CAR_Public/141001.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 195

                             Headlines


305 UNION ST: "Alonso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AD TELAMERICA: "Dinsdale" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. Texas
AMERI-FORCE CRAFT: Faces "Howell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APEX SHIPPING: Faces "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BEIERSDORF INC: Falsely Marketed Nivea Products, Action Claims

BERRY PETROLEUM: To Start Distributing Funds in Royalty Suit Deal
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Fla. Grants Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
CHELSEA EXPRESS: Faces "Isakov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Securities Claims Dismissed Under Settlement
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CO-EXPRISE INC: Pa. Superior Court Tosses Gas Lease Class Action
COCA-COLA CO: "Rankin" Suit Moved From Arkansas to California
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Misleading Snack Products Packaging
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Opposes Bid for Relief From Judgment
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Amended Securities Suit in California

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Student Litigation in Individual Arbitration
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Cert. Bid Filed in "Harrington" Labor Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Suit by Former Instructor at Freeport
D CEFALU MANAGEMENT: "Arevalo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Koh Assigned to "Nitsch" Class Suit

EMM GROUP: Faces "Abdul Aziz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FEDEX CORP: Class Action Settled; Jan. 12 Fairness Hearing Set
FEEDFIRST FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Sutton" Lawsuit Over Merger
FERRELLGAS LP: Michigan AG Files Class Action Over Propane Price
FIREEYE INC: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Follow-on Public Offering

FTD COS: "Trilegiant" Suit Plaintiffs Seek Entry of Final Order
GNC HOLDINGS: Settles Diet Supplement Class Action for $2 Million
HENKEL CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Packing
HERRINGTON CATALOG: Sued for Falsely Advertising "Bamboo" Textile
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: CalPERS Raises Concerns Over Settlement

HOME DEPOT: Faces "Stern" Suit in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Credit Unions File Suit Over Data Breach
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Appeals Court Remands Stock Suit to Tex. Court
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Must Pay $73MM Damages in Steering Defect Suit
INSTALLED BUILDING: Settles Two Labor Litigations for $1.407MM

ISIS PARENTING: Former Employees File Class Action Over Layoff
LAKERIDGE HEALTH: Settles TB Class Action for C$1.7 Million
LINKEDIN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Use of Member Photos
MAJOR LEAGUE: Unpaid All-Star Volunteers File Class Action
MEGA LINE: "Isakov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plaintiffs in TCA Suit Appeal Summary Ruling
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Owens" Lawsuit Over TCA in Georgia Court
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Face Sun Life Indemnity Claim
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Nov. Hearing on "Fauley" Suit Settlement
MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

MORGAN STANLEY: Denied Appeal of Certification in "Ge Dandong"
MT GOX: Bitcoin Class Action Gets Partial Certification
NECESSARY CLOTHING: Faces "Bucknor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NEW A&J PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
NEW YORK: Class Action Obtains Preliminary Court Approval

NEW YORK: Eric Holder Supports Class Suit Over Legal Aid for Poor
NUCOR CORP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Antitrust Cases
NUCOR CORP: Appeals Damage Award in Texas Antitrust Litigation
NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Crew
PENNSYLVANIA: Monroe County Residents Mull Suit v. State Police

PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Supreme Court to Review Cigarette Verdict
PREMIER ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Suits in N.J Over Tainted Medication
PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Faces Class Action Over FDCPA Violation
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Dai-ichi Merger
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Suit Alleging Product Liability Claims

RADIOSHACK CORP: 7th Circuit Reverses Settlement Approval
RAINBOW RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
SCOTT COUNTY, MS: Sued for Excessive Pre-Indictment Detention
SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Stock Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Adderall Marketing Suit for $56.5MM

SPA CASTLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
TAKATA CORP: Defective Airbag Recalls May Include GM Vehicles
TD AMERITRADE: Faces "Verdieck" Suit in Nebraska District Court
TOYOTA MOTOR: Translator Objects to Sanctions in Acceleration Suit
TWITTER INC: Seeks Dismissal of Text-Message Class Action

U.S. MESSENGER: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over IRS Annual Fees
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Pope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
WALGREEN CO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kiefer" Suit Claims
WALGREEN CO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages and Damages

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Says Plaintiffs No Standing to Object to Accord
YAHOO INC: Settles Localworks False Advertising Class Action
ZIPREALTY INC: Ariz. Court Approves $1.7M Labor Suit Settlement
ZIPREALTY INC: Settles "Adewunmi" Labor Claims in Calif. Court
ZIPREALTY INC: Plaintiff in Suit Over Realogy Merger Drops Claims

ZIPREALTY INC: Seeks Approval of Fundamental Partners Suit Accord
ZIPREALTY INC: Del. Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of "Trezoik"


                            *********


305 UNION ST: "Alonso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Alonso, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 305 Union St. Station, Inc., d/b/a Kittery Of Brooklyn, and/or
and any other business entity doing business as Kittery Of
Brooklyn, located at 305 Smith Street, Brooklyn, New York, and
Joshua Moul Ton, and James Geritano, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-05543 (E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

305 Union St. Station, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant known
as Kittery located at 305 Smith Street, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AD TELAMERICA: "Dinsdale" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Justin Dinsdale v. Ad Telamerica,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00038, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).  The
Northern Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
03427-B to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar Weaver Rosales, Esq.
          THE ROSALES LAW FIRM LLC
          402 South F Street
          Harlingen, TX 78550
          Telephone: (956) 423-1417
          Facsimile: (956) 444-0217
          E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nona Bowles Walker, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH WALKER
          8150 N Central Expressway, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 295-7776
          Facsimile: (214) 432-0132
          E-mail: nwalker@hwattorneys.com

