Carolyn H. Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- of Scheifer Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP.

The Canon illegal Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Anya
McPherson, et al. v. Canon Business Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:12-
cv-07761, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


CIM COMMERCIAL: Court Approved Settlement of REIT Redux Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CIM Commercial Trust Corporation and CIM Urban REIT entered into
various agreements with plaintiffs in the case, REIT Redux, L.P.
et al v. CIM Commercial, et al., to settle their claims, which
agreements were effective as of January 28, 2014 and were approved
by the court on April 4, 2014, CIM Commercial 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

On October 9, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Dallas County Court at Law No. 5 in Dallas
County, Texas against and purportedly on behalf of CIM Commercial.
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the CIM
Commercial board breached its fiduciary duties by approving and
recommending the merger to the shareholders, failing to maximize
value for the shareholders, engaging in bad faith and self-dealing
by preferring transactions that further enriched the trust
managers at the expense of the shareholders and conspiring to
deprive the shareholders of their voting power and prerogatives.
The complaint alleged that CIM Urban REIT aided, abetted and
induced those breaches of fiduciary duty.

CIM Commercial and CIM Urban REIT entered into various agreements
with the plaintiffs to settle their claims, which agreements were
effective as of January 28, 2014 and were approved by the court on
April 4, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreement").

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Manager entered
into a trading plan (the "Trading Plan") designed to comply with
Rule 10b5-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide
for the purchase of up to 550,000 shares of CIM Commercial Common
Stock at prices up to $25.00 per share. The Trading Plan commenced
on March 12, 2014 and will, in general, expire on the date that
550,000 shares of CIM Commercial Common Stock have been purchased
or August 10, 2014, whichever is earlier.

Pursuant to the Trading Plan, which expired on August 10, 2014,
the Manager acquired approximately 248,000 shares of Common Stock
through July 31, 2014.  Additionally, CIM Commercial agreed to be
responsible for providing and administering notice of the class
action settlement to the members of the settlement class and pay
for all reasonable costs incurred in providing such notice. As a
result of the settlement, CIM Commercial agreed to payment of
attorney's fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel of $772,000.

In addition, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
the Manager agreed to purchase up to 100,000 shares of CIM
Commercial Common Stock owned by REIT Redux and its other
"reporting persons", at a price of $25.00 per share, if requested
by REIT Redux to do so at any time from July 10, 2014 until August
10, 2014.  Pursuant to the request of REIT Redux, the Manager
expects to complete the acquisition of the 100,000 shares in
August 2014.

CIM Commercial's principal business is to acquire and manage
substantially stabilized real estate holdings located in areas
that its manager has targeted for investments.  These areas
include traditional downtown areas and suburban main streets,
which have high barriers to entry, high population density,
improving demographic trends and a propensity for growth.


COLLECTO INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohiuddin Ahmed, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Collecto, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05469
(E.D.N.Y., September 17, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce O'Neil, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:14-cv-05791-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., September 17, 2014)
seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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


COMSCORE INC: Settles Panelists' Privacy Class Action for $14MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for OnlineMediaDaily, reports that
measurement company comScore will pay an estimated 16,000
panelists between $500 and $700 to settle a class-action lawsuit
alleging that the company violated panelists' privacy by
collecting too much information about them.

The payout details were revealed on Sept. 17, in a motion asking
U.S. District Court Judge James Holderman in the Northern District
of Illinois to grant final approval to the $14 million settlement.
The deal also requires comScore to revise its disclosures to
panelists and implement procedures to make sure its "bundling
partners" -- companies that distribute comScore's software along
with free screensavers, games or other programs -- also disclose
the company's terms.

The plaintiffs' lawyers say in court papers that the deal should
be approved, due to the "exceptional results achieved" and the
"overwhelmingly positive response" from panelists.  They add that
9,600 panelists have so far submitted claims, and that an
additional 6,300 are expected to do so.  To date, only one
panelist has opted out of the settlement, according to class
counsel.

"Plaintiffs view the $14 million non-reversionary settlement fund
. . . as well as the prospective relief offered by the settlement,
to be an extraordinary result for the class, especially when
compared to other privacy class action settlements," lawyers for
the consumers argue.  They specifically note that privacy class-
actions against other companies -- including Facebook, Google and
Netflix -- were resolved without payment to the Web users affected
by the alleged violations.

If approved by Judge Holderman, the deal will put an end to a
lawsuit brought against comScore by panel members Jeff Dunstan and
Mike Harris in 2011.  They alleged that they installed comScore's
software after downloading a free product, but didn't realize that
the company would collect a "terrifying" amount of data --
including usernames and passwords, search queries, credit card
numbers and retail transactions.

The latest motion notes that settlement talks grew more serious
last August, shortly after Judge Holderman said the consumers
could proceed as a class, instead of as individuals.  comScore,
which opposed class-action status, unsuccessfully attempted to
appeal that ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That effort was backed by a coalition of trade groups, including
the Direct Marketing Association, Interactive Advertising Bureau,
Association of National Advertisers, American Association of
Advertising Agencies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The trade
groups argued that privacy lawsuits against Web companies could
hinder online commerce.  "This case and others like it implicate
foundational internet communication and commerce technology," they
said at the time.

Judge Holderman could decide as early as Oct.1 whether to grant
the deal final approval.


COMTEC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Savory" Antitrust Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Savory Pie Guy, LLC fka Chocra Chocolate LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Comtec Industries, Ltd., Case
No. 7:14-cv-07527-VB (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2014) alleges
violations of antitrust laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER REESE, LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com


CONNECTONE BANCORP: Plaintiffs Dismissed Legal Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
ConnectOne 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 complaints were filed
against Legacy ConnectOne, the members of its Board of Directors
and the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, seeking class
action status and asserting that Legacy ConnectOne and the members
of its Board violated their duties to Legacy ConnectOne's
shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. The asserted
factual bases for the allegations of breach of duty included (i)
that the exchange ratio undervalues Legacy ConnectOne, (ii) that
the terms of the merger agreement and certain related documents
impermissibly locked up the proposed transaction, inhibiting other
offers for Legacy ConnectOne, and (iii) that the proposed
transaction provides benefits to insiders of Legacy ConnectOne. In
addition, in their amended complaint, the plaintiffs raised claims
that this joint proxy statement and prospectus failed to disclose
material information. Certain of the complaints also alleged that
the Company has aided and abetted the individual defendants in
their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On April 25, 2014,
the plaintiffs dismissed each of these legal proceedings.


CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon S. Solomons and Keren Solomons, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Control
Services, Inc. d/b/a/ Credit Collection Services, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05462 (E.D.N.Y., September 17, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.


CVB FINANCIAL: Oral Arguments in Appeal Expected in Mid 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp. 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 the wake of the
Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation, a purported
shareholder class action complaint was filed on August 23, 2010,
against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial
Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. Along with
the Company, Christopher D. Myers (the Company's President and
Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (the former
Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants.

On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved
the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the
Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same
defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the
purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21,
2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint sought
compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported
class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order.

On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by
both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court
issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs
with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the
ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed
its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following
another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an
order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on
May 9, 2013.

Although the District Court's most recent order of dismissal
provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and
restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on
June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of
Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that
the District Court convert its order to a dismissal with
prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On September 30, 2013, the District Court entered its order
dismissing the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with
prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on
October 24, 2013.

The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed on June 7, 2014, and the
Company's reply brief was filed on July 7, 2014. The plaintiff's
rebuttal brief was due on or about August 6, 2014, and the Court
of Appeals will schedule oral argument thereafter at a time to be
determined, which is not expected to be take place until at least
the middle of 2015.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the
plaintiff's allegations in this case.


CYNOSURE INC: Second Circuit to Decide on Case Based on Briefs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, 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 plaintiff,
individually and as putative representative of a purported class,
filed in 2005 a complaint against Cynosure under the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior
Court in Middlesex County, captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc.,
No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior Court, Middlesex County), seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges that we violated the TCPA
by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the
plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express
invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA,
recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to
damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and
up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations.
Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on our behalf by
a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals."

"In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion.
In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded
the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs.

"The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the
appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court
affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 plaintiff
filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme
Judicial Court. On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued
a Notice of Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No
further appeals are possible in Massachusetts.

"In addition, in July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported
class action, based on the same operative facts and asserting the
same claims as in the Massachusetts action, in federal court in
the Eastern District of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v.
Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court,
Eastern District of New York). In February 2013, that court
granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. In March
2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion seeking reconsideration of
the court's judgment and vacation of the court's order of
dismissal. In April 2013, we drafted a response opposing the
plaintiff's motion. In August 2013, plaintiff filed its motion
with the court, although the deadline had been April 2013.

"We filed a letter with the court objecting to this untimely
motion and requesting sanctions. In February 2014, the court
denied plaintiff's motion and denied our request for sanctions. On
March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's judgment
entered on March 5, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the Second Circuit
notified the parties that it will not hear oral arguments and will
decide the case based on the briefs."

Cynosure, Inc. develops and markets laser and light-based
aesthetic treatment systems that enable plastic surgeons,
dermatologists and other medical practitioners to perform non-
invasive and minimally invasive procedures to remove hair, treat
vascular and benign pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored
tattoos, revitalize the skin, liquefy and remove unwanted fat
through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear nails infected by
toe fungus and ablate sweat glands.


CYNOSURE INC: Resolves Merger Class Actions
-------------------------------------------
Cynosure, 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 merger litigation.

The Company said, "On March 21, 2013, a putative stockholder class
action complaint, captioned Edgar Calin v. Palomar Medical
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1051 BLS1 (Superior Court,
Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors, us and Commander Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and our wholly-owned subsidiary (Commander), in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 9, 2013,
a second putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County),
was filed against Palomar, its board of directors and us in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 12, 2013,
a third putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against
Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander in Massachusetts
Superior Court in Suffolk County (collectively with Edgar Calin
and Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust, the "Massachusetts State
Actions"). On April 23, 2013, each of the plaintiffs in the
foregoing suits filed an amended complaint."

"Each amended complaint alleges that members of the Palomar board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the approval of the merger contemplated by the agreement and plan
of merger, dated as of March 17, 2013, by and among Palomar, us
and Commander, and that we and, with respect to the Calin and
Saffer suits, Commander, aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties. Each amended complaint alleges that the Palomar
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed
sale process and failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain
the best financial and other terms, and that the registration
statement filed by us is materially deficient. Each of these
plaintiffs seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition
to other unspecified damages, fees and costs. The plaintiffs in
the Massachusetts State Actions moved to expedite the proceedings
on May 1, 2013 and moved to consolidate the actions on May 1,
2013. On May 13, 2013, each of the defendants in the Massachusetts
State Actions filed an opposition to expedite, an opposition to
consolidate and a cross motion to stay its respective action. On
May 16, 2013, each of the plaintiffs filed oppositions to
defendants' cross motion to stay. On May 17, 2013, the
Massachusetts Superior Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for expedited proceedings and granting defendants' cross
motion to stay the Massachusetts State Actions.

"On April 19, 2013, a fourth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Gary Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8491, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court.
On May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8516, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court.

"Each of the foregoing lawsuits alleges that members of the
Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the approval of the merger and that we and
Commander aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties. Each complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction
by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and
failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best
financial and other terms, and that the registration statement
filed by us is materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs
seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining
the defendants from consummating the merger, in addition to other
unspecified damages, fees and costs. The plaintiff in the Drabek
action moved to expedite the proceedings on April 29, 2013, and
the plaintiff in the Moore action moved to expedite and moved for
a preliminary injunction on May 3, 2013. On May 7, 2013, the
plaintiffs in the Drabek and Moore actions jointly submitted a
proposed order of consolidation to consolidate the class actions
as In re Palomar Medical Technologies Shareholder Litigation, C.A.
No. 8491-VCP, which order was granted by the court on the same
day.

"On May 28, 2013, a sixth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Melvin Lax v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-11276 (D. Mass.) (Massachusetts Federal
Action), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us,
and Commander in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the merger, that we and Commander aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing a
materially misleading Proxy Statement. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a
stipulation and joint motion to stay proceedings.

"On June 7, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which we refer to as the Delaware Memorandum of
Understanding, with the Delaware plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the Delaware putative stockholder class actions and,
on June 10, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on
Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms
of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding.

"On June 14, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which we refer to as the Massachusetts Memorandum
of Understanding, with the Massachusetts plaintiffs, pursuant to
which the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts state and federal
actions agreed to be bound by the terms of the Delaware Memorandum
of Understanding and on June 14, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC
a Current Report on Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement
pursuant to the terms of the Massachusetts Memorandum of
Understanding.

"The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and the Massachusetts
Memorandum of Understanding contemplate that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. On May 1, 2014, we,
Palomar and the Delaware plaintiffs entered into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the court approved the
form of notice for mailing to the former stockholders of Palomar.

"Following notice, the court scheduled a hearing for July 21, 2014
at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware considered
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and
approved the settlement, resolved and released all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), and
dismissed the Delaware actions with prejudice. The court also
awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in
the amount of $420,000 to be paid by Palomar or its successor.

"As Palomar's successor, we paid through our insurance company the
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.

"In addition, also on May 1, 2014, we, Palomar and the
Massachusetts plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation seeking
dismissal of the Massachusetts State Actions, and the court
dismissed the Massachusetts State Actions with prejudice on May 7,
2014. Finally, on July 16, 2014, the parties to the Massachusetts
Federal Action informed the court that if the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware approved the settlement during the July
21, 2014 hearing, the plaintiff would dismiss the Massachusetts
Federal Action with prejudice and we will pay the plaintiff an
additional amount for his attorneys' fees and expenses through our
insurance company. Dismissal on the Massachusetts Federal Action
is still pending as the plaintiffs have not yet filed the
dismissal papers."

Cynosure, Inc. develops and markets laser and light-based
aesthetic treatment systems that enable plastic surgeons,
dermatologists and other medical practitioners to perform non-
invasive and minimally invasive procedures to remove hair, treat
vascular and benign pigmented lesions, remove multi-colored
tattoos, revitalize the skin, liquefy and remove unwanted fat
through laser lipolysis, reduce cellulite, clear nails infected by
toe fungus and ablate sweat glands.


DEAN FOODS: Parties Agree to Defer Trial Court Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action antitrust complaint have agreed to
submit a proposed schedule for further proceedings in the trial
court, and to defer further proceedings in the trial court until
there is a determination by the Supreme Court whether to review
the decision of the Court of Appeals, Dean Foods 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.

A putative class action antitrust complaint (the "retailer
action") was filed on August 9, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The Company said,
"Plaintiffs allege generally that we, either acting alone or in
conjunction with others in the milk industry who are also
defendants in the retailer action, lessened competition in the
Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A
milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the
defendants' conduct also artificially inflated wholesale prices
for direct milk purchasers."

Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration, renewed their request for
summary judgment in September 2010. In March 2012, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all
remaining counts and entered judgment in favor of all defendants,
including the Company. Plaintiffs appealed the court's decision in
April 2012. Briefing on the appeal was completed in April 2013,
and oral argument occurred in July 2013.

In January 2014, the appeals court reversed the judgment for the
defendants, including the Company, on one of the original five
counts in the Tennessee retailer action. In February 2014, the
Company requested that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals consider
its decision en banc; the Sixth Circuit declined to do so. The
Company filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of
the case on August 1, 2014. The Sixth Circuit returned the case to
the trial court for further proceedings.

The parties have agreed to submit a proposed schedule for further
proceedings in the trial court on or before August 29, 2014. The
parties have also agreed to defer further proceedings in the trial
court until there is a determination by the Supreme Court whether
to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Dean Foods is a food and beverage company and the largest
processor and direct-to-store distributor of fluid milk and other
dairy and dairy case products in the United States.


DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Dean Foods
Company on June 29, 2009, in the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Greeneville Division, on behalf of indirect purchasers of
processed fluid Grade A milk (the "indirect purchaser action").
The allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the
retailer action, but primarily involve state law claims. Because
the allegations in the indirect purchaser action substantially
overlap with the allegations in the retailer action, the Court
granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the
indirect purchaser action pending the outcome of the summary
judgment motions in the retailer action.

On August 16, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their lawsuit. On January 17, 2013, these same
plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk (the "2013
indirect purchaser action").  The allegations are similar to those
in the voluntarily dismissed indirect purchaser action, but
involve only claims arising under Tennessee law.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2013. On June
14, 2013, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs responded to the
Company's motion to dismiss and filed an amended complaint. On
July 1, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on
August 15, 2013.

"At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate
outcome of these matters," Dean Foods 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.

Dean Foods is a food and beverage company and the largest
processor and direct-to-store distributor of fluid milk and other
dairy and dairy case products in the United States.


DR. PEPPER: Removed "Solis" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Solis v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, et al.,
Case No. BC554279, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-07252 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges 20 causes of action against the Defendants,
including violations of the Labor Code, wrongful termination and
harassment based on age.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          I. Benjamin Blady, Esq.
          BLADY WEINREB LAW GROUP, LLP
          6310 San Vincente Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone (323) 933-1352
          Facsimile (323) 933-1353
          E-mail: bblady@bwlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Patricia A. Matias CA Bar No. 254125
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Suite 1500
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com
                  patricia.matias@ogletreedeakins.com


DYNEX CAPITAL: Expects Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, 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 with respect to the
putative class action lawsuit that was filed in June 2012 in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the
"Court"), and to which GLS Capital, Inc. and the Company are named
defendants, on June 30, 2014, the Court dismissed with prejudice
the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety.  "We expect plaintiffs
to appeal the Court's dismissal," the company said.

Dynex Capital, Inc., ("Company") was incorporated in the
Commonwealth of Virginia on December 18, 1987 and commenced
operations in February 1988. The Company primarily earns income
from investing on a leveraged basis in mortgage-backed securities
("MBS") that are issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or
U.S. Government sponsored agencies ("Agency MBS") and MBS issued
by others ("non-Agency MBS").


EBIX INC: Securities Class Action Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 between July 14, 2011 and July
21, 2011, securities class action complaints were filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The complaints assert claims against (i) the Company and the
Company's CEO and CFO for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the Company's CEO and CFO as
alleged controlling persons. The complaints generally allege false
statements in earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and
other public statements that allegedly caused the Company's stock
to trade at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages. The New York action has been
transferred to Georgia and has been consolidated with the Georgia
action, now styled In re: Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 1:11-CV-02400-RWS (N.D. Ga.). The parties have reached
a mutually acceptable agreement to resolve this action for a cash
payment of $6.5 million to be funded by both the Company and its
insurance carrier.  The Company recorded a contingent liability
and recognized a charge against earnings in the amount of $4.23
million ($2.63 million net of the associated tax benefit) as part
of this settlement.