               - and -

          Antonio Tony Martinez, Esq.
          1206 E Van Buren St.
          Brownsville, TX 78520
          Telephone: (956) 546-7159
          E-mail: ivonne@mbymlaw.com


AMERI-FORCE CRAFT: Faces "Howell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Howell, individually and as class representative, on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Ameri-Force Craft Services,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01155 (M.D. Fla., September 22, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ameri-Force Craft Services, Inc. is an employment staffing and
work force specialist.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonard S. Magid, Esq.
      Philip Daniel Williams, Esq.
      MAGID & WILLIAMS, PA
      Suite 115, 3100 University Blvd S
      Jacksonville, FL 32216
      Telephone: (904) 725-6161
      Facsimile: (904) 725-3410
      E-mail: len@magidwilliams.com
              court@magidwilliams.com


APEX SHIPPING: Faces "Zhang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Song Zhang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Apex Shipping Co., (NYC), Inc., Apex
Maritime Co., Inc., d/b/a Apex Shipping Co. Inc., Wei Sun, Vic
Cheung, John Doe Corporations 1-20, and John and Jane Does 1-10,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05530 (E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

Apex Shipping Co. provides freight forwarding services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON, & ASSOC., LTD.
      110 State Highway, 35, 2nd Fl.
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Facsimile: 718-799-9171
      Telephone: 718-799-9111
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


BEIERSDORF INC: Falsely Marketed Nivea Products, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Franz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Beiersdorf, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
Beiersdorf North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:14-cv-02241 (S.D. Cal., September 22, 2014), arises from the
Defendants false and misleading representations of its' Nivea Skin
Firming Hydration Body Lotion with CoQ10 Plus formulated with Co-
Enzyme Q10 Complex, Hydra-IQ and glycerin, that its improves skin
firmness within 2 weeks.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, market and sell Nivea skin
care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
              psyverson@bffb.com
              lgomez-gray@bffb.com

          - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, California 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-7748
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

         - and -

      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
      53 W. Jackson Suite 364
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 588-5033
      E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


BERRY PETROLEUM: To Start Distributing Funds in Royalty Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of settlement funds in a statewide royalty class
action against Berry Petroleum Company, LLC is to begin late in
the third quarter or early fourth quarter of 2014, according to
the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

Berry Petroleum Company, LLC is a defendant in a certain statewide
royalty class action case in which the parties have entered into a
settlement agreement to settle past claims for approximately $2.4
million. Subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the
court, the Company anticipates distribution of settlement funds
to begin late in the third quarter or early fourth quarter of
2014.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Fla. Grants Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted in part and denied in part a motion by Catalyst
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. to dismiss an amended securities
complaint, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2013 and November 2013, three securities class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the
Court). These complaints, which were substantially identical,
purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities
laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the Company's
common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of
the cases were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and the
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the third case on
January 3, 2014. However, the Court granted leave to the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 20 days.
On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the Company and one of its executive officers seeking
unspecified damages. The amended complaint purports to state a
claim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the development of
Firdapse(TM) on behalf of a class of those who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock between August 27, 2013 and October 18,
2013. In February 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part by
the Court.


CHELSEA EXPRESS: Faces "Isakov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nisimkhay Isakov individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Chelsea Express Transportation Inc., Daniel
Khodzhandiyez, and John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05531
(E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an ambulette company based in Queens, New
York, for the purpose of transporting people to and from medical
appointments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Securities Claims Dismissed Under Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York entered an order granting dismissal of securities claims
against China Automotive Systems, Inc. as part of a settlement
agreement, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On October 25, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 25, 2010 and March 17, 2011. On February 24, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, changing the purported
class period to between May 12, 2009 and March 17, 2011. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company, certain of its present
officers and directors, and the Company's former independent
accounting firm violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the rules promulgated
thereunder, and sought unspecified damages. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on
August 8, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the Company filed an answer
to the amended complaint. On January 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify the purported class, which the court denied on
May 31, 2013. On July 17, 2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for
permission to appeal the order denying class certification, and,
on August 1, 2013, the Company filed an answer in opposition to
the petition. On October 23, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for permission to
appeal. On December 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement with the Company's former
independent accounting firm and certification of a proposed
settlement class, which the district court denied on January 15,
2014. On March 28, 2014, the Company and plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, on April 29,
2014, the Company and plaintiffs filed a stipulation dismissing
all claims by plaintiffs against the Company and its current and
former officers and directors, with no admission of any wrongdoing
or liability. On April 29, 2014, the court entered an order
granting the dismissal.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Turner, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02612
(D. Colo., September 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. owns and operates a chain of non-
franchised Mexican style restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CO-EXPRISE INC: Pa. Superior Court Tosses Gas Lease Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that the Pennsylvania
Superior Court agreed on Sept. 23 to nix a putative class action
accusing a company working as a middleman between landowners and
drilling companies of violating securities laws by offering
investment advice regarding lease deals without properly
registering with the state.

In a published opinion, a three-judge panel dismissed class claims
against defendant Co-eXprise Inc. after ruling that gas leases the
company worked to negotiate with a Chesapeake Energy Corp. unit on
behalf of landowners did not qualify as securities as contemplated
under the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972.

The court ruled that the leases could not qualify as securities
because they were signed for the direct acquisition of subsurface
rights by Chesapeake and not for the purposes of speculation by
the company.

"The agreement with Chesapeake does not split up the interest in
the leasehold for speculative purposes or to finance the
development of wells, but simple contracts for a direct purchase
of an oil lease, with the purchase guaranteed by oil production,"
the court ruled in an opinion penned by Judge David Wecht.  "We
believe this approach is consistent with our own case law, which
emphasizes that a royalty interest in an oil lease, as the subject
matter of sale, has been held not to be a security within the
definition of the act."

An Allegheny County trial judge had granted preliminary objections
in favor of Co-eXprise in May 2013 and dismissed the plaintiffs
claims, an action the plaintiffs promptly appealed, according to
court records.

The Securities Act violations were just one in a slew of claims
leveled against Co-eXprise by three landowners who said they were
subjected to unclear contract terms and other violations when they
entered into a contract allowing the company to solicit bids on
their behalf from oil and gas companies hoping to lease their
properties.

According to the opinion, Co-eXprise solicited landowners to pool
their interests by joining a so-called CX MarketPlace that would
allow the company to seek competitive bids with oil and gas
exploration companies for drilling rights.  Under the terms of
their contracts with Co-eXprise, landowners would be obligated to
execute lease deals with the highest bidder if the bid contained
terms that met or exceeded a predetermined threshold amount for
bonus and royalty payments.

In exchange, Co-eXprise would receive 5 percent of a landowner's
up-front bonus consideration, to be paid as soon as a lease
agreement was struck.

The plaintiffs -- Nancy and Daniel Lenau, and Kathleen Trieschock
-- argued in their complaint, however, that Co-eXprise's contract
had not made it clear how the company would receive its
transaction fee.

While they argued that it was incumbent on the exploration
companies to pay the fee to Co-eXprise, the Superior Court found
that the contract ultimately placed the onus on landowners if
their lease agreements failed to include language affirmatively
requiring the driller to transmit the payment.

"This court's consideration of contracts must seek to give full
effect to an entire document, if possible, and not only those
portions supporting a specific conclusion," the opinion said.

In addition, the Superior Court dispatched arguments that
Co-eXprise had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by
working on behalf of landowners in a field that required a
specialized understanding of legal principles related to property
rights, liens, easements and certain environmental issues.

The court, however, said that the fact that the company relied on
documents and opinions prepared by lawyers did not mean that it
had violated the state's rules against the unauthorized practice
of law.

"The mere fact that a company utilizes documents prepared by
lawyers and relies upon the opinion of lawyers in conducting its
business does not ipso facto indicate that a company is practicing
law," the court said.  "Co-eXprise's actions were limited solely
to the subject matter of securing leases for natural gas
exploitation on appellants' respective properties.  Appellants
have not alleged that Co-eXprise held itself out as a legal actor
in any way beyond Co-eXprise's immediate business interests."

The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Bricmont and David
McGowan of Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy LLC.

Co-eXprise is represented by John Gisleson --
jgisleson@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP; and
Monica Platt -- mplatt@schnader.com -- of Schnader Harrison Segal
& Lewis LLP.

The case is Nancy Lenau et al. v. Co-eXprise Inc., case number 780
WDA 2013, in the Pennsylvania Superior Court.


COCA-COLA CO: "Rankin" Suit Moved From Arkansas to California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rankin v. Coca Cola Company, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00516, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).
The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
04274-JSW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          James M. Simpson, Jr., Esq.
          Martin A. Kasten, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011
          Facsimile: (501) 376-2147
          E-mail: simpson@fec.net
                  mkasten@fec.net


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued Over Misleading Snack Products Packaging
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Stoltz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Conagra Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05546 (E.D.N.Y., September
22, 2014), arises from the Defendant's misleading packaging of its
Slim Jims snack products.

Conagra Foods, Inc. manufactures, advertises, markets and sells
Slim Jim Products and other food products to tens of thousands of
consumers nationwide, including in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Opposes Bid for Relief From Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. has opposed an ex parte application in a
securities suit filed by Jimmy Elias Karam in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, according to the
company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010 against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during
the putative class period, causing the Company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices at the time when plaintiffs
purchased their stock. The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs.
Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section 20(a)
of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief. On
October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The Totten
complaint was substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs petitioned the Court to appoint them to
be the lead plaintiffs. On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the
Wyoming Retirement System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en
Technieklead as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as counsel for lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.
Lead plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint.