Following a final fairness hearing on June 5, 2014, the Court
entered the Final Order and Judgment Approving the Class Action
Settlement and Plan of Allocation and Certifying the Settlement
Class on June 11, 2014, and the Final Order and Judgment Awarding
Attorneys' Fees, an Incentive Award, and Reimbursement of Expenses
on June 13, 2014. The time for appeal has passed and no appeals
were filed. This matter is now concluded.

Ebix, Inc. is a international supplier of software and e-commerce
solutions to the insurance industry.


EBIX INC: Court Narrows Class Action Over Goldman Sachs Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 its announcement on May
1, 2013 of the Company's execution of a merger agreement with
affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co., twelve putative class action
complaints challenging the proposed merger were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. These complaints name as Defendants
some combination of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs &
Co. and affiliated entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve
complaints were consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery,
now captioned In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No.
8526-VCN.

On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement
had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement
Agreement. After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to
drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their
allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the
Company and Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved
to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion. The
only surviving counts are as follows: (i) Counts II and IV, but
only to the extent the Plaintiffs seek non-monetary relief for
alleged material misstatements related to the ABA base price in
the 2010 Proxy Statement; (ii) Count II, but only to the extent it
challenges the continued existence of the ABA as an alleged
unreasonable anti-takeover device; and, (iii) Count V, but only to
the extent that it relates to the compensation the Board received
under the Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan.The Company denies
any liability and intends to defend the action vigorously.

Ebix, Inc. is a international supplier of software and e-commerce
solutions to the insurance industry.


ECOTALITY INC: Judge Tosses Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that calling the
complaint "a redundant and repetitive tangle of verbosity," a
federal judge on Sept. 16 dismissed a securities suit stemming
from Ecotality Inc.'s botched electric car charging project.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti of the Northern District of
California ruled plaintiffs did not show that Ecotality executives
knowingly or intentionally misled shareholders, even though their
government-funded contract to install electric car chargers proved
less successful than anticipated.  The ruling was a blow to
lawyers with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, who sued the
San Francisco company last year on behalf of shareholders.

Statements about the projected release date of Ecotality's
Minit-Charger were forward looking, and are therefore protected
under federal securities law, Conti wrote.  Similarly, he stated,
boasts that Ecotality was making progress in shifting away from
the Department of Energy-funded project and into the private
sector are protected as corporate optimism.

"These are precisely the sort of vaguely optimistic statements
that are inactionable under the [Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act]," the judge's 35-page order stated.

Conti also dismissed a handful of other claims he said are so
vague he would "not attempt to divine plaintiffs' intentions by
trying to match potentially misleading statements with the alleged
problems facing Ecotality.  "Conti granted plaintiffs leave to
amend those allegations, as well as claims based on statements
that Ecotality was on track to complete the DOE project.  The
suits other claims were dismissed with prejudice.

In the summer of 2013, a host of converging factors led Ecotality
to file for bankruptcy: investor funding fell through, the DOE
suspended reimbursements, and the Department of Labor fined the
company $855,000.  Investors filed suit that August, claiming they
bought stock at inflated prices due to misleading statements made
by company executives.

Ecotality is represented by Cooley attorneys Tower Snow Jr. --
tsnow@cooley.com -- John Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com --
Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Adam Trigg -- atrigg@cooley.com --
and Joseph Woodring.


FORD MOTOR: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Product Liability Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
Ford Motor Co. and a parts supplier prevailed in a product
liability case in West Palm Beach federal court against a woman
suing on behalf of her incapacitated daughter.

In a three-week trial that ended on Sept. 11, a jury found no
defect in the design of a seat belt installed in a 2002 Explorer.
Sally Small, the mother of Keanna Small, brought the suit against
Ford and Key Safety Systems Inc., the seat belt manufacturer.

Ms. Small alleged her daughter was ejected from the front
passenger seat of the sport utility vehicle during a rollover
accident because of a defect that caused the belt buckle to
unlatch.

Keanna Small, 22 at the time of the accident, suffered a traumatic
brain injury.  Her attorneys -- Willie Gary, Lorenzo Williams and
Sekou Gary of the Law Firm of Gary, Williams, Parenti & Watson in
Stuart -- asked for $100 million as compensation for $2.2 million
in past medical expenses, $26 million in future medical and life
care costs, and pain and suffering.

Key Safety Systems was represented by Michael Cooney and Brian
Smith of Dykema in Detroit.  Its local attorneys were
Greg Cesarano -- gcesarano@cfjblaw.com -- of Miami and
Derek Harris -- dharris@cfjblaw.com -- of West Palm Beach, both
with Carlton Fields Jorden Burt.

Presiding over the case was U.S. Magistrate Judge William
Matthewman.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Participating in PLMBS Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Financial Services 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
Farmers and Merchants Trust Company of Chambersburg (the Bank),
Franklin Financial's wholly-owned subsidiary, is currently
participating in a class-action lawsuit against one PLMBS servicer
that centers on defective warranties and representations made as
part of the underwriting process.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Bankruptcy Judge Clears Way for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peg Brickley, writing for Daily Bankruptcy Review, reports that a
$2.9 million settlement to pay for health studies, water tests and
other benefits for people affected by a chemical spill from
Freedom Industries Inc. advanced last week when a bankruptcy judge
cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit to set the stage for
the pact.

If it is ultimately approved, the settlement will end some of the
legal action that started after coal-treatment chemicals leaked
from Freedom-owned tanks into the Elk River near the start of the
year.  The spill contaminated the water supply of 300,000 people
and forced some businesses to close their doors for a period.  Hit
with dozens of lawsuits, Freedom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.


GDF SUEZ: Class Action Over Hazelwood Mine Fire Gets Support
------------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Plummer, writing for Latrobe Valley Express, reports that
support is gaining for a class action against Hazelwood mine
operator GDF SUEZ after 100 residents gathered at a community
meeting to discuss the Hazelwood Mine Fire Inquiry report on
Sept. 14.

Maurice Blackburn Traralgon principal lawyer Gino Andrieri said
the firm's work had moved into a "new phase" on the case as they
developed a greater understanding of the fire's impacts on
individuals, businesses and business groups and other community
representative groups in gathering valuable information on a
potential case.

"We've had a positive community response regarding our potential
action against GDF SUEZ, and being able to speak to people
directly at the community meeting has reinforced that, so we will
continue talking to community and local business groups to best
represent their interests," Mr. Andrieri said.

Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions Andrew Watson
addressed the crowd to discuss the firm's investigation into the
fire.  Mr. Watson said the Mine Fire Inquiry report identified in
fairly strong terms GDF SUEZ was inadequately prepared for the
possibility of a fire in the mine.  He noted this included the
"mere fact that no precautionary steps were taken in relation to
worked-out areas of the mine" and the company not following a
recommendation for a fire risk assessment after two smaller fires
in the mine in 2005 and 2008.

"Based on those failures we think there's a case to answer,"
Mr. Watson said.

Mr. Watson said the next step would be to work out whether there
were sufficient losses to warrant spending the time and cost
involved in class action.

"Part of our desire to interact today with the community through
this meeting is to remind all of you, and encourage all of you,
about the need to give us a sense of what kind of support there is
in the community for class action and what kind of losses there
are," Mr. Watson said.

He said potentially easier-to-claim losses included property
damage from ash and smoke, inconvenience damages affecting quality
of life, specific recovery costs and business-owner claims.

More difficult losses would include health impacts from the fire.

"Let me be upfront and tell you, personal injury losses will be at
the harder end of the spectrum in terms of recovery compensation
because of the way the law works," Mr. Watson said.

"We're not giving up on that at the outset, we're going to ask
people to give us details about that."

Voices of the Valley president Wendy Farmer said there was strong
local interest in holding the mine operators accountable for the
impacts of the fire.

"There's a growing chorus in our community who want to find a way
to hold GDF SUEZ accountable for this preventable disaster and
we're continuing to work with Maurice Blackburn Lawyers to pursue
our best options," Mrs. Farmer said.

Residents can register their details with Maurice Blackburn online
at www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/hazelwood or phone 1800 643 211


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Bid for Document Discovery Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP disclosed that on September 19, 2014,
Judge Jesse Furman, presiding over the General Motors Ignition
Switch Multi-District Litigation in the Southern District Court of
New York granted Plaintiffs request to move forward with document
discovery.

Bob Hilliard, who is one of three co-lead attorneys representing
the Plaintiffs states, "GM has admitted it will not seek
bankruptcy protection from post bankruptcy injuries and deaths.
Yet, GM refused to agree to participate in discovery and trial
preparation.  This was a nonsensical position by GM and Judge
Furman has determined that discovery should begin immediately. "

"We have been ordered to begin a 'reasonable yet aggressive
schedule for discovery' -- that tells me the Court will insist
this case move quickly and efficiently over the next few months."

Hilliard currently represents 90 families of victims who were
killed and over 1300 individuals who were injured in General
Motors' defective vehicle.

                            About HMG

Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP (HMG) -- http://www.hmglawfirm.com/--
specializes in mass torts, personal injury, product liability,
commercial and business litigation, and wrongful death.  Hilliard
MuĀ¤oz Gonzales LLP has been successfully representing clients in
the United States and Mexico since 1986.

Bob Hilliard obtained the Largest Verdict in the country in 2012
and the #1 verdict in Texas in 2013.

HMG is actively seeking to represent other victims of GM's
defective vehicles.

                    About Motors Liquidation

General Motors Corporation and three of its affiliates filed for
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-50026) on
June 1, 2009.  The Honorable Robert E. Gerber presides over the
Chapter 11 cases.  Harvey R. Miller, Esq., Stephen Karotkin,
Esq., and Joseph H. Smolinsky, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LLP, assist the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Al Koch
at AP Services, LLC, an affiliate of AlixPartners, LLP, serves as
the Chief Executive Officer for Motors Liquidation Company.  GM
is also represented by Jenner & Block LLP and Honigman Miller
Schwartz and Cohn LLP as counsel.  Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP
is providing legal advice to the GM Board of Directors.  GM's
financial advisors are Morgan Stanley, Evercore Partners and the
Blackstone Group LLP.  Garden City Group is the claims and notice
agent of the Debtors.

The U.S. Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors and a separate Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors Holding Asbestos-Related Claims.  Lawyers at Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP served as bankruptcy counsel to the
Creditors Committee.  Attorneys at Butzel Long served as counsel
on supplier contract matters.  FTI Consulting Inc. served as
financial advisors to the Creditors Committee.  Elihu Inselbuch,
Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, represented the Asbestos
Committee.  Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., served as asbestos
valuation analyst.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Debtors'
Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan on March 29, 2011.  The Plan
was declared effect on March 31.

On Dec. 15, 2011, Motors Liquidation Company was dissolved.  On
the Dissolution Date, pursuant to the Plan and the Motors
Liquidation Company GUC Trust Agreement, dated March 30, 2011,
between the parties thereto, the trust administrator and trustee
-- GUC Trust Administrator -- of the Motors Liquidation Company
GUC Trust, assumed responsibility for the affairs of and certain
claims against MLC and its debtor subsidiaries that were not
concluded prior to the Dissolution Date.


GENERAL MOTORS: Congress Grills NHSA Over Ignition-Switch Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Migliore, writing for AutoblogGreen, reports that the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received a brutal
one-two punch from Congress last week for its response to the
General Motors ignition-switch scandal.

NHTSA was hammered in a 45-page House report, and then grilled by
senators during a hearing on Capitol Hill.  Both on paper and in
person, legislators picked apart the agency's plodding, seemingly
inept responses to GM, and questioned NHTSA's ability to serve as
a watchdog for the auto industry, which has faced extensive
recalls, fines and controversy in recent years.

Deputy administrator David Friedman, who's only been with NHTSA
since 2013, had few answers when questioned on the hill, and by
the end of the lengthy session, senators had painted the
unflattering portrait of a toothless agency in disarray.

Yes, there was some grandstanding.  But legislators, and
Mr. Friedman's responses to their often-testy questions,
illustrated a valuable point -- NHTSA needs help.  It needs more
power, more people and more money to effectively regulate on of
the most complex industries in the nation.

NHTSA's authority, or seeming lack thereof, came under repeated
fire from senators.  It can only fine automakers $35 million for
safety violations, something a proposed bill seeks to change.
Even Toyota's record $1.2-billion settlement with the US
attorney's office in its unintended acceleration cases was
technically for wire fraud. The bill, introduced in August by
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), would also double NHTSA's funding
for vehicle safety.  If the legislation passes, auto executives
could face prison sentences for delaying a recall, which would
force companies to take NHTSA more seriously.

"We need more authority to fine the car companies so that they
understand the heavy price that they are going to pay if they fail
to report these things," Mr. Friedman said.

He also told senators he needs more resources, noting NHTSA
doesn't have enough boots on the ground to handle the massive
recalls it's faced in recent years.

NHTSA wants to increase its full-time workers to 637 for the 2015
fiscal year, (plus four employees whose salaries are reimbursed
for their work on intelligent transportation).  That's up 27 from
this year, which would provide more muscle to sort through the
extensive data that's sent to the agency by carmakers and the
public.

To do this, NHTSA wants more money, and has asked the federal
government to increase its budget to $851 million, up $32 million
from the 2014 fiscal year.

"We could use additional resources," Mr. Friedman said.  "More
people, more money for better technology so that we can better
sift through the information that's out here."

Speaking of resources, NHTSA needs an official boss.  Technically,
Mr. Friedman is the deputy administrator, even though he's in
charge of the department.  The former top administrator, David
Strickland, left in January to work for a law firm that lobbies
for the auto industry.  He had been in charge since 2010.
Mr. Friedman was named the acting head, then that title expired.


GENERAL MOTORS: Wants Discovery in Ignition-Switch Suits Halted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co. is asking a federal judge overseeing more
than 100 ignition-switch lawsuits to halt discovery in a Georgia
case in which one of its former senior attorneys faces deposition
as soon as November.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, overseeing the
multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving the ignition switch, GM
has moved to halt planned depositions of up to 15 people,
including William Kemp, its former top attorney on safety issues,
in Cobb County, Ga., State Court.

Mr. Kemp was fired following an unfavorable internal report in
June.  The depositions are being scheduled in a case he defended
against the parents of Brooke Melton, who died in 2010 when her
Chevrolet Cobalt careened off a highway.

GM has acknowledged that 13 people died because of the defect,
which prompted recalls of 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide
this year.  On Sept. 15, attorney Kenneth Feinberg, administering
a victim-compensation fund, reported that 19 claims were eligible
for payment due to deaths.  Another 12 were eligible for payments
due to severe injuries.

The deadline for filing claims with Mr. Feinberg is Dec. 31.  He
is looking into more than 100 additional claims involving deaths.

"General Motors spokespersons are saying one thing publicly and
promoting the fund . . . and then in the MDL and Melton they're
playing extreme hardball, taking a totally different approach,"
said Jere Beasley, a principal at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles in Montgomery, one of the plaintiffs attorneys in
the Melton case.

GM spokesman James Cain said via email that there was an
"administrative process in place that should be followed" in the
MDL, which now involves 116 lawsuits.  Regarding Mr. Feinberg's
fund, he acknowledged that the "number of eligible individuals
under the program may not be limited to 13 deaths."

On Sept. 16, a U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation subcommittee heard testimony from David Friedman,
acting administrator of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, about the agency's oversight of automotive safety
and its role in failing to discover GM's ignition defect.

Back in court, plaintiffs attorneys in the MDL are pushing for
discovery to proceed.  Judge Furman has asked both sides to come
up with a plan to coordinate discovery in more than two dozen
cases in state courts across the country.  The next hearing is
scheduled for Oct. 2.

GM's attorneys, in a letter to Judge Furman on Sept. 12, wrote
that plaintiffs attorneys in state court cases have requested
discovery beyond what Furman has ordered.

Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- and
Andrew Bloomer -- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- partners at
Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis, wrote that, "notwithstanding their
agreement to proceed one way in this court on a particular issue,
plaintiffs' counsel feel unconstrained in taking a starkly
contrary position on the exact same issue in a different court,
posing fundamental challenges to managing this MDL in a rational
and efficient manner."

They took particular aim at Lance Cooper of The Cooper Firm in
Marietta, Ga., who is planning depositions in the Melton case.

Mr. Cooper, while serving on the plaintiffs steering committee in
the MDL, has sought documents related to the Justice Department's
investigation and communications with its lawyers over the defect,
according to GM's letter.

Mr. Cooper and lead plaintiffs counsel in the MDL have insisted
that the Melton case focuses on the separate issue of whether GM
fraudulently concealed evidence to induce his clients to settle
last year.

"The discovery we've focused on in Melton is related to fraudulent
concealment and perjury that went on in Melton case, which of
course is unique to Melton," Mr. Cooper said in an interview.

Depositions scheduled to begin in November would include Mr. Kemp
and "a few other in-house people," as well as engineer
Ray DeGiorgio, whose deposition last year in the Melton case first
revealed the defect, he said.


GERON CORPORATION: Response to Amended Complaint Due Nov. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
Geron 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 a purported securities
class action lawsuit was commenced on March 14, 2014, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants
us and certain of our officers.

The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false
and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial
of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET,
or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET/PV patients and
the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third purported securities lawsuit, not styled as
a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi naming as defendants us
and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on
the same factual background as the purported securities class
action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages
and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class actions filed in the California District
Court and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent
the purported class.  On July 21, 2014, the California District
Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint by September 19, 2014, and the Company's response to the
consolidated amended complaint is due by November 19, 2014.

Geron is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing a
telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid
malignancies.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Missouri Litigation Ongoing in Action vs. Bank
--------------------------------------------------------------
Great Southern 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 suit was
filed on November 22, 2010, against the Bank in Missouri state
court in Springfield by a customer alleging that the fees
associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The suit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees on their checking accounts.  The Court denied a motion to
dismiss filed by the Bank and litigation is ongoing.

At this stage of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss,
the Company said.


HARVEST NATURAL: Defending Against Stock Price Declines Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, 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 fhe following
related class action lawsuits were filed on the dates specified in
the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas: John
Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and
Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013) ("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C.
Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert
E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3,
2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013); Prastitis v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013);
and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 26, 2013).