On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On February 29, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in U.S. District Court,
and, on March 30, 2012 the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss. On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District
Court granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion
to dismiss, with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed that
dismissal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In late July 2014, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte application
with the District Court asking it to indicate its willingness to
entertain a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the final
District Court judgment upon remand from the Court of Appeals.
The Company has opposed the defendants' ex parte application and
will continue to defend itself and its current and former officers
vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Amended Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A First Amended Securities Complaint was filed in a suit by Frank
Erickson pending in the Central District of California against
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 13,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On June 20, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned
Frank Erickson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from August 23, 2011
through June 10, 2013, against the Company and Jack Massimino,
Robert Owen and Kenneth Ord, all of whom are officers of the
Company. The complaint alleges that, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the SEC, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during
the putative class period, causing the Company's common stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices at the time when plaintiff
purchased his stock. The plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. In
October 2013, the court granted the Company's and the individual
defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Central District of
California. In December 2013, the plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint in the Central District of California.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Student Litigation in Individual Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. have now filed individual arbitration demands with
the American Arbitration Association, according to Corinthian's
Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22, 2011,
a California state court judge refused to confirm the arbitrator's
clause construction decision and remanded the matter to the
arbitrator for further consideration. The Company appealed the
state court order, and, in October 2013, the California Court of
Appeal vacated the trial court's order and remanded the matter to
the trial court with orders to enter judgment confirming the
arbitration award. The plaintiffs sought review of the California
Court of Appeal's decision by the California Supreme Court, but
that petition for review was denied.  Plaintiffs have now filed
individual arbitration demands with the American Arbitration
Association.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Cert. Bid Filed in "Harrington" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Harrington has moved for certification of a class of
current and former admissions representatives who are or were
employed at the California campuses owned by Corinthian Colleges,
Inc.'s Corinthian Schools, Inc. and Sequoia Education Inc.
subsidiaries, according to Corinthian Colleges's Aug. 13, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court. A virtually identical action with the same
caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on September
15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court. The
plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the Company's
Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege violations
of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and
the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for all hours
worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged failure to
pay wages upon termination. The Alameda complaint has since been
voluntarily dismissed. Another putative class action by an
admissions representative employed at our Anaheim campus was filed
in December 2013, alleging unpaid wages, unpaid meal and rest
breaks, unpaid overtime and double time, and payroll reporting
violations. The plaintiff in the Harrington matter has moved for
certification of a class of current and former admissions
representatives who are or were employed at the Company's
California campuses owned by its Corinthian Schools, Inc. and
Sequoia Education Inc. subsidiaries from September 15, 2007 to the
present.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces Suit by Former Instructor at Freeport
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court by David Ratto, a former instructor at the
Company's Fremont campus, according to the company's Aug. 13,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2013, an action captioned David Ratto, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Schools,
Inc., et al., was filed in California's Alameda Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former instructor at the Company's Fremont
campus. The action alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Section, Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders for alleged failure to pay straight time,
minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours worked, failure to
provide all meal periods, failure to authorize and permit all paid
rest periods, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, violation of Labor Code Section 203, incurrence of
penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq., and
unfair business practices. While the scope of the putative class
is not clear, the matter appears to seek certification of a class
of current and former instructors who have worked at the Company's
California campuses over the relevant statute of limitations
period.


D CEFALU MANAGEMENT: "Arevalo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arevalo, and other similarly situated individuals v. D
Cefalu Management, Inc. d/b/a Stromboli Pizza and Joann Difiore,
Case No. 0:14-cv-62173 (S.D. Fla., September 22, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation.

D Cefalu Management, Inc. owns and operates Stromboli Pizza
restaurant in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Koh Assigned to "Nitsch" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
new federal judge will take on a high-profile class action lawsuit
against DreamWorks, Disney and other animation studios, after the
plaintiff asked for the case to be reassigned.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will preside over Nitsch v.
DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. et al., according to an order filed
on September 23, 2014.

Plaintiff Robert Nitsch requested in mid-September for Koh to take
over the case because the judge is already overseeing a similar
2010 lawsuit.

Nitsch accused DreamWorks and other big name studios of fixing
wages and restricting career opportunities for artists.


EMM GROUP: Faces "Abdul Aziz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Abdul Aziz, MD Samsul Islam and Monsur Ahmed, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of other similary-situated individuals
v. Emm Group Holdings LLC, Emm Group Management LLC, Sutol
Operating Company LLC, Mark Birnbaum and Eugene Remm, Case No.
1:14-cv-07664 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operates a restaurant located at 409 West
14th Street in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
      Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


FEDEX CORP: Class Action Settled; Jan. 12 Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that FedEx has agreed to settle a class
action lawsuit for $2.1 million after class members claimed it
failed to provide California employees with meal break and rest
periods.

The settlement agreement provides for $2.1 million as the gross
settlement amount, according to a settlement document filed Aug.
11 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

At least 70 percent of the net settlement amount will be paid to
the class members. The remainder, if any, of the net settlement
amount will be paid to a cy pres beneficiary.

"There is also a non-monetary component to this settlement," the
document states. "Defendant as part of the settlement has agreed
to clarify its meal and rest period policies, which adds a
significant value to this settlement . . . "

The net settlement amount is the balance of the gross settlement
amount after up to $700,000 for attorneys fees; up to $40,000 for
attorney expenses and costs; up to $7,500 for the enhancement
award to the representative plaintiff; the employer's payroll
taxes on the settlement shares; and the first $50,000 and any
amount over $65,000 for administration of the settlement.

The class is defined as all persons employed by the defendant in
California in the non-exempt position of package handler at any
time during the period of time from Sept. 24, 2009 to Sept. 1. The
class is estimated to have 15,790 members.

The net settlement amount will be paid out to all class members
who timely submit a valid claim form.

"If the class members do not collectively claim at least seventy
percent (70%) of the total net settlement amount, then they shall
have their shares of the net settlement amount increased in
relative proportion to the ratio used to initially calculate the
class members' respective claim amounts, until at least 70% of the
net settlement amount is paid."

In the event the class members' claims exceed 70 percent of the
net settlement amount, then the actual amount claimed will be paid
to the class members. No money shall revert to the defendant from
the settlement.

Each class member's claim amount shall be determined by a point
system, whereby each class member is awarded one point for each
workday of active employment worked during the class period, with
an additional one point for each workday a class member worked
more than one shift during the workday, and an additional 10
points awarded to each terminated employee.

Each class member's points will then be divided by the total
number of points for all class members, and the resulting fraction
then multiplied by the net settlement amount, according to the
settlement document.

On Sept. 24, 2013, Aaron Rangel filed his class action complaint
in the Superior Court of the State of California-Orange County.

On Oct. 30, the plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. On
Oct. 31, FedEx filed a petition for removal and related pleadings.

The plaintiff's lawsuit is a class action brought by a former
employee of FedEx Ground Package System Inc. for claims including
the failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay vacation wages, failure to pay regular wages,
failure to pay reporting time, failure to timely pay all wages
owed at the time of termination of employment, record keeping
violations and unfair business practices.

On Sept. 4, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter filed an order
granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Mr. Rangel is represented by Peter M. Hart and Travis Hodgkins of
the Law Offices of Peter M. Hart and Kenneth H. Yoon of the Law
Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon.

FedEx is represented by Ernest W. Klatte III --
ewklatte@kbylaw.com -- Summer Young-Agriesti -- syoung@kbylaw.com
-- and Selwyn Chu -- schu@kbylaw.com -- of Klatt, Budensiek &
Young-Agriesti LLP.

A final approval and fairness hearing is scheduled for Jan. 12.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number: 8:13-cv-01718


FEEDFIRST FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Sutton" Lawsuit Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit Sutton v. FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., Case No.
24C14002331 continues in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City,
Maryland, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland,
against the Company, each of FedFirst Financial's directors, and
CB Financial. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
FedFirst Financial directors breached their fiduciary duties to
FedFirst Financial and its stockholders by agreeing to sell to CB
Financial without first taking steps to ensure that FedFirst
Financial stockholders would obtain adequate, fair and maximum
consideration under the circumstances, by agreeing to terms with
CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or CB Financial without
regard for the FedFirst Financial stockholders and by agreeing to
terms with CB Financial that discourages other bidders. The
plaintiff also alleges that CB Financial aided and abetted the
FedFirst Financial directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order declaring the Merger
Agreement unenforceable and rescinding and invalidating the Merger
Agreement, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the
merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other
damages. On June 20, 2014, the Company and the individual
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29,
2014 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional
claim that the Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with
the merger contains material misstatements and omissions. The
Company now has until August 13, 2014 to amend its Motion to
Dismiss to address the additional claims.  A hearing date has not
been set.


FERRELLGAS LP: Michigan AG Files Class Action Over Propane Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
WKZO reports that Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is going
after AmeriGas for alleged price gouging of propane customers over
the past winter.  His office filed a class action lawsuit in
Berrien County Circuit Court in Saint Joseph against AmeriGas on
Sept. 22, and also announced a settlement with Ferrellgas.  Its
customers will share more than 100-thousand dollars due to being
overcharged for propane.


FIREEYE INC: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Follow-on Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. continues to face a shareholder lawsuit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, according to
the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
against the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, our
Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of our March 2014
follow-on public offering.  On July 17, 2014, a substantially
similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants. The complaints allege violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus for the follow-on public
offering, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.


FTD COS: "Trilegiant" Suit Plaintiffs Seek Entry of Final Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. filed a
motion seeking entry of partial final judgment on dismissal orders
made by the court on March 28, 2014, according to FTD Companies,
Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii)
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank
fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant,
Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust
enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., PeopleFinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the
Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and
(6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants on December 7, 2012. Those motions were
argued before the district court on September 25, 2013, and taken
under submission.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide,
LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com,
Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing
Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire
fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded. On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate
the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
action. In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause
as to why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded
named plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the
order to show cause on February 15, 2013. On March 28, 2014, the
court granted the motion to consolidate the Frank Class Action
with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action, with the
latter designated as the lead case.

On March 28, 2014, the court issued an order in the In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action dismissing for lack of Article
III standing plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc.,
Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD
Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. The court ruled
that because none of the named plaintiffs alleged they used
services from or were otherwise injured by any of those
defendants, the claims against them are dismissed. The court's
dismissal was without prejudice. The deadline for plaintiffs to
file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order expired on
April 11, 2014, without any such motion being filed. On April 28,
2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking entry of partial final
judgment on, and certification for interlocutory appeal of, the
court's March 28, 2014 orders dismissing the RICO claims and RICO
conspiracy claims, the claims against the Credit Card Company
Defendants, the nationwide CUPTA class action allegations, and the
claims of plaintiffs Reilly, Restrepo, Brian Schnabel and Warfel
based on their participation in a previous class action
settlement. The plaintiffs' motion did not seek entry of a partial
final judgment on, nor certification for interlocutory review of,
the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc.,
Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD
Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. for lack of
Article III standing.


GNC HOLDINGS: Settles Diet Supplement Class Action for $2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado and Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, report that
GNC Holdings Inc. and manufacturer USPlabs LLC agreed on Sept. 22
to pay $2 million to settle a class suit in Florida over the sale
of since-recalled diet supplements that have been linked to liver
damage.

In a motion filed in the Northern District of Florida, the
plaintiffs asked the court to sign off on the deal, which will
provide reimbursements for consumers who bought USPlabs' OxyElite
Pro and Jack3d lines of products.