The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into
the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated lawsuits.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: ASB's Appeal Pending in Hawaii Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, 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 class action lawsuit was filed in March 2011 in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., had improperly
charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  American
Savings Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hawaiian
Electric Industries.

ASB filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that as a
bank chartered under federal law, ASB believes its business
practices are governed by federal regulations established for
federal savings banks and not by state law.

In July 2011, the Circuit Court denied ASB's motion and ASB
appealed that decision.

ASB's appeal is currently pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court.
The probable outcome and range of reasonably possible loss remains
indeterminable at this time.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Printer Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Sept. 16 tossed a proposed class
action claiming Hewlett-Packard Co. wireless printers have a
defect that results in spotty connections with the computers
sending them information, ruling the claims are time-barred,
though he gave plaintiffs leave to amend.

In granting HP's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Edward J.
Davila found no justification to apply a delayed discovery rule
whereby the accrual of a claim is postponed until the plaintiff
discovers the cause of action, because the amended complaint
didn't state exactly when the plaintiffs found the alleged defects
in their printers.

The complaint, filed by Arizona resident Vincent Ferranti and
Pennsylvania resident Carlos Martinho, alleges that HP's Officejet
Pro 8500 and 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers contained a faulty
transceiver that left the printers unable to maintain a consistent
connection with laptop or tablet computers, forcing users to plug
in if they wanted to print.

Judge Davila on Sept. 16 said plaintiffs' Consumer Legal Remedies
Act claims and one of their Unfair Competition Law claims failed
because they appeared to have filed the complaint too long after
discovering the alleged defects.  The judge also scrapped another
UCL claim after HP argued there was no broad duty to disclose the
alleged defects, thus there was no breach of duty.

"Plaintiffs . . . do not allege what duty is created between HP
and [Martinho]," the Sept. 16 decision said.  "Moreover,
plaintiffs do not allege with particularity how HP had exclusive
knowledge of material facts not known to [Martinho] when the
complaint alleges that there were consumer complaints posted on HP
support forums and poor reviews on other websites."

Michael A. Caddell of Caddell & Chapman, which is representing the
plaintiffs, told Law360 on Sept. 17 that they are in the process
of amending the complaint to address Judge Davila's concerns.
They have until 15 days after the date of the Sept. 16 order to
file the new version.

Palo Alto, California-based HP either knew, or should have known,
about the defect by April 2009, but "actively concealed" the
problem from consumers at the time of their purchases and later
when they complained, according to the suit, which Ferranti
originally filed in August 2013.  Mr. Martinho was added as a
named plaintiff to an amended version of the complaint filed in
November 2013.

The defect was obvious while the printers were still under
warranty, but HP refused to give refunds to purchasers, instead
suggesting various "work-arounds" that didn't resolve the problem,
plaintiffs argued.  They said HP began receiving complaints about
the 8500 printer immediately after its release in March 2009, and
cited online message boards containing posts from frustrated
consumers trying to work through problems with the printer.  The
8600 model was released in November 2011, yet HP used the same
defective wireless technology in that version as well, the suit
said.

The complaint sought to represent a class consisting of purchasers
of the allegedly defective printers, and a subclass including all
class members who notified HP of the defect during the term of the
warranty.

HP argued that its one-year limited warranty only covered printer
repairs and replacements and didn't guarantee that the use of the
printer would be uninterrupted and error-free.

Judge Davila said on Sept. 16 that the fact that plaintiffs
received replacement printers and help from HP's tech support
department showed that the company complied with its warranty.

HP is represented by Samuel G. Liversidge --
sliversidge@gibsondunn.com - and Timothy W. Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn.

Messrs. Ferranti and Martinho are represented by Michael A.
Caddell, Cynthia B. Chapman and Cory S. Fein of Caddell & Chapman.

The case is Vincent Ferranti v. Hewlett-Packard Co., case number
5:13-cv-03847, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


HITACHI: LCD Panel Class Action Claimants May Get Checks in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Ewoldt, writing for StarTribune, reports that LCD panel class
action claimants will soon receive their checks.  About 30,000
Minnesotans filed claims in Dec. 2012 to collect $45 to $90 for
each flat panel LCD TV, laptop and monitor purchased between
January 1999 and December 2006.  The refunds are being issued
because of a class action lawsuit against nine LCD screen
manufacturers such as Hitachi, LG, Sharp, Samsung and Toshiba, who
were found guilty of price fixing.

Almost two years and numerous appeals filed and dismissed, a
San Francisco Court will consider a motion on Oct. 17 to start
sending checks to claimants.  The $1.1 billion settlement will be
dispersed, minus lawyers' fees, to 235,000 consumers and
businesses in 24 states.

San Francisco attorney Joe Alioto, who co-led the case against the
manufacturers, did not want to say definitively that claimants
would start getting their checks in November.  "I've learned to
never make an assumption before a court ruling," he said with
caution.  But Dan Shulman -- daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com -- a lawyer
at Gray Plant Mooty in Minneapolis, one of a dozen law firms that
managed the settlement, said, "There are no impediments to the
distribution of the money.  We just need an order from the court."

Once the court gives the okay to start distributing checks, it is
estimated it will be within four weeks, according to an e-mail
distributed earlier this week to claimants.

Mr. Shulman said claimants will get $45 for each laptop or monitor
and $90 for each TV, which is less than earlier reports of $75 per
monitor and $150 per flat panel TV.  After lawyers' fees, about
$750 million will be distributed.

Original claims had to be mailed or submitted online by Dec. 6,
2012.  Claimants whose address has changed since then can go to
the LCDclass.com website to change it.  They will need the
claimant ID number provided when the claim was made online.
(An e-mail was sent with the subject line "Confirmation of receipt
of your online LCD Flat Panel Consumer Claim.") Claimants can also
call 1-855-225-1886 to get their number if it cannot be found.
(Press 7 for a representative after the two minute recorded
message.) The address must be changed online with the claimant
number.  It cannot be changed by phone.


HOME DEPOT: Removed "Harris" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harris v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. RG14737071, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-04206-MEJ to
the proceeding.

The complaint asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donna Marie Mezias, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com


HOME DEPOT: Merchant Law Group Files Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
David Paddon, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Home
Depot said on Sept. 18 that 56 million payment cards used at its
American and Canadian stores between April and September were
compromised by a type of criminal software that hadn't previously
been seen in other attacks.

The Atlanta-based home improvement retailer said any terminal with
the malware has been taken out of service and that it completed
introducing new encrypted terminals in all of its U.S. stores on
Sept. 13, less than two weeks after the attack was discovered.
Home Depot says it will complete installing new encrypted
terminals at its Canadian stores early next year but added they
are already equipped to handle credit cards with embedded chips
and personal identification numbers.

The company continues to say there is no evidence that debit card
personal identification numbers have been compromised or that
online shoppers were affected at homedepot.ca or homedepot.com.
Its Mexican stores were also apparently unaffected by the breach.
"We apologize for the frustration and inconvenience this breach
may have caused," the company said in a new posting on its
website.

"We also want to emphasize that you will not be liable for any
fraudulent charges to your accounts, and we're offering free
identity protection services, including credit monitoring, to any
customer who has shopped at a Home Depot store in 2014, from April
on."

However, the Merchant Law Group -- one of Canada's prominent
class-action firms -- filed a suit on Sept. 17 that will seek
financial compensation for all Canadians affected by the Home
Depot breach between April and Sept. 2.

"What Home Depot has offered is the most minimal kind of
assistance.  It's just not adequate," Tony Merchant said on
Sept. 18 from the group's office in Calgary.

Mr. Merchant said that a Canadian class action against the Winners
and Home Sense retail chains several years ago, after its parent
TJX was the victim of a breach, obtained vouchers of between $30
and $60 as compensation and members of the class with significant
out-of-pocket expenses were able to get repayment through the
process.

And importantly for society, he added, the Winner-HomeSense class
action negotiated changes to the way customer information was
protected.

"And the same thing has to happen here," Mr. Merchant said.

The representative plaintiff is Martin Knuth, who says he used a
swipe credit card several times at a Home Depot store in Regina,
including on June 13, 2014.  The suit was filed with a
Saskatchewan's Court of Queen's Bench, in Regina.

Home Depot has a total of 2,264 stores in North America, including
287 in Canada and Mexico.

Security experts have said that chip-and-pin credit cards are less
vulnerable to certain types of breach, particularly in stores, but
hackers may used other techniques such as grabbing information off
online transactions where the card number and password is entered
by the consumer.

It's the second-largest breach for a U.S. retailer on record,
behind TJX Cos.'s theft of 90 million records, disclosed in 2007,
and ahead of Target's pre-Christmas 2013 breach that compromised
40 million credit and debit cards.

But unlike Target's breach, which sent the retailer's sales and
profits falling as wary shoppers went elsewhere, customers seem to
have stuck with Atlanta-based Home Depot.  Still, the breach's
ultimate cost to the company remains unknown.  Greg Melich, an
analyst at International Strategy & Investment Group LLC,
estimates the costs will run in the several hundred million
dollars, similar to Target's breach.

"This is a massive breach, and a lot of people are affected," said
John Kindervag, vice-president and principal analyst at Forrester
Research.  But he added, "Home Depot is very lucky that Target
happened because there is this numbness factor."

Customers appear to be growing used to breaches, following a
string of them this past year, including at Michaels, SuperValu
and Neiman Marcus.  Home Depot might have also benefited from the
disclosure of the breach coming in September, months after the
spring season, which is the busiest time of year for home
improvement.

And unlike Target, which has a myriad of competitors, analysts
note that home-improvement shoppers don't have many options.
Moreover, Home Depot's customer base is different from Target's.
Nearly 40 per cent of Home Depot's sales come from professional
and contractor services.  Those buyers tend to be fiercely loyal
and shop a couple of times a week for supplies.

Home Depot on Sept. 18 confirmed its sales-growth estimates for
the fiscal year and said it expects to earn $4.54 per share in
fiscal 2014, up 2 cents from its prior guidance.  The company's
fiscal 2014 outlook includes estimates for the cost to investigate
the data breach, providing credit monitoring services to its
customers, increasing call center staffing and paying legal and
professional services.

However, the profit guidance doesn't include potential yet-to-be
determined losses related to the breach.  The company said it has
not yet estimated costs beyond those included in the guidance
issued on Sept. 18.  Those costs could include liabilities related
to payment card networks for reimbursements of credit card fraud
and card reissuance costs.  It could also include future civil
litigation and governmental investigations and enforcement
proceedings.


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: "Employees Trust" Suit Moved to Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Public Employees Local 71 Trust
Fund v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-00131, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
03466-DWF-FLN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims related to health care/pharmaceutical
personal injury product liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eva Rivka Gardner, Esq.
          Thomas V. Wang, Jr., Esq.
          Meredith S. Matthews, Esq.
          ASHBURN & MASON, P.C.
          1227 West 9th Avenue, Suite 200
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 276-4331
          Facsimile: (907) 277-8235
          E-mail: erg@anchorlaw.com
                  tvw@anchorlaw.com
                  msm@anchorlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steve S. Tervooren, Esq.
          HUGHES GORSKI SEEDORF ODSEN & TERVOOREN LLC
          3900 C Street, Suite 1001
          Anchorage, AK 99503
          Telephone: (907) 274-7522
          Facsimile: (907) 263-8320
          E-mail: stervooren@hglawfirm.net


IEC ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp. on Sept. 16 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed
in its entirety, without right to replead, the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit originally filed June 28, 2013
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer.  The Company has received no indication as to
whether the plaintiffs will appeal the decision.

                     About IEC Electronics

IEC Electronics Corporation -- http://www.iec-electronics.com--
is a premier provider of electronic manufacturing services ("EMS")
to advanced technology companies primarily in the aerospace and
defense, medical, industrial and communications sectors.  The
Company specializes in the custom manufacture of high reliability,
complex circuit boards, system level assemblies, a wide array of
custom cable and wire harness assemblies, precision metal
products, and advanced research and testing services.  IEC
Electronics is headquartered in Newark, NY (outside of Rochester)
and also has operations in Rochester, NY, Albuquerque, NM and Bell
Gardens, CA.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Expects Final Accord Approval by Yearend
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Textile 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 the
Company is a party, as a nominal defendant only, to a consolidated
class action lawsuit and related derivative action (together, the
"Consolidated Action"), which consolidated three factually
identical lawsuits filed in 2008 and 2009 under the caption In re
International Textile Group, Inc. Merger Litigation, pending in
the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (the
"Court"), C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346. The Consolidated Action
relates to the combination of the Company, which at the time was
named Safety Components International, Inc., and a company
formerly known as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former
ITG"), which occurred in late 2006 (the "Merger"). The
Consolidated Action names as defendants, among others, certain
individuals who were officers and directors, and certain
stockholders, of Former ITG or the Company at the time of, and an
entity which was an independent financial advisor to the Company
in connection with, the Merger (the "Non-Company Defendants"). The
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action contend that certain
of the Non-Company Defendants breached certain fiduciary duties,
and have also made related claims, in connection with the Merger.

On February 19, 2014, the Company, as a nominal defendant, the
plaintiffs and the Non-Company Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement")
relating to the Consolidated Action. The Settlement Agreement,
which was preliminarily approved by the Court on February 19, 2014
and remains subject to the final approval of the Court, provides,
among other things, that in settlement of the Consolidated Action,
(i) certain of the Non-Company Defendants will make an aggregate
$36.0 million cash payment thereunder (the "Cash Settlement"),
which includes a $16.0 million cash payment from the independent
financial advisor and its insurers and a $20.0 million cash
payment from other Non-Company Defendants and their insurers, (ii)
$21.9 million in principal and accrued interest of the Company's
senior subordinated notes (which are designated as "senior
subordinated notes -- related party" on the Company's balance
sheets and have a maturity date of June 6, 2015), held by certain
affiliates of the Company (the "Affiliates"), will be cancelled,
together with all additional interest that accrues on such notes
from December 31, 2013 through the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement (collectively, the "Cancelled Notes"), and
(iii) 10,315,727 shares of the Company's Series A Preferred Stock,
having a liquidation value of $257.9 million as of December 31,
2013, and 11,488 shares of the Company's Series C Preferred Stock,
having a liquidation value of $11.5 million as of December 31,
2013, in each case together with any additional shares of Series A
Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock that accrue with
respect to such shares through the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement (collectively, the "Cancelled Preferred
Stock"), all of which are held by the Affiliates, will be
cancelled on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had a total of $163.5 million
in aggregate principal and accrued interest of senior subordinated
notes outstanding, and had outstanding shares of Series A
Preferred Stock with an aggregate liquidation value of
approximately $337.0 million, and of Series C Preferred Stock with
an aggregate liquidation value of approximately $126.0 million.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company had a total of $173.5 million in
aggregate principal and accrued interest of senior subordinated
notes outstanding, of which the $23.3 million of Cancelled Notes
was classified as current in the consolidated balance sheet, and
had outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock with an
aggregate liquidation value of approximately $350.0 million, and
of Series C Preferred Stock with an aggregate liquidation value of
approximately $131.0 million.

If the Settlement Agreement receives final approval by the Court,
the Cancelled Notes and the Cancelled Preferred Stock will be
cancelled, and the Company's respective obligations, and the
Affiliates' respective rights, thereunder will be terminated,
effective as of December 31, 2013.

The Company expects that when such cancellations take effect
following final approval of the Settlement Agreement, they will
not have an impact on the Company's consolidated statements of
operations, but will have an impact on its consolidated balance
sheet by reducing the Company's long-term debt and stockholders'
deficit, by the amount of the Cancelled Notes, and by reducing the
aggregate liquidation value of the Series A Preferred Stock and
the Series C Preferred Stock by the respective values of the
Cancelled Preferred Stock.

The Company cannot determine the amount of cash, if any, from the
Cash Settlement that may be available for use by the Company after
such funds are applied in accordance with the Settlement Agreement
to pay fees and expenses of various legal and other advisors in
connection with the Consolidated Action.

In June 2014, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement, subject
to the completion of certain administrative actions. It is
anticipated that the Court will enter a final order approving the
Settlement Agreement, and that the matters contemplated thereby
will take effect, prior to the end of 2014.

International Textile Group, Inc. is a global, diversified textile
manufacturer headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, with
operations principally in the United States, Mexico, and China.


INTERNET ORDER: Wash. AG Sues Over Deceptive Marketing Tactics
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Washington state's attorney
general is suing a Philadelphia-based online company that he says
used deceptive marketing tactics on millions of customers across
the country.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 22 by Attorney General Bob Ferguson
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against Internet Order LLC and its CEO, Daniel Roitman.
The company, doing business under the name Stroll, promoted
foreign language programs with low introductory offers through the
website www.pimsleurapproach.com

The lawsuit claims customers were automatically enrolled in an
expensive ongoing purchase plan without their knowledge.

The lawsuit cites violations under the federal Restore Online
Shopper's Confidence Act and the state's Consumer Protection Act.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General has also filed a lawsuit against
the same company for violations of its state consumer protection
laws.  Mr. Roitman said by email that his company has always
sought to be truthful in their marketing and that he was
optimistic about a quick resolution.


J-M MANUFACTURING: Class-Action Status Sought for PVC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, report that
Cambridge Lane LLC urged a California federal court on Sept. 12 to
certify a redefined class in a putative class action alleging
J-M Manufacturing Co. Inc. falsely claimed its PVC pipes met
industry standards, saying the new plan addresses the judge's
previous concerns about state-to-state membership.

The plaintiff proposed a class that will allow the court to
resolve claims in 31 states based on a jury's determination of the
"same legal and factual issues as it would decide in a California-
only case."  Cambridge said in June it would try again for class
certification after U.S. District Judge George H. Wu's decision
three months earlier not to rule on its class certification bid
because of concerns over how the laws of different states would
affect class membership.

The plaintiff says that it has addressed the only issues that the
court didn't previously decide and that the class certification
proceedings can now be wrapped up.

"There is nothing about the redefined Class which requires the
Court to reconsider its previous conclusions that the action
should 'go forward as a class action' and that Plaintiff and its
counsel are adequate representatives of the Class," attorneys for
Cambridge wrote in a 30-page brief in support of certification.
"Plaintiff's motion to certify the Class and to appoint current
counsel as Class Counsel should be granted."

The memorandum represents the most recent development in the case
and in Cambridge's attempts to secure class certification, coming
three months after the plaintiff's attorneys said they would
address Judge Wu's concerns about their certification bid by
reducing their request from a nationwide class down to buyers in
31 states.