The lawsuit claims that GNC sold the supplements, which contain
dimethylamylamine, better known as DMAA, and aegeline, despite
widespread reports that the products cause severe liver damage.

"Plaintiffs' counsel has concluded that a settlement with
defendants on the terms set forth herein is fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the settlement class in
light of all known facts and circumstances," the plaintiffs said
in the motion.

The settlement class includes anyone who bought the USPlabs
products between Aug. 17, 2012, and the date of final approval,
according to the motion.  Eligible class members will receive $35
per container of OxyELITE Pro purchased, $20 per container of
Jack3d and $20 per container of VERSA-1.

There is no limit to the reimbursements for class members who
submit claims with receipts, while those submitting claims without
receipts will be eligible to receive up to $150.

The suit is one of nine similar false advertising and personal
injury class actions in six different federal courts that USPlabs
tried to centralize. The manufacturer's motion was denied last
April by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
which found that centralization is not the most convenient way to
conduct the litigation.

Dallas-based USPlabs had argued for centralization because all of
the actions allege that the products rely on the same series of
U.S. Food and Drug Administration actions to support their claims,
but the panel rejected this argument, finding that the different
products will not require the same discovery, according to the
order.

The JPML also rejected USPlabs' attempt to establish three
separate MDLs to compensate for the differences in the actions.
The supplement manufacturer had suggested one MDL for the personal
injury actions concerning products formulated with DMAA, one for
the personal injury actions concerning products with aegeline, and
a separate MDL for the false advertising actions.

Instead, the panel said coordination among the parties and judges
involved is preferable to centralization.  Many of the actions
involving injury from aegeline are already being coordinated in
Hawaii federal court, and two groups of plaintiffs' counsel
already are coordinating most of the personal injury actions,
according to the order.

The OxyElite Pro line was voluntarily recalled in November
following a warning letter to the company from the FDA.

The plaintiffs are represented by Aashish Yadvendra Desai of the
Desai Law Firm PC and by Philip T. Howard of Howard & Associates
PA.

USPlabs and GNC are represented by Angel A. Garganta --
aagarganta@Venable.com -- and Guido E. Toscano --
getoscano@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP and by Robert W. Pass --
rpass@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt LLP.

The case is Velasquez et al. v. USPLabs LLC et al., case number
4:13-cv-00627, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida.


HENKEL CORPORATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Packing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Stoltz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Henkel Corporation and Dial Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05547
(E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), arises from the Defendants'
misleading product packaging of Right Guard, Total Defense and
Right Guard Xtreme Fresh anti-perspirants and deodorants.

Henkel Corporation and Dial Corporation manufacture, market, sell
and distribute various consumer products under well-known
household brand names such as Right Guard.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERRINGTON CATALOG: Sued for Falsely Advertising "Bamboo" Textile
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avivah Kupfer, 3562 Bendemeer Road, Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118
v. Herrington Catalog, 3 Symmes Dr., Londonderry, NH 03053-2131,
Case No. CV-14-833143 (Ohio Common Pleas Ct., Cuyahoga Cty.,
September 22, 2014) seeks to remedy the alleged ongoing unfair and
deceptive business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
advertising, marketing and sales of textile products not directly
woven from bamboo fibers . . . yet described by Herrington as
"Bamboo."

Herrington Catalog is an American retailing partnership, resident
of and headquartered in New Hampshire.  Herrington's business is
exclusively consumer oriented, selling high-end to luxury goods
ranging from sporting goods to apparel and bedding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          Daniel Nealon, Esq.
          3637 South Green Road, 2nd Floor
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 292-8884
          E-mail: mfine@ohioconsumerlawyer.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: CalPERS Raises Concerns Over Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the
nation's largest public pension fund is the latest to voice
concerns with a settlement that would extinguish shareholder
derivative litigation over Hewlett-Packard Co.'s botched 2011
acquisition of British software firm Autonomy.

In a Sept. 23 letter to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the
Northern District of California, the California Public Employees'
Retirement System complained that the proposed deal leaves
"shareholders in the dark" as to how much will be paid to
plaintiffs' lawyers with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd.

"It appears that if the court were to grant preliminary approval
of the agreement in its present form, HP shareholders would have
no way to assess this critical provision," CalPERS General Counsel
Matthew Jacobs wrote.

The fund owns about 7.6 million shares of HP stock, which is worth
an estimated $266 million, according to the letter.  Lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, Mark Molumphy -- mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com -- of
Cotchett, said on Sept. 24 that there's no danger shareholders
will miss the opportunity to weigh in on the attorney fee award.
The sides have completed arbitration over the fee award, and are
waiting for a decision from retired U.S. District Chief Judge
Vaughn Walker.

"It will be immediately provided to the judge as part of the
approval process," Mr. Molumphy said.

HP is represented by Marc Wolinsky -- MWolinsky@wlrk.com -- of
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Last month Judge Breyer shot down portions of a settlement deal,
which provided for plaintiffs lawyers to help HP go after former
Autonomy executives.  The arrangement would have netted Cotchett
and Robbins Geller $18 million plus up to $30 million in
contingency fees.  It had been vehemently opposed by John Keker --
jkeker@kvn.com -- of Keker & Van Nest, who represents former
Autonomy executive Sushovan Hussain, a likely target.