The newly proposed class is made up of buyers of J-M pipe in 31
states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and
Wisconsin.

Under the proposed trial plan, a jury would decide factual issues
relevant to the class claims and that finding would be applied by
the court to decide the claims of a 31-state class against J-M for
negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and common
law fraud.

"By having the jury decide issues and the Court determine how
those issues affect claims, the Court can leverage the same
findings that a jury would make for a California-only class to
resolve the claims of a thirty-one state Class," attorneys for
Cambridge wrote in the motion.

J-M previously took issue with plaintiff Cambridge's proposed
class of pipe owners, saying many of them bought the product from
third parties, or bought a house that included the piping, and
thus J-M could not have misrepresented the product to them because
it wasn't a party to the sale.

Lancaster, California-based Cambridge filed the class action in
September 2010, claiming that when it purchased JM Blue Brute
(C900) PVC pipe in 2008, the pipe was stamped with a UL mark,
indicating that it had passed a range of tests, including a test
measuring longitudinal tensile strength.

But according to an amended complaint filed in March 2011, a
quality control supervisor at J-M has said that all of the Blue
Brute pipe made between 1997 and 2005 failed the LTS test, and the
materials and process used to make the pipe didn't change after
2005.

J-M in November was found liable in a whistleblower suit lodged by
former J-M quality assurance engineer John Hendrix in 2006, when a
California federal jury determined that the company lied about the
quality of its PVC pipes, which are used in municipal water and
sewage systems in several states throughout the U.S.

Cambridge is represented by David M. Birka-White, Stephen Oroza
and Mindy M. Wong of Birka-White Law Offices and William R.
Friedrich-- wfriedrich@fbm.com -- and John D. Green --
jgreen@fbm.com -- of Farella Braun & Martel LLP.

J-M is represented by Ekwan E. Rhow, Paul S. Chan and Thomas V.
Reichert of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg
PC.

The case is Cambridge Lane LLC v. J-M Manufacturing Company Inc.
et al., case number 2:10-cv-06638, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Smith" Suit Moved From Florida to New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Smith, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00223, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(White Plains).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:14-
cv-07506-NSR to the proceeding.

The Class Action seeks to remedy the alleged unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive business practices of Johnson & Johnson for misleading
consumers about the nature of the ingredients of its personal care
products sold under the Aveeno brand name.  The Plaintiffs contend
that contrary to the Company's statement on its product labels and
advertisement, the Aveeno products contain many synthetic and
unnatural ingredients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32312
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas Lamar Kilby, Esq.
          Richard Edward Doran, Esq.
          AUSLEY & MCMULLEN
          123 S Calhoun St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-9115
          Facsimile: (850) 222-7560
          E-mail: dkilby@ausley.com
                  rdoran@ausley.com

               - and -

          Eileen Miriam Patt, Esq.
          Harold P. Weinberger, Esq.
          KRAMER, LEVIN , NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 715-9100 x9347
          Facsimile: (212) 715-8000
          E-mail: epatt@kramerlevin.com
                  hweinberger@kramerlevin.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: At Least 40 Hunter Women to Join Mesh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newcastle Herald reports that at least 40 Hunter women suffering
serious and chronic conditions after genital implant surgery could
join a legal class action against pharmaceutical giant Johnson &
Johnson.  The Hunter women are among 400 Australian women seeking
damages after Australian and US regulators this year severely
restricted the use of 60 or more mesh genital implant devices
after years of controversy.

"The mesh is an absolute disaster, there's no doubt about it,"
said Buttaba woman Janet Scaysbrook, who had mesh surgery in 2011
but had the mesh removed this year after serious complications.

"I could feel my life shutting down, and now we find out all these
women are suffering because of it."

Mesh devices in the form of tapes or slings are used to repair
prolapses, where organs including the bowel or bladder protrude
into a woman's vagina.  Prolapses affect about 20per cent of
women, most commonly after childbirth, and can lead to devastating
symptoms including urinary and faecal incontinence.

But increasing alarm about high rates of serious complications
including haemorrhaging, infection, severe pain, mesh rejection
and erosion prompted the US government's Food and Drug
Administration and the Australian government's Therapeutic Goods
Administration to act this year.

Both have called for mesh manufacturers to provide clinical
studies showing mesh products are safe and beneficial for women.

The Food and Drug Administration is considering upgrading mesh
devices from medium to high risk, and in August the Therapeutic
Goods Administration found that though mesh devices might be of
benefit to a restricted group of patients, "there is little
evidence to support the overall effectiveness of these surgical
meshes as a class of products".

The Johnson & Johnson class action launched by Shine Lawyers
involves just one group of mesh devices.  So far, 25 Hunter women
have joined the class action, and 15 more are considering it.
They include Wallsend woman Trish Sara, who had part of her bowel
removed following prolapse surgery in 2008.

Shine Lawyers solicitor Rebecca Jancauskas said the number of
Hunter and Central Coast women who would join the action would
probably increase, in a class action the firm believed could
become one of the biggest in Australia.

At least 40,000 women have had mesh implant surgery for prolapses
and urinary incontinence.

"There's an unacceptably high rate of complications, and an
unacceptably high number of women need to have surgery to correct
or remove damage the implants have caused," Ms. Jancauskas said.

Legal firm Maurice Blackburn has a separate case against US
manufacturers of another group of mesh devices, and Australian
women are increasingly seeking damages from doctors after failed
mesh surgery.

Four women are taking legal action against suspended former
University of Newcastle associate professor and gynaecologist
Dr. Richard Reid after mesh surgery, and at least one woman has
completed a mesh case against him.

His suspension followed promotion on his website of a "type of
implant" to treat prolapses that carried "no risk of morbidity nor
complication".  His suspension prompted a wave of anger from women
in support of Dr. Reid, who had helped them by removing mesh
implants  that had failed after surgery by other specialists.

In an email in response to questions this week, Dr. Reid wrote:
"Am not a god and certainly not a monster.  Have tried my best
with difficult cases all of my career.  In particular, I have
spoken against the often poorly thought out use of mesh in the
repair of prolapse."

Sydney University gynaecology and obstetrics professor Peter Dietz
said the controversy about mesh implant devices failed to
acknowledge the need for better treatments for the large number of
women who experienced prolapse in their lives.

Janet Scaysbrook was one of the last women operated on by
Dr. Richard Reid before the NSW Medical Council suspended him in
July, and one of the first to rush to his defense.  But while many
women responded angrily to Dr. Reid's suspension, others contacted
the Newcastle Herald to say they were relieved the NSW Medical
Council had acted.

Dr. Reid has denied the allegations.

The lead plaintiff in the Australian case against Johnson &
Johnson, Julie Davis, alleged the mesh devices came on the market
without proper clinical trials.  The issue was a "real can of
worms".  Ms. Davis had her original surgery in 2008, and
experienced severe complications.

Patient almost died in surgery

A Newcastle specialist has complained about the lack of "rigorous
constraints" controlling new medical devices, when compared to
drugs, after a woman nearly died of excessive blood loss linked to
mesh implant surgery.  The specialist warned the Therapeutic Goods
Administration an approved suture device used in prolapse surgery
was unsafe after a woman suffered a severe haemorrhage last
October.

The woman, 66, who was to undergo mesh implant surgery after two
previous prolapse repairs, has complained to the Health Care
Complaints Commission, after her family was told she might have
died when her organs started shutting down because of the blood
loss.

"I do not want this to happen to any other person and this is the
one and only reason I have in making this complaint," the woman
wrote in a complaint to the commission.

"The operation went dramatically wrong as I was on the operating
table for about nine hours due to severe bleeding."

The woman spent nine days in intensive care after the failed
attempt at mesh implant surgery, before she required further
emergency surgery on her bladder and uterus.

In a letter to another doctor on October 24 last year the
specialist wrote of "trialling a new suture driver" during the
woman's surgery.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Approves Joint Case Management Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson, Stephanie Russell-Kraft and Evan Weinberger, writing
for Law360, report that a New York federal judge overseeing a
consolidated class action against banks accused of rigging the
credit default swaps market approved a joint case management plan
on Sept. 18 that, among other things, requires defendants to share
what they have told U.S. and European authorities probing the
derivatives sector.

Under the plan, defendants including JPMorgan Chase & Co., trade
group International Swaps and Derivatives Association and data
provider Markit Group Ltd. will give plaintiffs in the next 30
days any documents and testimony they submitted to the U.S.
Department of Justice for its inquiry into credit default swaps.

"The parties agree that the initial document productions
contemplated in this paragraph shall not constitute a waiver of
any attorney client, work product, or other applicable privilege,"
the parties wrote in their joint report.

In addition, the parties also will confer in 30 days about the
parameters and scope of production related to the European
Commission's own investigation of CDS collusion, with plans to
report to the court after 60 days any issues with EC document
production, according to the joint filing.

The Sept. 18 hearing came two weeks after U.S. District Court
Judge Denise Cote ruled to keep the lawsuit largely intact after
finding that the six plaintiffs -- which include Los Angeles
County Employees Retirement Association and Salix Capital US Inc.
-- had sufficiently pled injury and plausibly alleged the
existence of an antitrust conspiracy by the banks.

Their suits, consolidated in 2013, allege the banks conspired to
keep new participants from entering the CDS market, keeping the
price for trading in CDS artificially high and costing potential
class members tens of billions of dollars.

Specifically, the banks allegedly conspired in secret meetings to
shut down a CDS trading platform created by CME Group Inc. and
Citadel LLC.  Among other things, the banks also allegedly used
their leverage with Markit and ISDA to limit trading on the
platform, using methods such as requiring the banks be on at least
one side of every CDS transaction, according to court documents.

The joint initial report offered no explanation as to why the
defendants can almost immediately hand over documents given to the
Justice Department, but not those for the European Commission
probe.

Lodging accusations that are similar to what was alleged in the
consolidated class action, the EC in July 2013 issued a statement
of objections accusing 13 banks as well as ISDA and Markit of
conspiring to block exchange-based trading of credit default
swaps, thus keeping the lucrative business for themselves.

The U.S. Department of Justice's own investigation appears to
still be open, according to counsel at the hearing to approve the
plan.  An attorney for Bank of America Corp. told Judge Cote that
he was not aware that any defendants had received notice saying
that the investigation had been formally closed, despite media
reports indicating otherwise.

A message seeking comment from Justice Department was not
immediately returned.

In addition to approving the joint plan, Judge Cote also denied
Markit its bid to reserve the right to seek additional
interrogatories and admissions beyond what the other defendants
agreed to.

The banks along with ISDA agreed they can collectively serve up to
40 interrogatories and 75 requests for admission on each
plaintiff.  "This is more than adequate, allowing Defendants to
serve a total of 240 interrogatories and a total of 450 requests
for admission on Plaintiffs," an attorney for the plaintiffs,
Daniel Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, wrote in a Sept. 16 letter to
Judge Cote.

But Markit sought the right to seek an additional 25
interrogatories and 50 requests for admission on each plaintiff,
on the grounds that it is "uniquely featured in the complaint,"
according to the letter.

At the hearing, an attorney for Markit said reserving the right to
make additional requests was not intended to subject the
plaintiffs to any undue burdens.  "If they want to object, they
can object," said Colin Kass -- ckass@proskauer.com -- of
Proskauer Rose LLP.

But Judge Cote said she saw no need to grant an exception to what
the other parties agreed to, noting that plans can be amended as
needed.  "Every order is subject to change on a showing of good
cause," she said.

Additionally, Judge Cote ordered the parties to continue to pursue
private mediation as they have indicated they will, and said the
parties will reconvene in September 2015, when she will set a
trial date.

The plaintiffs are represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP and Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP.

The bank defendants are represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP,
Allen & Overy LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jones
Day, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Winston & Strawn LLP, Mayer Brown
LLP, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Cravath Swaine & Moore
LLP, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft
LLP.

ISDA is represented by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Markit is represented by Proskauer Rose LLP.

The case is In re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, case
number 1:13-md-02476, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


KO & C ENTERPRISES: Recalls SHJ Cookies
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           KO & C Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9224

Affected products: 130 g. and 180 g. SHJ Snarp Cream Cookies


LAGRANGE COUNTY, IN: Class Action Fairness Hearing Adjourned
------------------------------------------------------------
KPCNews reports that a fairness hearing for a $1 million
class-action lawsuit against LaGrange County Sheriff Terry Martin
was adjourned on Sept. 18 to allow for publication to the class,
according to a summary of the proceedings.

Judge Jon DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Indiana in South Bend will issue written instructions regarding
the publication, the summary states.


LE CIRQUE INC: Faces "Pena" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis Pena, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Le Cirque, Inc., and Marco Maccioni, Case No. 1:14-cv-07541-ER
(S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of all service employees, other than
captains, employed by the Defendants.

Le Cirque, Inc. is a New York corporation.  The Company operates
Le Cirque restaurant located in Manhattan, New York.  Marco
Maccioni is an officer or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Yosef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
                  jnussbaum@jhllp.com


LIN MEDIA: Permanent Injunction Hearing This Month
--------------------------------------------------
On July 30, 2013, LIN TV Corp., a Delaware corporation ("LIN TV"),
completed its merger with and into LIN Media LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of LIN TV
("LIN LLC"), with LIN LLC as the surviving entity (the "2013 LIN
LLC Merger") pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
February 12, 2013, by and between LIN TV and LIN LLC (the "2013
LIN LLC Merger Agreement").  Entry into the 2013 LIN LLC Merger
Agreement had previously been reported by LIN TV on its Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 15, 2013.

LIN Media LLC and LIN Television Corporation said in their 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 on March 21, 2014 of the execution
of the Merger Agreement, three complaints were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of
LIN LLC: Sciabacucchi v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530CB),
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund
v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No.9538CB), and Pryor v. Lin Media
LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9577CB).

LIN said "The litigations are putative class actions filed on
behalf of the public stockholders of LIN LLC and name as
defendants LIN LLC, our directors, Media General, New Holdco,
Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and
several of our alleged affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst
Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3 Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate &
Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private
Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4EQ Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co.
Partners, L.P.; Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim
Investors, L.P. (together with HM Capital Partners LLC and
individual director defendant John R. Muse, which we collectively
refer to as "HMC"))."

"On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in Engineers Local 132 Pension
Fund voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on
April 21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal.

"The operative complaints generally allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
their consideration and approval of the Merger, that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that individual
director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached their
fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN LLC by causing
LIN LLC to enter into the Merger, which plaintiffs allege will
provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaints seek, among
other things, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the
Merger.

"On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi action filed
an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and
Pryor actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the
plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to
enjoin the Merger, requesting, among other things, that the Court
set a permanent injunction hearing for September 2014.

"On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor
actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which
was approved by the Court on May 1, 2014.  On May 15, 2014,
plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a letter to the Court
withdrawing the pending motion to expedite.

"The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain and cannot be predicted
with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could
have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. An
adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger."


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Organics Stoned Wheat Crackers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 19, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9272

Loblaw Companies Limited (Loblaw) is recalling PC Organics brand
Original stoned wheat crackers from the marketplace because it may
contain sesame which is not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to sesame should not consume the recalled product.

The product has been sold since July 25, 2014 in the Loblaw banner
stores:

Ontario: Cash&Carry, Wholesale Club, Extra Foods, Fortinos,
Freshmart, Loblaws, nofrills, Real Canadian Superstore, Shoppers
Drug Mart, Valu-mart, Westfair, Your Independent Grocer, Wholesale
Club and Zehrs

Atlantic: Atlantic Superstore, Cash&Carry, Dominion, Freshmart,
nofrills, Red & White, Save Easy, Shoppers Drug Mart, Wholesale
Club

Quebec: Club Entrepot, Intermarche, Loblaws, Maxi & Cie, Maxi,
Presto, Provigo, Pharmaprix

West: Extra Foods, nofrills, ShopEasy, SuperValu, Shoppers Drug
Mart, Real Canadian Superstore, Westfair Independents, Wholesale
Club, Your Independent Grocer

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

If you have an allergy to sesame, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

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

Affected products: 200 g. PC Organics Original stoned wheat
crackers


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Sept. 17 disclosed
that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its
client City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Trust against Lumber Liquidators Holdings,
Inc., and certain of its senior executives.  The action, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and
78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Lumber Liquidators common stock during the period from
November 25, 2013 and July 9, 2014, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Lumber
Liquidators and certain of its senior executives violated
provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading
press releases, financial statements, filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and statements during investor conference
calls.  Headquartered in Toano, Virginia, Lumber Liquidators is
one of the largest retailers of hardwood flooring in North
America.  The Company prides itself on its commitment to in-stock
inventory levels and a focused supply chain that allow it to
consistently meet customers' expectations.

As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants misrepresented that
quality control requirements implemented by Lumber Liquidators
would neither affect its extensive and diverse supplier network,
nor impact its revenue, earnings, or margins.  In addition, Lumber
Liquidators continually touted that it would continue to
experience revenue and earnings growth and margin expansion.  As a
result of these misrepresentations, Lumber Liquidators stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On July 9, 2014, the Company announced poor financial results,
which it attributed to lower than planned inventory levels
stemming from production delays as Lumber Liquidators enhanced its
quality assurance requirements. Lumber Liquidators also revealed
that heavy discounting during the Class Period caused margins to
contract in the second quarter compared to the same quarter in
2013.  These disclosures caused a material decline in the price of
Lumber Liquidators stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than November 17, 2014,
which is the first business day on which the District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia is open that is 60 days after
September 17, 2014.  Any member of the proposed class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed
class.

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

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


MARRONE BIO: Faces Four Securities Class Actions Over Financials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anderson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that four class action suits have been filed so far against
Marrone Bio Innovations Inc. over its financial statements.  The
company on Sept. 3 said it was performing an internal audit of its
financial reports.

News of the audit sent company shares plummeting, and that drew
the attention of law firms from across the country.

At least 22 law firms have announced they are investigating issues
in Marrones finances.  So far four suits have been filed in
federal court in Sacramento.

One plaintiff, Ssuchia Chen, is represented by two law firms that
announced investigations into the Marrone matter: Glancy, Binkow &
Goldberg LLP of Los Angeles and Saxena White of Boca Raton, Fla.
Though the company has provided no details of what it may have
done wrong, the Chen suit alleges violations of federal securities
laws.  All indicate they seek to be certified as class actions.
The Chen suit contends that Marrone Bio "disseminated false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that it had
improperly recognized revenue in violation of generally accepted
accounting principals" and a result of false statements, Marrone
Bio's stock "traded at artificially inflated prices."

Other suits include the law firm of Green & Noblin of Larkspur
Landing suing on behalf of plaintiff Kent Oldham; law firm Glancy,
Binkow & Goldberg LLP suing on behalf of plaintiff Joann
Martinelli of Sacramento; and law firm Robbins, Geller, Rudman &
Dowd LLP suing on behalf of plaintiff Paul Sausman of Sacramento.

At issue in Marrone Bio's finances is the recognition of "revenue
in the fourth quarter of 2013 for an $870,000 transaction," the
company said in its Sept. 13 announcement.

Marrone Bio also said financial statements for the 2013 fiscal
year, as well as the quarterly reports through March and June this
year, "should no longer be relied upon as being in compliance with
generally accepted accounting principles."

Marrone Bio spokeswoman Julie Versman said the company is not
commenting on the suits or the investigations.

The company is working on an internal audit to work out its
financial reporting, she said, adding that there's not yet a
timetable when that information may be released.


MARS CHOCOLATE: Recalls Milk Chocolate Theater Box
--------------------------------------------------
Mars Chocolate North America announced a voluntary recall of its
M&M'S Brand Theater Box 3.40 oz UPC #40000294764 with these lot
numbers:

417DH4JP09; 417EM4JP10; 417FM4JP09; 418AG4JP10; 418BG4JP10;
418CG4JP10; 418DM4JP09; 418EG4JP10; 419AM4JP09; 417EG4JP09;
417FG4JP09; 417FM4JP10; 418AM4JP09; 418BM4JP10; 418CM4JP10;
418DM4JP10; 418EM4JP09; 419AM4JP10; 417EG4JP10; 417FG4JP10;
418AG4JP09; 418AM4JP10; 418CG4JP09; 418DG4JP10; 418EG4JP09;
418EM4JP10; and 419BM4JP10

This theater box item within these lot codes may contain product
containing peanut butter without listing on the ingredient label
on the outside cardboard box.  The inside package is correctly
labeled with ingredients and allergy information.

People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if their theater box contains
an inner M&Ms Brand Peanut Butter bag and they consume the
product.  No adverse reactions have been reported to date.

The issue was identified after a consumer notified us of a M&M'S
Brand Peanut Butter package containing peanut butter M&M'S inside
a M&M'S Brand Milk Chocolate Theater Box.

These specific lot codes were shipped and distributed to our
customers' warehouses between May 8 and July 1, 2014, located in:
NC, TX, MN, IL, FL, KY, MS, AZ, GA, AI, CA NJ, PA, WA NY, CO, MO,
MI, NH, CT, TN, MD, SC, OH, ME, VA, RI, WI, WV, IA, LA, OK, MA,
NE, OK, AR, VT, ID and IN .   These customers then redistribute
products for retail sale nationwide.

The M&M'S Brand Milk Chocolate Theater Box comes in a 3.40 oz
brown, 3 inch x 6.5 inch cardboard box stamped on the right-hand
side panel with the lot number and best before date.

Mars Chocolate will work with retail customers to ensure that the
recalled product is not on store shelves.  In the event that
consumers believe they have purchased this item and have allergy
concerns, they should return this product to the store where they
purchased it for a full refund.  Consumers with questions or
concerns may call our toll-free number:   1-800-627-7852. This
number will be operational Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00
pm (EST).


MEDICAL ACTION: Settlement in Product Liability Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Action Industries 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 is a
party to a product liability lawsuit arising out of the conduct of
its ordinary course of business.  A global settlement of claims
has been approved by the court and management expects a settlement
agreement to be executed by the plaintiffs. While execution of the
settlement agreement by the plaintiffs cannot be predicted with
certainty, the ultimate liability under such product liability
lawsuit is covered by the Company's insurance and management does
not expect that the court approved amount of the settlement or any
other ultimate liability, if any, arising out of such product
liability lawsuit, will have a material adverse effect on the
financial position or results of operations of the Company.


MEDICAL ACTION: Suit Over Owens & Minor Merger in Early Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder lawsuit over the Plan of Merger between Medical
Action Industries Inc. and a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens &
Minor, Inc., is at a preliminary stage, Medical Action said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 11, 2014.

On June 24, 2014, Medical Action entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with a wholly owned
subsidiary of Owens & Minor, Inc. ("Owens & Minor") and Mongoose
Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens
& Minor, under which Owens & Minor will acquire all outstanding
shares of the Company (the "Merger").  Owens & Minor and the
Company currently expect to complete the Merger in the fourth
quarter of 2014, subject to receipt of the required stockholder
and regulatory approvals and to the satisfaction or waiver of the
other conditions to the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.

Two putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Merger have been filed, both in Suffolk County Supreme Court in
New York and have been consolidated under the caption In re
Medical Action Industries Inc. Shareholders Litigation (the
"Shareholder Lawsuit").  The Shareholder Lawsuit names the
Company, certain of the Company's current directors and officers,
Owens & Minor and Merger Sub as defendants.  The Shareholder
Lawsuit has been brought by purported stockholders of the Company,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class consisting of
public stockholders of the Company.

The Shareholder Lawsuit generally alleges, among other things,
that certain of the directors and officers of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties to stockholders of the Company by agreeing
to a transaction with inadequate consideration and unfair terms
pursuant to an inadequate process.  The Shareholder Lawsuit seeks,
in general, and among other things, (i) injunctive relief
enjoining the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement,
(ii) in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission or an
award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) an
accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for all damages caused
by the defendants and (v) such further relief as the court deems
just and proper.

The Shareholder Lawsuit is at a preliminary stage.  The Company
and the other defendants believe that the Shareholders Lawsuit is
without merit and intend to defend against it vigorously. In the
opinion of management, the ultimate outcome of this matter will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.

Medical Action manufactures and markets single-use medical
products used principally by acute care facilities within the U.S.


MERCHANT SOURCE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Robinson and Kelly Jarvis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Merchant Source Inc.; Viking
Funding Group, Inc.; George M. Greco Jr.; Tim Roach in their
individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-07545-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs were
denied minimum wage and overtime compensation as required by
federal and state wage and hour laws.

Merchant Source Inc. and Viking Funding are New York domestic
corporations headquartered in Floral Park, New York.  The
Individual Defendants are shareholders, directors or officers of
the Companies.  MSI, managed and financed through Viking Funding,
provides cash advances and merchant services to small and medium-
sized businesses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew M. St. Laurent, Esq.
          HARRIS, O'BRIEN, ST. LAURENT & HOUGHTELING LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 397-3370
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6206
          E-mail: andrew@harrislawny.com


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Recalls Cixi Horngshy ArtMinds Craft Boa
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 22, 2014
Posting date:             September 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41451

Affected products: ArtMinds Craft Boa

The recall involves a black-colored feather boa with Universal
Product Code (UPC) 400100633083 and SKU 072012.  It is 1.8 metres
(6 feet) long.  The product is used for craft projects.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that this feather boa does not meet the requirements for textile
flammability under Canadian law.

If exposed to flames such as from candles, matches or lighters,
the feather boa could catch fire and possibly cause burns to
consumers.

Neither The Michaels Companies, Inc. nor Health Canada has
received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadian
related to the use of these feather boas.

For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the
following Health Canada's publications: Halloween Safety and
Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween.

Approximately 4,073 of the recalled feather boas were sold at
Michaels stores across Canada.

The recalled feather boas were manufactured in China and sold from
March 2009 to Sept. 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer:     Cixi Horngshy A Feather Co., Ltd.
                     Cixi
                     China

Consumers should not use or wear the recalled feather boa.
Customers should return it to a Michaels store for a refund or
dispose of it.


MICHIGAN: Student Loan Borrowers Get Settlement Checks
------------------------------------------------------
Emily Lawler, writing for MLive, reports that student loan
borrowers who fell under the discontinued "Michigan Students
First" program have started to receive checks of up to $1,200 from
a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit came about after the Michigan Finance Authority
provided a program that cut interest rates to zero on student
loans after three years of payments.  When the 2008 crash
occurred, the program was discontinued in 2010 -- changing the
rules on students in the middle of the game.

Spokesperson Terry Stanton said the program provided the interest
rate subsidy subject to availability of funds.

"Regarding availability of funds, the 2008 credit crisis and
impact of certain federal student loan legislation resulted in
depletion of the funds available for the subsidy.  This, in turn,
led to the decision to end the program in 2010," Mr. Stanton said
in an email.

Two borrowers who were affected, Donovan Visser and Hans Kiebler,
filed their intention to sue in February 2013.  The authority sued
them, and the matter was "vigorously litigated," according to CPT
Group, class action administrators handling the settlement.

The total settlement is $11.5 million, according to a court
document.  Those affected will receive between $50 and $1,200 in
the settlement.

A couple former students told MLive they were afraid to cash the
checks, fearing they may be a scam.  The legitimate checks are
coming from CPT Group and will say the case name, MFA v Kiebler et
al, as well.

Mr. Stanton said state finances would not be affected, as the
Finance Authority paid the settlement from other student loan
funds.


MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Nitroglycerin Spray
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 20, 2014
Posting date:             September 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Advisory
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Important Safety Information, Product
                          withdrawal
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41497

Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC Canada, in consultation with Health
Canada, is voluntarily recalling all lots of its Mylan-Nitro Spray
0.4 mg/metered dose due to the product missing the "dip tube,"
which is part of the pump component.

A missing "dip tube" could pose a potential problem with the
delivery of nitroglycerin to the patient.  This defect may lead
patients to believe they are receiving the nitroglycerin, when in
fact they are unable to access it.  Not receiving nitroglycerin
could place them at risk for either a delay in treatment for their
angina or of suffering a heart attack.

Canadians who are using the Mylan-Nitro Spray (0.4 mg/metered).
The company has indicated that it has not received reports of any
adverse events associated with the defective product.

Health Canada is monitoring the recall and working with the
company to help ensure patients and healthcare professionals are
informed.  Health Canada will provide an update to Canadians, as
necessary.


NATIONWIDE OPEN: Sent Fax Ads Without Prior Permission, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. v. Nationwide Open
Diagnostics, LLC dba Nationwide MRI; and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07266 (C.D. Cal., September 17, 2014) is brought
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act related to
the Defendant's transmission of facsimile advertising without
having obtained prior express invitation or permission from the
Plaintiff.

Nationwide Open Diagnostics, LLC, doing business as Nationwide
MRI, is a limited liability company located and does business in
Los Angeles, California.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are
not known at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6565 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 410
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1697
          Facsimile: (323) 328-8095
          E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com
                  tom@mblawapc.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Illinois Judge Tosses Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on Sept. 16 tossed a proposed class action alleging that
Neiman Marcus Group LLC negligently failed to protect 350,000
customers' credit card information prior to a 2013 hack into the
high-end department store's servers, ruling the plaintiffs had
lacked Article III standing.

Granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge
James B. Zagel said he wasn't convinced that unauthorized credit
card charges for which the plaintiffs would be reimbursed qualify
as concrete injuries warranting Article III standing.

Customers Hilary Remijas, Melissa Frank, Debbie Farnoush and
Joanne Kao claimed the defendant's security failure had exposed
them to a greater risk of fraudulent charges and an increased risk
of identity theft following the cyberattack and that Neiman Marcus
hadn't given them timely notice of the breach after it happened.

But Judge Zagel noted on Sept. 16 that the plaintiffs had admitted
that only 9,200, or 2.5 percent, of the 350,000 customers had
their data stolen and misused, which only supported a strong
inference that those particular customers' data were stolen as a
result of the data breach.

"To assert on this basis that either set of customers is also at a
certainly impending risk of identity theft is, in my view, a leap
too far," the Sept. 16 decision said.

The suit was one of multiple proposed class actions filed after
hackers infiltrated Neiman Marcus' allegedly flawed payment
security system with malicious software.  While Neiman Marcus
disclosed the cyberattack to customers on Jan. 10, the company had
allegedly been told about it in mid-December, the plaintiffs
alleged in their March suit.

The plaintiffs accused the company of cutting corners on security
measures that could have prevented or mitigated the security
breach.  They alleged negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive business practices,
invasion of privacy and violation of several state data breach
acts.

Neiman Marcus replied in a motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs
hadn't established any present or certainly impending future
injury fairly traceable to Neiman Marcus.

Judge Zagel on Sept. 16 held that the complaint didn't have any
meaningful allegations as to the precise costs the plaintiffs had
allegedly spent toward mitigating the risk of future fraudulent
charges and identity theft.  The judge also denied the plaintiffs'
contention that they overpaid for retail goods at Neiman Marcus
stores because part of the expenses were supposed to be used for
data breach security measures, saying the products themselves
didn't have a deficiency and that the argument was "creative but
unpersuasive."  Lastly, Judge Zagel decided that the plaintiffs'
claim to standing based on the loss of control over and value of
their private information wasn't sufficiently concrete.

David H. Hoffman -- david.hoffman@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin
LLP, which is representing Neiman Marcus, told Law360 on Sept. 16
that they were "pleased that the last case against Neiman Marcus
has now been dismissed based on Judge Zagel's decision that the
plaintiffs did not have standing."

"This is the appropriate result and is clearly consistent with the
precedent in this area," Mr. Hoffman said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tina Wolfson --
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com -- Robert Ahdoot and Theodore W. Maya -
- tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC; John A.
Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group; Joseph J.
Siprut of Siprut PC; W. Lew Garrison Jr. --
wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- of Heninger Garrison Davis LLC;
Lionel Z. Glancy and Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com --
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP; Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni
Law Group APC; Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart; and Paul C.
Whalen -- contact@paulwhalen.com -- of Law Offices of Paul C.
Whalen.

Neiman Marcus is represented by David H. Hoffman, Daniel Craig --
dcraig@sidley.com -- Steven M. Bierman and James D. Arden --
jarden@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Hilary Remijas et al. v. the Neiman Marcus Group LLC,
case number 1:14-cv-01735, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Cycling Ticket Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gothamist reports that in addition to paying the same hefty fines
for traffic violations as motorists, cyclists caught in the NYPD's
"Safe Cycle" crackdown have also been forced to pay a bogus $88
surcharge, plus accept additional points on their license.  New
York Vehicle and Traffic law explicitly exempts cyclists from this
surcharge, but summonses issued to cyclists nevertheless inform
them that "included in the total amount for each violation (except
equipment) are mandatory surcharges in the amount of $88."  Most
cyclists just pay it, but a new lawsuit could result in refunds
for those who thought the "mandatory" surcharges were in fact
mandatory.

After attorney Steve Vaccaro raised the issue with the DMV, he was
told by a DMV lawyer that he was correct -- "there are no points
assigned for violations committed by bicyclists," and that the law
"exempts bicycle violations from the mandatory surcharge."  The
DMV agreed to refund the handful of clients Mr. Vaccaro was then
representing, and remove the points from their licenses.  And yet
. . . the surcharge language remains, and most people who pay
their fine online remain oblivious to the DMV's unorthodox
definition of "mandatory."

Mr. Vaccaro has filed a growing class action lawsuit on behalf of
cyclists who may have been unfairly overcharged while paying a
ticket.  "I'm encouraged to see the DMV acknowledge its error in
treating so many cycling tickets as if they were motor vehicle
violations," Mr. Vaccaro says.  "Alongside the class action, we
have made a Freedom of Information Law request to the DMV that
should help us get a better handle on exactly how many thousands
of cyclists have been affected.  In the end, we hope to get a
refund to every cyclist who's been overcharged going back at least
three years, possibly longer."


NORTH VALLEY BANCORP: Entered Into Memorandum of Understanding
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Valley Bancorp 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 putative shareholder
class action lawsuit titled John Solak v. North Valley Bancorp, et
al. was filed on January 24, 2014, against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta. TriCo
Bancshares and all of the individuals serving as Directors of the
Company were also named as defendants. The complaint alleges
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger
and Reorganization signed between the Company and TriCo Bancshares
on January 21, 2014.

The Company and the Directors of the Company have not yet filed a
response to the complaint. However, on July 31, 2014, following
settlement discussions, the named defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the lawsuit.

In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding, and in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all claims under the lawsuit, TriCo Bancshares and
North Valley agreed to make certain additional disclosures related
to the proposed Merger, which were reported in the Company's
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2014. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith and use
their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of
settlement, although there can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The Company, the Directors of the Company and TriCo Bancshares
continue to believe that the lawsuit is without merit and they
vigorously deny the allegations that the Company Directors
breached their fiduciary duties. The resolution of this matter is
not expected to have a material impact on the Company's business,
financial condition or results of operations, though no assurance
can be given in this regard, as no estimate of the potential loss,
if any, can be made at this time.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Records on Settlement Legal Fees Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tutton, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
judge has asked a law firm seeking C$6.6 million in legal fees to
provide proof of the hours its staff put in to win a settlement
for people who alleged they were abused at a Halifax orphanage.

Judge Arthur LeBlanc of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court said on
Sept. 27 he is also looking for detailed records on the expenses
of 10 lawyers, three paralegals and two students who helped former
residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children win
C$34-million in settlements from two class-action lawsuits.

The legal fees amount to 19.4 per cent of the overall settlement,
a figure lead lawyer Ray Wagner says is reasonable considering his
firm labored on the file since 1998 without guaranteed payment.

Judge LeBlanc said he couldn't approve the legal fee agreement
without more precise information on the hours worked, particularly
between 1998 and 2007, when many of Mr. Wagner's clients were
individual files before they were part of the class-action
lawsuits.

The judge initially suggested an outside adviser known as an
amicus be brought in to help the court assess the fee claim.  But
he later ruled he would accept sworn affidavits from the law
firm's staff that documents the time they spent on the file.

Judge LeBlanc also questioned some of the expenses charged by the
firm, citing as one example 20-cent photocopy charges -- saying he
would only accept 10 cents per copy.

Mr. Wagner said the judge's ruling was reasonable.

"It's a fair question and a fair way to deal with it," Mr. Wagner
said outside court.  "Because it's so much time and so many
records, it's going to be fairly voluminous."

Mr. Wagner said his fees are justified considering the 16 years he
and his colleagues spent on the file and the fact his firm had to
carry a high-interest loan to finance costs of the case.

"There's also what was accomplished," he said.  "This is a great
settlement, a fair settlement for the class members."