On Sept. 19, the parties will be back before Judge Breyer arguing
over a revised settlement that requires HP to institute governance
reforms.   A spokeswoman for HP said the company is hopeful that
the arbitration ruling can be presented to Judge Breyer before the
preliminary approval hearing.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Stern" Suit in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Stern and Gary Lowenthal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Home Depot
Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-03043 (N.D.
Ga., September 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to disclose to its customers the material facts that it
did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to
safeguard customers' financial account and personal data.

The Home Depot Incorporated describes itself as the world's
largest home improvement specialty retailer, with more than 2,200
retail stores in the United States (including Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands), Canada and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Evangelista, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
      Darren W. Penn, Esq.
      HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
      400 Colony Square, Suite 900
      1201 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Telephone: (404) 961-7650
      Facsimile: (404) 961-7651

         - and -

      Howard Longman, Esq.
      Jason D'Agnenica, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022

         - and -

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      210 Summit Avenue
      Montvale, NJ 07645
      Telephone: (201) 391-7000
      Facsimile: (201) 307-1086


HOME DEPOT: Credit Unions File Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that two
credit unions have sued Home Depot, claiming that they and other
financial institutions have sustained millions of dollars in
damages as a result of the Atlanta-based home improvement chain's
massive payment security breach.

Both suits, filed in federal court in Atlanta, claim that personal
payment information of an estimated 56 million customers was
accessible to computer hackers for at least five months before
Home Depot belatedly became aware of the breach earlier this
month.

The credit unions -- Southern Chautauqua Federal Credit Union in
New York and First Choice Federal Credit Union in Pennsylvania --
are seeking to have the suits elevated to a class action.

Southern Chautauqua claims that a private data security firm hired
by Home Depot notified company executives in July that its malware
detection systems were out of date and its customers' personal and
financial data were vulnerable to hackers.  But instead of
upgrading its anti-virus software, Home Depot continued to use
software that was seven years out of date, the suit contends.

The Chautauqua suit also claims that Home Depot was notified that
customer personal and financial data had been acquired by hackers
and posted for sale on an Internet black market website a week
before it publicly acknowledged the breach had occurred and began
notifying millions of customers that their financial information
had been compromised.

Partnering with lawyers from outside of Georgia, Atlanta attorney
W. Pitts Carr represents Southern Chautauqua; Georgia firm Gillen,
Withers & Lake represents First Choice.

"There seems to be a consensus that tens of millions of cards are
impacted," said Mr. Carr, who has teamed up with Washington firm
Hausfeld LLP and Arthur N. Bailey & Associates in Jamestown, N.Y.
"The major issue is who will be responsible for the enormous cost
associated with cybercrimes -- the retailers where the problem
manifests itself or the banks that have no control over what goes
on at the retailer [level]."

Gary Lynch, a partner at Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kipela in
Pittsburgh, who is representing First Choice, said that in light
of similar hacker attacks on other retailers, including the Target
chain, "It is simply unacceptable that Home Depot allowed this to
happen.  And if it's true that they didn't detect the hack for
four months, that's even worse."

Mr. Lynch, who has teamed up with the Gillen firm and Minnesota
firm Lockridge Grindal Nauen, is also representing seven banks and
credit unions in federal litigation in Minnesota against Target
over last year's Christmas data breach.  That data breach involved
malware that was the same or similar to the malware used in the
Home Depot cyberattack.

Home Depot spokesman Stephen Holmes declined on Sept. 23 to
comment on the Georgia suits.  "Our focus right now is on our
customers and our investigation," he said in an email to the Daily
Report.

In a statement released Sept. 18, the retail home improvement
chain said the malware associated with the data breach had been
eliminated from Home Depot's U.S. and Canadian networks.  It also
said the company had completed a "major security project" that
enhanced the encryption of payment data at the point of sale in
Home Depot's U.S. stores.

Home Depot also confirmed that banks and law enforcement agents
first notified the company on Sept. 2 that its customers' payment
data had been compromised.  Home Depot said its data systems had
been hacked since April and that the cyber-attack had put
information gleaned from an estimated 56 million payment cards at
risk.  The company insisted that no debit PIN numbers had been
compromised.

Home Depot is offering free identity protection services,
including credit monitoring, to any customer who, beginning in
April, used a payment card at a Home Depot store.

The two Atlanta suits claim that Home Depot's data breach exposed
customers' names, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates,
verification numbers and the states and ZIP codes associated with
every card transaction in more than 2,000 stores.

Credit union attorneys say the breach has cost financial
institutions across the country hundreds of millions of dollars.
The suits seek at least $5 million apiece in what Lynch said was a
damages "floor."

Those costs include reissuing debit and credit cards, closing and
reopening bank accounts, refunding any fraudulent charges made as
a result of the data breach, stopping or blocking payments,
notifying customers of the breach, and increasing fraud monitoring
efforts.  The suits also claim that the financial institutions
will face a dropoff in revenues if customers stung by the breach
or fearful that their personal and financial data might be at risk
reduce their usage of debit or credit cards.

The New Choice suit claims that accounts compromised by the data
break could result in $2 billion to $3 billion in fraudulent
charges.  The suits claim that for at least five months, hackers
used malware to access and raid Home Depot's electronic checkout
systems.  Home Depot was alerted in July when an outside data
security firm it had retained to do a "health check" revealed that
the chain was using out-of-date malware detection systems.  "Three
former Home Depot information securities managers have stated that
Home Depot was also using out of date antivirus software for its
point-of-sale systems," the Chautauqua suit alleges.