Mr. Wagner said he hopes the affidavits wouldn't cause a delay in
awarding the settlements to approximately 300 people he said have
submitted claims for alleged mistreatment and abuse.

Mr. Wagner said the claims process begins Oct. 10 but he expects
to provide the affidavits to the judge before the end of this
month.

A date for the next hearing on the matter was not set.

People who alleged they were abused at the Nova Scotia Home for
Colored Children were awarded a C$29-million class-action
settlement with the provincial government and another C$5-million
settlement with the orphanage.


OASIS LEGAL: Removed "Fountain" Suit to Minnesota District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fountain, et al. v. Oasis Legal
Finance, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-14-15727, was removed from the
Hennepin County Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
03475-PAM-FLN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Langevin, Esq.
          Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
          MCSWEENEY / LANGEVIN LLC
          2116 2nd Ave. S
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 746-4646
          Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
          E-mail: dave@westrikeback.com
                  ram@westrikeback.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 E 7th St., Suite 2800
          St Paul, MN 55101-4922
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6615
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
                  jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laura N. Maupin, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          225 S 6th St., Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1298
          Telephone: (612) 333-2111
          Facsimile: (612) 333-6798
          E-mail: laura.maupin@btlaw.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 16 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands on behalf of
purchasers of Ocwen Financial Corporation common stock during the
period between October 3, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 12, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ocwen/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Ocwen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ocwen, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the acquisition,
servicing and resolution of sub-performing and non-performing
residential and commercial mortgage loans in the United States and
internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements or omitted
adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition and
business prospects by failing to disclose, among other things,
that: (a) the Company was experiencing difficulties integrating
the large mortgage servicing rights portfolios it had been
acquiring, which was causing the Company to experience higher
operating expenses from the complexities of running multiple
mortgage servicing platforms; (b) Ocwen lacked sufficient internal
controls related to document execution and general borrower
account management and had inadequate staffing related to customer
service; (c) due to certain of Ocwen's senior officers' and/or
directors' conflicting financial interests in Ocwen affiliates,
Ocwen was taking actions adverse to borrowers in order to keep
directing revenues to those affiliated companies, which was
exposing Ocwen to billions of dollars in potential regulatory and
civil liability; and (d) one such affiliate, Altisource Portfolio
Solutions, S.A., a company in which Ocwen's Chairman had a 27%
ownership interest, had been charging exorbitant fees to Ocwen in
order to funnel as much as $65 million in questionable fees to
itself.  As a result of defendants' materially false and
misleading statements and omissions, Ocwen shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of more than $60 per share in intraday trading on October 28,
2013.

According to the complaint, the artificial inflation started to
come out of Ocwen's stock price starting in late October 2013,
after a series of disclosures revealed the truth about Ocwen's
business operations.  On October 31, 2013, Ocwen announced its
third quarter 2013 financial results in a press release and
conference call during which defendants disclosed problems the
Company was having integrating its acquisitions.  On December 19,
2013, the CFPB and 49 states and the District of Columbia entered
into a consent judgment with Ocwen under which Ocwen would fund a
$2.1 billion mortgage settlement for mortgage servicing abuses. On
February 6, 2014, the New York Department of Financial Services
held up a deal Ocwen had with Wells Fargo to acquire its portfolio
of mortgage servicing rights due to concerns about Ocwen's
servicing abilities.  On February 26, 2014, Bloomberg reported
that the NY DFS had issued a letter to Ocwen expressing concerns
regarding its business transactions with related companies and its
officers' and directors' involvement in approving transactions
with said affiliated companies.  On August 4, 2014, the NY DFS
issued another 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," and
questioning "the role that [Ocwen's Chairman] played in approving
this arrangement," which "appears to be inconsistent with public
statements Ocwen has made, as well as representations in company
SEC filings."  Then, on August 12, 2014, the Company announced
that it would be forced to the restate 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
expected to report material weaknesses in its internal controls
and stated that its financial statements for those periods should
no longer be relied upon.  On this news, Ocwen stock closed at
$25.16 per share on August 12, 2014, a 41% decline from the
stock's Class Period high price of more than $60 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Ocwen common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


OGLETHORPE POWER: Defending Against Patronage Capital Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oglethorpe Power 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 a lawsuit was
filed on March 13, 2014, in the Superior Court of DeKalb County,
Georgia, against the Company, Georgia Transmission and three of
the Company's member distribution cooperatives. Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint on July 28, 2014.

The Company said, "The amended complaint challenges the patronage
capital distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives
and seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38
members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of four of
our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all
former consumer-members of our members. Plaintiffs claim that
approximately 30% of all the defendants' total allocated patronage
capital belongs to former consumer-members. Plaintiffs also allege
that patronage capital owed to former consumer-members includes
patronage capital allocated by us to our members but not yet
distributed to our members. Plaintiffs claim that the patronage
capital of former consumer-members held by defendants and the
proposed defendant class should be retired immediately when the
consumer-members end their membership by terminating service, or
alternatively, according to a revolving schedule of no longer than
13 years from the date of its allocation and seek relief to effect
such retirements. Plaintiffs further seek to require the
defendants to adjust rates in order to establish and maintain
reasonable reserves to fund patronage capital retirements on this
basis. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants and the proposed
defendant class should be required to adopt policies to
periodically retire the patronage capital of all consumer-members
on a revolving schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date
of its allocation."

"Our first mortgage indenture restricts our ability to distribute
patronage capital. . . .  Although not expected, if we were
ordered by the Court to make distributions of our patronage
capital, our first mortgage indenture would require us to raise
our rates to a level sufficient so that we could comply with the
current patronage capital restrictions, and the rate increases
required to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be significant for
a period of years.

"We intend to defend vigorously against all claims in this
litigation. While the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot
be predicted at this time, management does not anticipate that the
ultimate liabilities, if any, arising from this proceeding would
have a material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations."

Oglethorpe is a Georgia electric membership corporation (an EMC)
incorporated in 1974 and headquartered in metropolitan Atlanta.
It is owned by 38 retail electric distribution cooperative
members.  Its members are consumer-owned distribution cooperatives
providing retail electric service in Georgia on a not-for-profit
basis.  Its principal business is providing wholesale electric
power to the members through a combination of its generation
assets and, to a lesser extent, power purchased from power
marketers and other suppliers.


OMNI HOTELS: Judge Certifies Class in Phone Recording Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge has certified a class action accusing Omni Hotels
Management Corp. of illegally recording conversations between
customers and its employees, ruling the class is ascertainable
despite Omni's failure to preserve call data.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder rejected Omni's argument
that it could not be sure which calls in its database met the
proposed class definition because an unknown number of calls were
never recorded due to technical glitches.  Omni also claimed the
plaintiffs hadn't shown wireless carriers would give up private
records identifying customers based on cellphone numbers.

Judge Snyder, however, found the plaintiffs has outlined enough
detail in their class definition to let potential members identify
themselves, allowing Omni to offer evidence removing them if
appropriate.

"The possibility that Omni may be able to disqualify some putative
class members if more evidence comes to light does not make the
class unascertainable," said the Sept. 8 opinion, entered on
Sept. 15.

The court approved a class definition including California
residents who were secretly taped by Omni from March 2012 to March
2013 while using California cellphone numbers and physically
located in California, on AT&T Inc., Verizon Wireless or Sprint
Corp. networks.

Named plaintiff David Ades filed the suit in March 2013, claiming
he called Omni's toll-free number to make a reservation, and
during the ensuing conversation he revealed sensitive information,
including credit card numbers, to the call-center representative
in order to book accommodations.  Mr. Ades alleges he was never
told the call was being recorded.

Omni acknowledged it had a policy of recording all incoming calls
and did not warn callers, according to the opinion, but said its
list of incoming calls could not be used to properly find class
members.  Not all of the listed calls were recorded because of
technical problems, and the callers often did not leave their name
when making a reservation for someone else.  Omni also said it
accidentally deleted all database entries for calls made in the
class period, which destroyed some metadata about the calls but
not the recordings themselves.

The plaintiffs contend that while the deleted data would have made
it easier to search the recorded calls, there was still enough
information to make the class action manageable and any
difficulties were due to Omni's mistake.  It is possible to find
calls made with California cellphones and either use reverse
directories to ask carriers to identify the callers.

Judge Snyder ruled that the class definition had enough objective
characteristics for potential members to show they fit the
requirements.  Omni's objections that identification of members
will be difficult are better suited for after certification, the
opinion said.

The court also rejected Omni's claim that individual issues would
predominate because some putative class members assumed their
calls would be recorded, preventing plaintiffs from proving injury
without individual investigations.  Judge Snyder held that the
only harm required under the California Information Privacy Act is
the unauthorized recording itself.

Omni similarly could not rely on possible implied consent from
some members to defeat certification because the expectation of
recording does not matter if Omni can't show it notified callers,
the opinion said.  Omni has not shown that a single caller
consented to the recordings, it said.

"There is no indication that individual consent issues will
overwhelm issues plaintiffs have shown to be resolvable through
classwide proof," the opinion said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Zev B. Zysman --

zev@zysmanlawca.com -- of the Law Offices of Zev B. Zysman and by
James F. Clapp -- jclapp@sdlaw.com -- James T. Hannink --
Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com -- and Zach P. Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com
-- of Dostart Clapp & Coveney LLP.

Omni is represented by Angela C. Agrusa -- aagrusa@linerlaw.com --
and David B. Farkas -- dfarkas@linerlaw.com -- of Liner LLP and
Robert M. Hoffman -- rhoffman@gardere.com -- of Gardere Wynne
Sewell LLP.

The case is Steven Ades et al. v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. et
al., case number 2:13-cv-02468, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


OPKO HEALTH: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. on April 29, 2013, was named in a putative class
action filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for
Clark County, Nevada against PROLOR (now known as OPKO Biologics),
the members of the PROLOR Board of Directors, individually
(including Drs. Frost and Hsiao and Steven Rubin), and the
Company.

From May 1, 2013 through May 6, 2013, OPKO Health was named in an
additional five putative class actions suits filed in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada against
the same defendants. On July 17, 2013, these suits were
consolidated, for all purposes, into an amended class action
complaint.

The lawsuit is brought by purported holders of PROLOR's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
PROLOR's stockholders, asserting claims that PROLOR's Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger by purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, that
PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material
information to PROLOR's stockholders, and that the Company aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit
seeks monetary damages, including increased consideration to
PROLOR's stockholders, equitable relief, including, among other
things, rescission of the Merger Agreement along with recissionary
damages, and an award of all costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

On May 5, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all claims as
to all defendants without prejudice, and the plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal or file an amended complaint, OPKO Health
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.

OPKO Health is a multi-national biopharmaceutical and diagnostics
company.


PDL BIOPHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against PDL BioPharma, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Nevada, and docketed under 14-cv-01526, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased PDL BioPharma securities between November 6, 2013 and
September 16, 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 PDL BioPharma securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 17, 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.

PDL BioPharma manages a portfolio of patents and royalty assets.
The Company is involved in the humanization of monoclonal
antibodies and the discovery of a new generation of targeted
treatments for cancer and immunologic diseases.  The Company was
formerly known as Protein Design Labs, Inc. and changed its name
to PDL BioPharma, Inc. in 2006.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was overstating its: (i) total
revenues; (ii) royalty revenues; (iii) net income; and (iv) net
cash provided by operating activities; (2) the Company was
understating its operating expenses; (3) the Company failed to
properly classify royalty and milestone payments due under an
agreement with Depomed; and (4) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2014, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had filed a Form 12b-25 Notification of Late Filing with
the SEC allowing for a five-day extension to file its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014.  According
to the press release, the Company could not finalize its financial
statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, due to additional
time necessary to address SEC comments and finalize its review
related to the change in the accounting treatment of the
acquisition of Depomed royalty rights.  As a result of the delay
in filing the quarterly report, PDL BioPharma postponed its second
quarter earnings release call, originally scheduled for Monday,
August 11, 2014.

On September 16, 2014, after the market closed, the Company filed
a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that on September 11, 2014, PDL
BioPharma was orally notified by its independent registered
accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP ("EY") that it was resigning
effective September 11, 2014.  The resignation was confirmed in a
letter delivered to the Company on September 15, 2014.

On this news, PDL BioPharma's stock plummeted $1.17 per share to
close at $8.48 per share on September 17, 2014, a one-day decline
of over 12% on heavy trading volume.

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.


PERDUE FOOD: Recalls Raw Fresh Chicken Due to Processing Deviation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perdue Food LLC, a Salisbury, MD establishment, is recalling
approximately 720 pounds of raw, fresh chicken products because
they may have experienced a processing deviation in temperature
during production, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to the recall include:

80-lb. cardboard boxes, containing approximately 28, 2.5-lb. ice-
packed, sealed packages of "COOKIN' GOOD WHOLE YOUNG CHICKENS"
with giblets and necks.

The products were produced Sept. 3, 2014 and then shipped to a New
York distributor for re-sale and foodservice use in Connecticut,
New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.  The packages bear the
establishment number "P-764" on the box.

The company discovered the problem when a plant employee checking
whole bird temperatures noticed variations in the product.  Upon
further investigation it was found that a plant worker turned the
wrong water valve, using potable water instead of chill water in
the system's chiller.  The company notified FSIS of the incident.
Product found in the firm's warehouse was destroyed.  However nine
cases inadvertently shipped into commerce.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Perdue
Consumer Affairs at 800-4Perdue (800-473-7383).  Media with
questions about the recall may contact Joe Forsthoffer at (410)
341- 2556.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Briefing Continues on Securities Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a federal securities
class action in its entirety, and briefing continues on that
motion, 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 December 20, 2013, PhotoMedex, Inc. was served with a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and its
two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and
Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The
suit, filed by Mr. Guy Ratz, a former employee of Radiancy
(Israel) Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, alleges
various violations of the Federal securities laws between November
7, 2012 and November 14, 2013, including that the Company and its
officers made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material facts concerning the Company's business. Two
other shareholders filed suit through other firms; the Asbestos
Workers Local 14 Pension Fund was appointed the lead plaintiff in
this case. An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 15, 2014. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case in
its entirety; briefing continues on that motion.

The complaint seeks certification of the putative class as well as
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.
The Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend
themselves against this lawsuit.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the cases have only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Ohio Plaintiffs Drop Preliminary Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, 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 six putative class-
action lawsuits were filed in connection with PhotoMedex's
proposed acquisition of LCA-Vision, Inc. Two of those suits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and four
were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio.
All cases assert claims against LCA-Vision, Inc., and a mix of
other defendants, including LCA's chief executive officer and
directors, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of PhotoMedex.

The complaints generally allege that the proposed acquisition
undervalued LCA and deprived LCA's shareholders of the opportunity
to participate in LCA's long-term financial prospects, that the
"go shop" and "deal-protection" provisions of the Merger Agreement
were designed to prevent LCA from soliciting or receiving
competing offers, that LCA's Board breached its fiduciary duties
and failed to maximize that company's stockholder value, and that
LCA, PhotoMedex, and Gatorade aided and abetted the LCA
defendants' alleged breaches of duty. The complaints seek
injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and other relief.

The Ohio plaintiffs agreed to consolidate their suits and take the
lead on this matter, although the Ohio Court did not formally
consolidate the suits until April 24, 2014. The Delaware suits
were consolidated on March 25, 2014; on or around that same date,
the parties reached an agreement by which LCA and the other
defendants agreed to produce certain discovery to the plaintiffs
on an expedited basis.

On April 30, 2014, the Ohio plaintiffs (with the Delaware
plaintiffs' concurrence) agreed to withdraw their motion for a
preliminary injunction and not seek to enjoin the stockholder vote
or the consummation of the merger in return for LCA's agreement to
make certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger. Those
supplemental disclosures were filed by LCA under a Form 8-K on
April 30, 2014.

This agreement did not affect the terms of the Merger Agreement or
the amount of consideration LCA stockholders will be entitled to
receive in the merger. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend itself in the lawsuits if the parties cannot
enter into a formal stipulation of settlement. At this time, the
amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably
estimated, as the cases have only been recently initiated and
little discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of
any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has
not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters if the cases cannot be
resolved.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Radiancy Faces "Mouzon" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, 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 putative class action
lawsuit was filed on April 25, 2014, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's
subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's
President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other
customers residing in ten different states who purchased
Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of
state business and consumer protection codes including false and
misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of
express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification
of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as
subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The
complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness
fees and other costs.

Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date,
Radiancy, has not been served.

Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves
against this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or
range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only
been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine
the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore,
the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability
related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future,
as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a
contingent liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Radiancy Faces "Cantley" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, 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's
subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed on June 30, 2014, in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the putative class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs.

Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves
against this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or
range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only
been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine
the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore,
the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability
related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future,
as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a
contingent liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Application to Certify Class Suit Filed in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. was served on July 29, 2014 with an application
to certify a class action, filed in Israel District Court for Tel
Aviv against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev
Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President
and Chief Financial Officer, 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.

Under Israeli procedures, an application is filed with the Court,
the Company has 90 days to submit its response, and then the Court
reviews the application and the response and determines whether to
certify the application as a class action. The application, served
by a shareholder of the Company, alleges various violations of the
Israeli Securities Law 5728-1968, including that the Company and
its officers made false and/or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material facts in its public reports concerning the
Company's business, and therefore influenced the Company's share
price.

The plaintiff seeks class action status to include all purchasers
of the Company's stock between May 3, 2012 and November 6, 2013,
specifying an amount in monetary damages of 145 Million New
Israeli Shekels or $42,050,000. The plaintiff also seeks pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company and its officers are already parties to a lawsuit
containing similar allegations filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 20,
2013, and intend to vigorously defend themselves against both
actions.  At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss,
cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated
and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of
any claim or claims made and any damages stated by plaintiffs.


POPULAR INC: BPNA in Class Certification-Related Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 Banco Popular North
America (BPNA) was served on November 21, 2012, with a putative
class action complaint captioned Valle v. Popular Community Bank
filed in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County).
Plaintiffs, existing BPNA customers, allege among other things
that BPNA has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices relative to the assessment of overdraft fees and payment
processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further
alleges that BPNA improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft
policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees
assessed by BPNA violate New York's usury laws. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest,
disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs.

BPNA removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.), and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court has granted on August 6, 2013.  A motion to
dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the
putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was filed in February 2014 and is currently
pending resolution. The parties are currently engaged in class
certification-related discovery.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


POPULAR INC: Engaged in Discovery in Bank Tellers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 between December 2013
and January 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Banco Popular
North America, and Popular, Inc., along with two executive
officers, were served with a putative class action complaint
captioned Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al.
Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and others, who have been
employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly
titled positions, were generally paid only for scheduled work
time, rather than all time actually worked. The Complaint seeks to
maintain a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of all individuals who were employed or are currently
employed by the Defendants in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, New
York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Illinois as hourly
paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions
at any time during the past three years and alleges the following
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act against all Defendants:
(i) failure to pay overtime premiums; and (ii) that the failure to
pay was willful. Similar claims are brought under Puerto Rico law
on behalf of all individuals who were employed or are currently
employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank
tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the
past three years.

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On February 24, 2014, the parties reached an agreement
to dismiss the complaint against BPNA and the named BPNA executive
officer without prejudice. The parties are currently engaged in
class certification-related discovery.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


POPULAR INC: UBS Wants Case Moved to New York From Puerto Rico
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 putative class action
captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al. was filed on May
5, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico
closed-end investment companies against various UBS entities,
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Popular Securities. UBS Financial
Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico is the sponsor and co-sponsor
of all 23 funds, while Banco Popular de Puerto Rico was co-
sponsor, together with UBS, of nine funds. The plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract against all defendants. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of
fees and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs requested the voluntary dismissal of
their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a
virtually identical complaint in the US District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR) and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.

Recently, the UBS defendants filed an opposition to the
consolidation request and demanded that the case be transferred
back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements
between the parties contain a clear and unambiguous choice of
forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular
defendants joined this motion. The motion remains pending to date.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


POPULAR INC: Court Stayed "Alvarez" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 putative class action
captioned David Alvarez, et al. v. Banco Popular North America was
filed on May 6, 2014, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs generally
assert that BPNA has engaged in purported violations of Sec.
2954.8(a) of the California Civil Code and Sec. 17200 et seq. of
the California Business Professions Code, which allegedly require
financial institutions that make loans secured by certain types of
real property located within the state of California to pay
interest to borrowers on impound account deposits at a statutory
rate of not less than two percent (2%). Plaintiffs maintain that
BPNA has not paid interest on such deposits and demand that BPNA
be enjoined from engaging in further violations of these
provisions and pay an unspecified amount of damages sufficient to
repay the unpaid interest on these deposits.

PHH Corporation, which acquired the loans at issue in this
complaint, has tentatively agreed to indemnify and tender a
defense on behalf of BPNA.  The court recently entered an order
staying all substantive activity, including any responsive
pleading, until the initial conference scheduled for August 22,
2014.

Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding
company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


ROCK CREEK: Securities Action Settlement in Final Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek 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 three
individuals, Francis J. Reuter, Charles Boravian and Marty Cole,
filed separate similar purported class actions on behalf of
putative classes of persons or entities collectively encompassing
those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's
common stock between October 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013. The
first action was filed on or about March 25, 2013 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Francis J. Reuter v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al., E.D. Va.
Richmond Division, 13-00183-JAG (the "Reuter Action"). The Reuter
Action named as defendants the Company, its subsidiary, Rock Creek
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP Development,
Inc.), and certain of the Company's current or former officers
and/or employees. The second action was filed on or about March
26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boravian v. Star Scientific, Inc. et al. D. Mass.
13-1-695-DJC (the "Boravian Action"). The Boravian Action named as
defendants the Company and Jonnie R. Williams, Sr. and was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The third action was filed
on or about May 7, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Cole v. Star Scientific, Inc. et
al., E.D. Va. Richmond Division, 13-00287-JAG (the "Cole Action").
The Cole Action named as defendants, the Company, its subsidiary,
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (which is now known as RCP
Development, Inc.), and certain of its officers and employees.

In general, the complaints collectively allege that the Company
and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder as related to statements made regarding its past and
future prospects and certain scientific data relating to its
products, as well as related to unspecified private placements and
related party transactions engaged in since 2006.  The Reuter
Action and the Cole Action have been consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the Court in the consolidated cases on
June 21, 2013.

Pursuant to a joint scheduling order in place in these cases,
plaintiff filed a consolidated operative complaint on September 5,
2013 and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
operative complaint on October 25, 2013. Following full briefing
and argument on January 7, 2014, the Court indicated that it would
not grant the motion at that time and would allow the case to
proceed to discovery, but ordered additional briefing.

Also, the Court entered a scheduling order for discovery and an
order directing the parties to participate in mediation before a
Magistrate Judge. Defendants thereafter filed answers.

Subsequently, the United States, on January 28, 2014, moved to
stay discovery in the case pending the completion or other
disposition of the criminal trial of former Governor McDonnell and
his wife. That motion was granted by the Court on January 28,
2014. On February 12, 2014, the Court granted a joint motion by
the parties to stay all deadlines other than a court sponsored
mediation session and the issuance of the Court's opinion on the
motion to dismiss. On March 11, 2014, defendants filed a motion
for leave to submit new authority in support of their motion to
dismiss. On March 13, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motion
and ordered the submission of additional supplemental briefs by
the parties. Those briefs were filed on March 19, 2014 and March
26, 2014.

On June 11, 2014, a mediation conference was held before
Magistrate Judge David J. Novak. On July 29, 2014, the parties
participated in a private mediation and are in the final stages of
a settlement dependent on certain material conditions within the
control of third-parties.

There is no assurance that such conditions will be satisfied to
enable the parties to consummate a settlement.  If settled upon
the discussed terms, it is anticipated that the settlement will be
funded with insurance proceeds and accordingly will not impact the
Company's financial position.

Rock Creek in recent years has engaged primarily in the sale of
nutraceutical dietary supplements and related cosmetic products,
and in pursuing ongoing research and development by its
subsidiary, RCP Development, of related dietary supplements and
pharmaceutical products.


ROCK CREEK: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Baldwin" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek 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 Howard T.
Baldwin filed on January 27, 2014, a purported class action naming
the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as RCP
Development, Inc.) and GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Generally, the complaint alleges that claims made for the
Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product.  The complaint purports to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment.

The Company has agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the
terms of the purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC.
Consistent with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume
the defense of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf
of GNC.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March
24, 2014, and the Court heard oral argument on the motion on May
15, 2014. The Court has taken the motion under advisement.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
However, at the present time, it cannot predict the possible
outcome of these claims.

Rock Creek in recent years has engaged primarily in the sale of
nutraceutical dietary supplements and related cosmetic products,
and in pursuing ongoing research and development by its
subsidiary, RCP Development, of related dietary supplements and
pharmaceutical products.


S & F FOOD: Recalls Salzburg Schokolade Wafers Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           S & F Food Importers Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9252

Affected products:

  -- 150 g. Hazelnut Cream Filling with all codes where milk is
     not declared on the label; and

   -- 320 g. Hazelnut Cream with all codes where milk is not
declared on the label


S&S FOOD: Recalls Dried Roach (Vobla) Over Botulism Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
S&S Food Import corp. is recalling all packages of Uneviscerated
Dried Roach (Vobla) with the following package code "Best Before
06.05.2015".  The Uneviscerated Dried Roach (Vobla) was sampled by
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food
Inspectors during a routine sanitary inspection.  Subsequent
analysis of the product by New York State food Laboratory
personnel confirmed that the fish had not been properly
eviscerated prior to processing.

The product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum spores
with can cause botulism, a serious and potentially fatal food-
borne illness.

The sale of uneviscerated processed fish is prohibited under New
York State Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium
botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated in the viscera
than any other portion of the fish.  Uneviscerated fish have been
linked to outbreaks of botulism poisoning.

Symptoms of botulism poisoning include blurred or double vision,
general weakness, and poor reflexes, difficulty swallowing and
respiratory paralysis.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The Uneviscerated Dried Roach (Vobla) was distributed nationwide,
in 5 kg boxes.

Consumers who have purchased Uneviscerated Dried Roach (Vobla) are
advised not to eat it and should return the product to the place
of purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the company S&S
Food Import Corp at 718-677-6888.


SAVORY PIE: Faces Antitrust Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham, writing for Law360, reports that pie company
Savory Pie Guy LLC slapped dough equipment company Comtec
Industries Ltd. with an antitrust class action in New York federal
court on Sept. 17, claiming Comtec prevents its customers from
buying products from its rivals in order to maintain a monopoly.

Savory Pie, a relatively new company owned by Sean Mandel, alleges
that Comtec has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by scheming to
monopolize the market for single unit dough-forming equipment, of
which it allegedly has a 90 percent share.

According to the New York-based pie operation, Comtec maintained
its alleged monopoly by prohibiting its customers from buying
dough-forming parts or services from its rivals, and refusing to
do business with them if it discovered customers had purchased
something from a competitior.

"There is no objective or pro-competitive justification for this
conduct," Savory Pie claims.  "This scheme has prevented other
companies from effectively competing in the relevant [market] and
has allowed defendant to maintain the artificially high
supracompetitive prices they charge for dough forming equipment,
parts and services."

The suit states that Savory Pie purchased one of Comtec's pie
presses, the Comtec 2200, in 2011, in order to increase its pie
output.  Pie presses are used to form dough into pie crusts or
tart shells, and Comtec currently makes three kids of single unit
pressing machines, as well as various parts, according to the
complaint.

Savory Pie claims that after Illinois-based Comtec failed to get
back to the company about its request for new pressing machine
parts in 2012, the pie maker contacted one of Comtec's rivals,
Jim Sutton of Inline Pie, about the order.  Mr. Sutton made a
requested set of "mini pie" parts for Savory Pie, but the company
never used them after deciding to focus on normal size pies, the
complaint states.

Mr. Mandel then allegedly ran into Comtec President Jim Reilly at
a Las Vegas baking exposition in October 2013, at which point
Mandel informed him that he had purchased parts from a third
party, during the course of a conversation about Comtec's new
pressing machine.

Afterward, Mr. Mandel contacted Comtec about receiving a quote for
a new machine so he could give that to his bank, the suit states.
But instead of getting a quote, Mr. Mandel was eventually sent a
letter from Comtec saying the company would refuse to send him
parts or equipment in the future, because he was using third-party
parts that could make its presses unsafe.

"Defendant's assertion that plaintiff's pressing machine is now
'unsafe' because it had been used with dies that were not created
by defendant is wholly meritless," the suit claims.

Savory Pie also noted that Comtec filed a suit against Mr. Sutton
in March for allegedly copying its handbook and selling
"aftermarket" parts of its pressing machines, and that the consent
decree Mr. Sutton entered into prevents him from dealing with
Comtec equipment.

The pie maker is seeking to represent a class of people who bought
Comtec's dough-forming equipment from September 15, 2010, to the
present, and is asking for treble damages.

Savory Pie is represented by Adam J. Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A. Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com
-- Marie M. McCrary and Ashley Salisbury of Gutride Safier LLP.

The suit is Savory Pie Guy LLC v. Comtec Industries Ltd., case
number 7:14-cv-07527, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


SHEUNG KEE: Recalls Maling Canned Szuhsien Bran Dough
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sheung Kee Trading Co. Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9233

Affected products: 354 g. Maling Canned Szuhsien Bran Dough


SIEMENS: Recalls Audible Fire Alarm Base Due to Risk of Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Siemens, of Buffalo, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about
9,000 SBGA-34 Audible Fire Alarm Base.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The fire alarm base can fail to sound an alarm, posing a risk of
personal injury and property damage

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves the SBGA-34 audible base that is affixed to
ceiling-mounted smoke detectors in order to sound an alarm when
the fire alarm system is activated.  The audible base has part
number S54370-F13 and date codes 0113 through 2314 in a WWYY
format printed on a white label on the back of the unit part
affixed to the wall.  "MODEL SBGA-34" is printed on a blue label
also affixed to the back of the device.  The base is off-white and
measures about 6 inches in diameter.  The audible base is used
with these fire detectors:

         Cerberus PRO models (HI921, OOHC941, OOH941, OH921,
OP921)
         Desigo Fire Safety models (FDOOTC441, FDOOT441, FDO421,
FDOT421, FDT421)
         H-Series (HFP-11, HFPT-11, HFPO-11)
         Faraday 87XX-Series, models (8713, 8712, 8710)

The audible base and fire detectors are used with the following
alarm systems:

         Siemens model FireFinder(R) XLS via DLC 6312 Device
           Loop Card
         Siemens model FS -250
         Desigo model FC2005, (50-point panel)
         Desigo model FC2025, (252-point system)
         Desigo model FC2050, (504-point system)
         Cerberus PRO FC901, (50-point panel
         Cerberus PRO FC922, (252-point system)
         Cerberus PRO FC924, (504-point system)
         Faraday models MPC-600 & MPC-7000

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Siemens sales offices, authorized distributors and installers
nationwide from Feb. 2013 through June 2014 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately contact Siemens to schedule a free
inspection and replacement of the recalled audible base.


SOTTO CINQUE: Accused of Harassing Hostess & Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katarzyna Smyla v. Sotto Cinque Inc d/b/a Sotto Cinque and Vincent
Mustazza, Case No. 1:14-cv-07534-CM (S.D.N.Y.,
September 17, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
overtime and of sexual harassment.

The Plaintiff commenced employment with the Defendants as a Sotto
Cinque hostess on a part time basis.

Sotto Cinque Inc, doing business as Sotto Cinque, is a New York
domestic business corporation with its main business located in
New York City.  Vincent Mustazza is the owner and manager of Sotto
Cinque.  The Defendants operate a restaurant named Sotto Cinque.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Tumexty, Esq.
          TUMELTY & SPIER, LLP
          160 Broadway, Suite 708
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 566-4681
          Facsimile: (212) 566-4749
          E-mail: johntslaw@aol.com


SPACELABS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Ultraview SL2600, SL Compact Monitor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 18, 2014
Posting date:             September 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41437

Recalled products:

Ultraview SL2600 Compact Monitor
Ultraview SL Compact Monitor
Ultraview SL Bedside/Central Monitor

Potential hazard associated with the use of all patient monitors
equipped with the perioperative option (-D).  Operating room staff
may not be aware that alarm tones are off if the device has been
left in the end case state.  This is more likely to occur in
emergency surgery situations and with surgical teams that are not
familiar with the monitor's operation.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Spacelabs Healthcare Inc.
                    35301 SE Center Street
                    Snoqualmie 98065
                    Washington
                    United States


SUPER ASIA: Recalls Mitchell's Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 17, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Super Asia Foods & Spices Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9274

The food recall warning issued on Sept. 15, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Super Asia Food & Spices Ltd. is recalling Mitchell's brand Mixed
Hyderabadi Pickle in oil from the marketplace because it may
contain mustard which is not declared on the label.  People with
an allergy to mustard should not consume the recalled product
described below.

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

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

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

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


STRYKER COMMUNICATIONS: Recalls Infinity 3 Control System
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2014
Posting date:             September 16, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41385

Recalled products: SwitchPoint Infinity 3 Control System

Stryker has become aware that there is a likelihood of audio loss,
intermittent audio, or distorted audio with the SwitchPoint
Infinity3 (SPI 3).  The non-conformance was identified due to the
increasing trend in the number of SPI 3 audio board replacements.

More than 10 numbers were affected, contact manufacturer.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Stryker Communications
                    1410 Lakeside Pkwy #100
                    Flower Mound 75028
                    Texas
                    United States


TAKATA CORP: Honda Aware of Bag Defects Linked to Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------
Hiroko Tabuchi, Bill Vlasic Daeil Kim and Alain Delaqueriere,
writing for The New York Times, report that more than 14 million
vehicles have been recalled by 11 automakers over rupture risks
involving air bags manufactured by the supplier, Takata.  That is
about five times the number of vehicles recalled this year by
General Motors for its deadly ignition switch defect.

Two deaths and more than 30 injuries have been linked to ruptures
in Honda vehicles, and complaints received by regulators about
various automakers blame Takata air bags for at least 139
injuries, including 37 people who reported air bags that ruptured
or spewed shrapnel or chemicals.  In one incident in December
2009, a Honda Accord driven by Gurjit Rathore, 33, hit a mail
truck in Richmond, Va.  Her air bag exploded, propelling shrapnel
into her neck and chest, and she bled to death in front of her
three children, according to a lawsuit filed by her family.

The details of Honda's air bag problems, which have not been
previously reported, come as General Motors continues to face
questions about its ignition switch defect, which some G.M.
officials knew about for a decade before the recalls were issued.
In echoes of that safety crisis, The New York Times found the
inadequate response to the risk of rupturing air bags was rooted
in the industry's ability to report safety problems in a minimal
way, a weak regulatory agency and a disconnect between what
automakers are aware of internally and what they reveal publicly.

The danger of exploding air bags was not disclosed for years after
the first reported incident in 2004, despite red flags --
including three additional ruptures reported to Honda in 2007,
according to interviews, regulatory filings and court records.

In each of the incidents, Honda settled confidential financial
claims with people injured by the air bags, but the automaker did
not issue a safety recall until late 2008, and then for only a
small fraction -- about 4,200 -- of its vehicles eventually found
to be equipped with the potentially explosive air bags.

The delays by both Honda and Takata in alerting the public about
the defect -- and later in Takata's acknowledging it extended
beyond a small group of Honda vehicles -- meant other automakers
like BMW, Toyota and Nissan were not aware of possible defects in
their own vehicles for years, putting off their recalls.  Only
last month, Honda issued yet another recall of its own -- its
ninth for the defect -- bringing to six million the total of
recalled Honda and Acura vehicles.

It was just six months after the first 2008 recall that an air bag
in Jennifer Griffin's Honda Civic, which was not among the
recalled vehicles, exploded after a minor accident in Orlando,
Fla.  The air bag explosion sent a two-inch piece of shrapnel
flying.  When highway troopers found Ms. Griffin, then 26, with
blood gushing from a gash in her neck, they were baffled by the
extent of her injuries.  At Honda, engineers soon linked the
accident to the previous ruptures.

"Honda was aware of the problem," said Ms. Griffin, who settled a
claim against the automaker under terms she was not authorized to
disclose.  "This should never have happened at all."

Honda reported its death and injury tallies to regulators only in
a confidential submission in December 2011, when it issued its
fifth recall for the rupture defect, according to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The regulatory and court documents, as well interviews with
current and former employees of Honda, Takata and N.H.T.S.A, show
that both Honda and Takata offered ever-changing explanations
about why the air bags continued to rupture.  Federal regulators
were also slow to react, and when they finally stepped in, their
initial effort in 2009 was so cursory that they closed the inquiry
before Takata provided all of the relevant documents.

Takata, one of the industry's largest manufacturers of air bags,
declined to make officials available to The Times to be
interviewed.  Alby Berman, a spokesman, also declined to answer
questions about the company's handling of the air bag defects.
"Takata works closely each and every day with its customers to
address any issues as they arise -- even in the absence of
recalls," he said.

In a statement, Honda said that it had taken "appropriate actions"
after the first air bag rupture in 2004 "based on the information
available at that time," including alerting Takata and filing a
required injury notice with the federal safety agency.

"In the absence of any other similar incidents before or for years
after, there was no evidence that indicated it was anything but an
anomaly," the automaker said.

                        Minimal Reporting

By law, automakers are required to inform federal regulators of a
defect within five business days, even if an exact cause cannot be
determined. Honda filed a standard report on the initial air bag
injury in 2004, and followed up with similar filings on the
incidents in 2007. The form requires automakers to list the
component -- in this case, an air bag -- that was responsible for
an injury, but it does not allow for elaboration about the
circumstances, like a rupture.

In none of those four instances of ruptured air bags, The Times
found, did Honda go beyond the standard form and separately alert
safety regulators to the most critical detail: that the air bags
posed an explosion risk.

Nor did federal regulators inquire about the incidents when the
forms were filed by Honda.

Safety officials said that Honda's reports, among thousands of
such filings the agency receives every year, never caught
investigators' attention.  The agency is only now investigating
whether Honda should have taken action after the first air bag
rupture in 2004, including alerting regulators and recalling
vehicles.  That investigation began in June, the regulators said.

"Honda did not provide us any additional information indicating
that this incident involved an air bag rupture, nor do we have
additional records from our other data sources for this incident
that would have justified such follow-up," the agency said in a
statement.

Allan J. Kam, a former senior enforcement official for N.H.T.S.A.,
said that even one exploding air bag should have set off alarms at
Honda.

"This isn't a defect where you can expect a number of events to
happen before you take notice," said Mr. Kam, who left the safety
agency in 2000 and is director of Highway Traffic Safety
Associates, a consultant firm based in Bethesda, Md.  "When you
have something like that, you put all your resources into
conducting a thorough investigation.  You don't just delegate out
the responsibility to your supplier."

                      A New Air Bag Design

The problematic air bags were developed by Takata in the late
1990s in an effort to make air bags more compact and to reduce the
toxic fumes that early air bags often emitted when deployed.  The
redesigned air bags are inflated by means of an explosive based on
a common compound used in fertilizer.  That explosive is encased
in a metal canister.

Honda, which has a long relationship with Takata, became among the
first automakers to use the new air bags.  They were placed in
some models beginning in 1998, according to media announcements at
the time.

By May 2004, the first reported air bag explosion occurred in the
Honda Accord, a 2002 model, in Alabama, according to Honda
officials and regulatory filings.  Honda declined to provide
additional details about the incident, beyond confirming that it
had settled a claim with the injured driver.


TARGET CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Baby Wipes Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Target Corp. is asking a federal judge to toss a proposed class
action alleging the company is fouling up sewers and septic
systems by falsely claiming one of its brands of baby wipes is
"flushable" and safe for disposal.

Target's Sep. 4 motion to dismiss eight claims in Meta v. Target
contends the Ohio father who brought the suit fails to show a
defect in the company's "up &up" baby wipes, or to allege what
economic damages or loss the plaintiffs suffered due to their use.
Wet-wipe manufacturer Nice-Pak Products Inc. is also a defendant.

Target called the allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment too
general to stand, and criticized the complaint for being written
so to include consumers who suffered no loss or injury from using
the wipes.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Meta filed suit on April 18 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  He said he
bought Target's wipes when potty training his daughter because it
was labeled "flushable," "dispersible," "sewer and septic safe"
and that the pre-moistened fabric wipes "break apart after
flushing."  Meta contends none of those claims are true, and that
Target knows them to be false.

The plumbing and septic system for Meta's Columbiana, Ohio, home
became clogged by wipes that, his plumber said, had "caked
together."  Municipalities across the country are encountering
similar problems from purportedly flushable wipes that are
anything but, the complaint says.

"These wipes have not only been clogging consumer's pipes all over
Ohio and the country, but have also created a public health hazard
by clogging pumps at municipal waste treatment facilities," the
complaint says, adding that Target and other wipes manufacturers
are well aware of the problem.

The complaint says Minneapolis-based Target actively concealed the
truth about the "defective" wipes and is liable for warranty
breaches, negligent failure to warn and unjust enrichment claims,
and violations of an Ohio consumer protection law.  Plaintiffs
want Target to be enjoined from advertising and labeling its
products as flushable and to pay restitution and unspecified
damages.

Target is represented by attorneys with Sutter, O'Connell, Mannion
& Farchone.  Nice-Pak Products Inc. is represented by attorneys
with Davis & Young.

Plaintiffs' counsel are attorneys with Tycko & Zavareei and
Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber.


UNCLE T: Recalls Long Kow Traditional Tiny Noodles
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9257

Affected products: 320 g. Long Kow Traditional Tiny Noodles with 4
710734 002695 UPC


UNISYS TECHNICAL: Removed "Renazco" Class Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Edgar Renazco v. Unisys Technical
Services, L.L.C., Case No. CGC-14-539667, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:14-cv-04204-JCS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHA, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com
                  kyle@bamlawlj.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie Anne Vogelzang, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101-4681
          Telephone: (619) 744-2200
          Facsimile: (619) 744-2201
          E-mail: jvogelzang@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Allegra Aine Jones, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 957-3001
          E-mail: aajones@duanemorris.com


UNITED STATES: Native Americans to Get Settlement Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz, writing for The Associated Press, reports that hundreds
of thousands of Native Americans have started receiving the final
cash payments last week from one of the largest government
settlements in U.S. history, about three years after the deal was
approved.

Checks ranging from $869 to $10 million were sent beginning on
Sept. 15 to more than 493,000 people by the administrators of the
$3.4 billion settlement from a class-action lawsuit filed by
Elouise Cobell of Browning, Montana.

Some $941 million is being distributed in this second round of
payments, plaintiffs' attorney David Smith said on Sept. 18.

Ms. Cobell sued after finding the government squandered billions
of dollars in royalties for land it held in trust for individual
Indians that was leased for development, exploration or
agriculture.  The mismanagement stretched back to the 1880s, the
lawsuit found.  She died of cancer in 2011, after more than 15
years of doggedly pursuing the lawsuit, rallying Native Americans
around the cause and lobbying members of Congress for its
approval.

Ms. Cobell's successor at the nonprofit she created, the Native
American Community Development Corp., said she regrets that
Ms. Cobell is not around to see the checks arrive.

"That's the sad part. You work all those years and to not to see
it to fruition is bittersweet," NACDC executive director Angie
Main said on Sept. 18.

Ms. Cobell was present when a federal judge approved the
settlement just months before her death.  But it took years to
work through the appeals and then sort through incomplete and
erroneous information provided by the government to identify all
the beneficiaries.

Some 22,000 people listed in the data provided had died, while
1,000 more listed as dead were still alive, Mr. Smith said.  The
government data also listed the wrong or no address for three out
of four people, he said.

The payments are the second of two distributions in the
settlement.  The first distributions of $1,000 apiece went to more
than 339,000 people.  This second, final round of distributions is
based on a formula looking at 10 years of the highest earnings on
those individual landowners' accounts.

The settlement also includes a $1.9 billion land buy-back program
now underway in which willing landowners sell the government their
land allotments to be consolidated and turned over to the tribes.


VENTAS INC: Faces 13 Class Actions Over HCT Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------
Ventas, 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 the weeks following
the announcement of the Company's pending acquisition of American
Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT") on June 2, 2014, a
total of 13 putative class actions were filed by purported HCT
stockholders challenging the transaction. Certain of the actions
also purport to bring derivative claims on behalf of HCT. Among
other things, the lawsuits allege that the directors of HCT
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the transaction and
that Ventas, Inc. and Ventas' subsidiaries, Stripe Sub, LLC and
Stripe OP, LP, aided and abetted this purported breach of
fiduciary duty. The complaints seek injunctive relief and damages.
Ten of these actions were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland, two actions were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, and one action was filed in
the United States District Court of Maryland.

"We believe that each of these actions is without merit," Ventas
said.

Ventas, Inc., an S&P 500 company, is a real estate investment
trust ("REIT") with a highly diversified portfolio of seniors
housing and healthcare properties located throughout the United
States, Canada and the United Kingdom.


WAL-MART STORES: Truck Drivers' Labor Suit Gets Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
TheTrucker.com reports that truck drivers employed by Wal-Mart
have been granted class action status in a lawsuit over the
employer's alleged failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The California district court determined that the drivers met the
requirements of Rule 23 after concluding that they identified
common questions of law and fact concerning the alleged minimum
wage violations and waiting-time penalties.  The court also found
that common questions regarding Wal-Mart's pay formula meant that
common issues predominated over individualized issues as required
by Rule 23(b)(3).

However, certification was denied as a class action for the
employee's wage statement claims.

Former truck drivers employed by Wal-Mart brought a class action
suit alleging that the mega retailer violated various provisions
of the California Labor Code and Business and Professional Code by
failing to pay minimum wage, provide meal and rest breaks, and
provide accurate wage statements.

According to the employees, Wal-Mart uniformly applied policies,
detailed in its driver pay manuals, that rendered the issues in
this case appropriate for class action.  Specifically, they
alleged that Wal-Mart's piece-rate pay policies did not provide
minimum wages and did not pay drivers for certain mandatory
activities, in violation of California law.  Wal-Mart pays its
drivers based on mileage, activity pay (for duties Wal-Mart deems
compensable), and non-activity pay (for events at Wal-Mart
dispatch and home offices or unplanned events).  The drivers
contended that Wal-Mart's piece-rate pay policies did not pay
drivers minimum wage for all of the work they perform for tasks
such as pre- and post-trip inspections; rest breaks; fueling;
washing the tractors; weighing the tractors; completing mandatory
paperwork; wait time and layover periods.  When drivers are given
a driving assignment, they also receive a projected estimated time
of arrival.  Drivers are to look at the estimated time only as an
estimate and adjust it with the knowledge that they need a
10-minute rest break and/or a meal break under California law.
The drivers have full autonomy to make changes to the estimated
times.

Tasks including fueling, washing, and weighing trucks are not
separately paid.  Additionally, drivers must remain in the tractor
when fueling at a regional distribution center and may be required
to fuel their own tractor when fueling at a grocery distribution
center.  Drivers are also responsible for the cleanliness of the
tractor and trailer and must wash them once per week, or as often
as needed.

As to the waiting time issue, drivers are not separately
compensated for all time spent waiting.  Under the 2001Driver Pay
Manual, the first two hours of wait time after arrival at a store,
an hour after arrival at a vendor and when waiting at a return
center, is non-compensable.  The manual further states that
drivers are not paid for wait time when routine scheduled
maintenance is performed on equipment, when undergoing a DOT
inspection, or for any time spent at a highway weigh scale.

Drivers were paid $42 for 10-hour layover periods.  A layover is
earned when taking a mandatory DOT break and is not paid in
conjunction with any other type of pay.

In additional to an overall class of California drivers, the
employees also sought to certify a waiting-time penalty sub-class.
Wal-Mart argued that the employees' questions were not capable of
class resolution because the question of whether drivers were paid
for various tasks required individualized inquiries.  It also
argued that the policies in its manuals were merely "guidelines"
and that the employees' inquiries required driver-by-driver and
task-by-task analysis.

The court determined that the employees met the commonality
requirement for the proposed class of drivers and found that the
employees identified common questions of law and fact concerning
minimum wages, including: whether Wal-Mart's piece-rate pay plan
violated California's minimum wage laws by failing to pay drivers
minimum wage for all hours worked; whether Wal-Mart's drivers are
entitled to payment of at least minimum wages for all hours
worked; and whether Wal-Mart requires drivers to perform services
during DOT-mandated layovers, for which drivers are paid less than
California's minimum wage.

Similarly, the court concluded that the drivers had also
identified a common question of law and fact concerning waiting-
time penalties: whether Wal-Mart violated Labor Code Sec. 203 by
willfully failing to pay all wages due and owing to each driver
whose employment ended at any time during the class period.

Again, the court found that the employees' question can be
resolved on a class-wide basis, and so they satisfied the
commonality requirement for the waiting-time penalty subclass.

Observing that the employees' theory of recovery involved Wal-
Mart's common practice or policy denying all class members minimum
wage for all hours worked and that the plaintiffs were subject to
the policies and suffered the same injury as a result of the
policies, the court found that they met the typicality
requirement.  Additionally, because Wal-Mart did not challenge the
adequacy of the representative plaintiffs to serve as class
representative, the court found that they met the adequacy
requirements of Rule 23(a)(4).

With respect to the driver class, Wal-Mart first argued that the
plaintiffs had not offered a way to determine which drivers
performed which tasks or the amount of time spent on those tasks
in California, so they could not meet the predominance
requirement.  However, the court found its argument unpersuasive.
It found that the plaintiffs were California residents and worked
out of distribution centers located in California.  Further, it
found that the plaintiffs presumptively enjoyed the protections of
IWC regulations, so Wal-Mart's argument presented no bar to the
predominance requirement.  The court also rejected Wal-Mart's
argument that the employees' minimum wage claims required an
hour-by-hour, driver-by-driver, and task-by-task analysis of how
each plaintiff spent his workday, and these individual questions
would overwhelm any common questions.

Instead, the court concluded that Wal-Mart's pay formula raised
common questions, and these common questions predominated over
individual questions of whether certain drivers received
additional discretionary pay after requesting such payments, or
whether some drivers completed tasks like paperwork during wait-
time or attended to personal phone calls during layovers.
Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the
predominance requirement for their minimum wage claims.  However,
the court denied the employees' motion for class certification for
claims of inaccurate wage statements because they did not show
that class members shared a common injury as a result of the
missing wage statement information that could be adjudicated on a
class-wide basis or that there were common legal question that
predominated over the individualized issues for plaintiffs' wage
statement claims.

Wal-Mart also challenged whether the plaintiffs had established
predominance for their waiting-time claims under California Labor
Code Sec. 203.  According to the plaintiffs, Wal-Mart's policy of
failing to pay drivers at least the minimum wage for all hours
worked constituted a violation of Sec. 203.  They suggested that
Wal-Mart instituted a payment system that ensured its drivers were
not paid the minimum wage.  Under this framing of the waiting-time
issue, the court found that common questions predominated and
individualized inquiries into each driver's underpayment were not
required.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Challenge TCE Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Saylor, writing for The City Wire, reports that an announced
settlement in a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation
related to property damages from trichloroethylene (TCE)
contamination has hit a snag following an objection filed by
attorneys representing residents affected by the contamination.

The agreement to settle the class action lawsuit on July 3 would
have provided property owners in an area bound by a plume of TCE a
dollar figure equal to what their properties were devalued by
Sebastian County Assessor Becky Yandell in 2013.  Property owners
living outside the area would have received $5,000 and possibly
more in the future if TCE was detected above regulatory levels in
groundwater beneath properties.

In an objection to the agreement filed on Sept. 12 in the United
States District Court Western District of Arkansas in Fort Smith,
attorney Sam Ledbetter -- sam@mcmathlaw.com -- of the Little Rock
firm McMath Woods said the deal was "great" for Whirlpool and
leaves plaintiffs as the "losers in the proposal."

"The proposed settlement is a great deal for defendant in that it
eliminates its exposure to additional types of damages, including
punitive damages, avoids any expense associated with litigation,
including having to engage in discovery, and allows it to encumber
and access private property as if it were a government actor in a
condemnation action, thereby avoiding significant expense
associated with cleaning up the mess it has made," Mr. Ledbetter
wrote.

He added, "In other words, for little or no effort, putative class
counsel stands to reap a handsome fee."

Mr. Ledbetter said the one-time payment offered by Whirlpool as a
part of the settlement agreement was "based on an arbitrary and
flawed valuation methodology," further alleging that the
properties will "likely never (be) cleaned up."

In a statement to The City Wire, Whirlpool's Senior Manager of
Global Public Relations Krstine M. Vernier called Ledbetter's
filed objections to the settlement were "self-serving."

"Mr. Ledbetter's 'objections' are a self-serving attempt to
prevent affected property owners in Fort Smith from having the
opportunity to decide for themselves if they want to accept
Whirlpool's substantial financial offer through the class
resolution," she said.

She also said the court had been able to review the terms of the
offer made to residents in the affected area and said residents
had not yet received information on the settlement for
consideration.

"Ledbetter's objections are also a poor replacement for
constructive solutions, which this particular set of plaintiff's
attorneys (have) been unwilling to offer over many months of
negotiations," Ms. Vernier said.

Attorney Ross Noland -- ross@mcmathlaw.com -- another McMath Woods
attorney representing clients affected by the plume, said in
statement to The City Wire that 29 residents filed objections to
the proposed settlement between Whirlpool and property owners.

"Instead of recognizing the flaws in its settlement proposal and
treating everyone fairly, Whirlpool Corporation has decided to
attack the residents and their attorneys," he said.  "This is
typical behavior one would expect from a corporation more
interested in its bottom line than doing right."

He said if Whirlpool was concerned with being a good corporate
citizen, it would "pay the property owners and residents adequate
compensation for having ruined their property values instead of an
arbitrary and unfair amount."

Ms. Vernier said the settlement off would "be reviewed by the
federal court to ensure that the Judge agrees that it is fair,"
adding that residents choosing to not take part in the lawsuit are
allowed to opt out.

"If property owners opt out of the class, they can continue the
costly, time-consuming and uncertain path of protracted
litigation," she added.

She said Whirlpool believes the court will approve the settlement
and "enable us to move forward with payments to the class members
as swiftly as the legal process will allow."


WILLY RUSCH: Recalls Nelaton Whistle Tip and Catheter
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 17, 2014
Posting date:             September 22, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41457

Although the product labeling identifies the catheters as "soft
rubber", the natural rubber latex caution statement (Caution: this
product contains natural rubber latex which may cause allergic
reactions) was not printed on the product label.  If a person with
a latex sensitivity comes into contact with the latex component of
the product, an allergic reaction could occur.

   Manufacturer:     Willy Rusch GmbH
                     Willy-Rusch Strasse 4-10
                     Kernen
                     71394
                     Germany


                              *********

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  * * *