Although an updated version of the software was available,
Home Depot executives elected to continue relying on seven-year-
old software that was being phased out "despite security staffers'
pleas," the suit claims.

In addition, both suits claim that Home Depot's security systems
used weak passwords and failed to employ lockout security
procedures that enabled the hackers to gain access to the chain's
corporate IT network.

Once inside, the hackers employed sophisticated malware known as a
"RAM scraper" that sucks up card numbers at checkout terminals in
the few milliseconds between the time the numbers are registered
and when they are encrypted, according to the suits.  The
cyberattack employed the same technique used in other major retail
data breaches, Target foremost among them, the suits said.

According to the two suits, Home Depot never detected the malware
infecting its systems.  Instead, on Sept. 2 a security blogger
first identified Home Depot stores as the likely source of a large
batch of debit and credit card data that had been posted for sale
on the Internet black market.  A number of banks quickly followed
suit with evidence that Home Depot stores were the likely source
of the stolen data, the suits say.

But, according to one suit, Home Depot said only that it was
"looking into some unusual activity," but was not ready to confirm
that any data breach had occurred.  It did not confirm the breach
-- or how many customers it may have affected -- until six days
later.

The suits also claim that as early as 2009, Visa had issued a data
security alert describing the threat posed by malware such as the
"RAM scraper" and the points of vulnerability.

In addition, the financial institutions and credit card processing
networks have issued rules and standards -- known as the Payment
Card Industry Data Security Standards -- governing the measures
that cooperating merchants with which they contract must take in
order to insure that their customers' personal and financial data
is protected, the suits say.

Those standards "apply to all organizations and environments where
cardholder data is stored, processed or transmitted and require
merchants like Home Depot to protect cardholder data, ensure the
maintenance of vulnerability management programs, implement strong
access control measures, regularly monitor and test networks, and
ensure the maintenance of information security policies,"
according to the New Choice suit.

"As a result of its participation in the payment card processing
networks, Home Depot knew that, in each instance when it accepted
payment cards for a purchase at one of its stores, its customers
and the financial institutions which issued the payment cards to
the customers were trusting that Home Depot would keep its
customers' sensitive financial information secure from would-be
data thieves."


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Appeals Court Remands Stock Suit to Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the case
Steve Silverman v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No.
4:12-CV-1332 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas for further proceedings, according to the company's Aug.
13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman
v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.
The complaint generally alleges that, between March 29, 2010 and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well on the Company's CPO 4 prospect. Two additional
class action lawsuits were filed against the company in May 2012.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs. On September 20, 2012, the court
consolidated the class action lawsuits and appointed a lead
plaintiff and on November 15, 2012 the lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  On January 14, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss and, on August 22, 2013, the court granted the
motion and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently
filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of the complaint. On
July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruling
focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings in the case, made no
determination regarding the merits of the factual allegations, and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Must Pay $73MM Damages in Steering Defect Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, report that
Hyundai Motor Co. must pay $73 million in punitive damages to the
families of two Montana teenagers killed in 2011 crash blamed on a
steering defect, a judge said.

Lake County District Judge Deborah Kim Christopher rejected
Hyundai's bid to further reduce the original $240 million punitive
award, ruling that Montana's limits on such damages are
unconstitutional.  Judge Christopher also upheld the state court
jury's award of $8.1 million in actual damages to the families of
Trevor Olson and his cousin Tanner Olson, leaving a total judgment
of $81 million.

The families sued in 2011, alleging that Tanner Olson lost control
of a 2005 Hyundai Tiburon because a defective steering knuckle
broke.  The subsequent crash killed both boys.

Hyundai showed "an indifference to or reckless disregard of the
health and safety of the motoring public," Judge Christopher said
in her Sept. 19 order upholding the punitive damage award.  The
South Korean carmaker had 127 warranty reports on steering knuckle
problems, Judge Christopher said.

"The defendants had over a decade of notice of problems or defects
with their steering knuckles in their passenger vehicles -- which
problems or defects were contrary to their own material
specifications -- and apparently took no steps whatsoever to
investigate," she said.

Hyundai will appeal, Jim Trainor, a company spokesman, said in
e-mailed message.

"Hyundai believes the rulings are erroneous and constitute an
extreme outlier in the law on punitive damages," Mr. Trainor said.
"Nationally, both state and federal courts have consistently have
upheld the constitutionality of punitive damages caps."

Hyundai contended the accident was caused by fireworks exploding
in the car just before the crash.

The original $248 million jury award was the sixth largest in the
U.S. so far this year. It's also the largest ever against Hyundai,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

John Bohyer, plaintiffs' attorney, declined to comment on the
ruling.

The case is Olson v. Hyundai Motor Co., DV-11-204, District Court,
Lake County, Montana (Polson).


INSTALLED BUILDING: Settles Two Labor Litigations for $1.407MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Installed Building Products, Inc. settled two labor suits for a
total cost of approximately $1,407,000, according to the company's
Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

A class action lawsuit was filed in February, 2013 and an amended
complaint was filed in May, 2013 in the Superior Court of King
County, Washington, involving Installed Building Products II, LLC
alleging violations of Washington State wage and hour laws for
failure to pay prevailing and minimum wage and overtime wages. The
plaintiffs were former insulation installers for Installed
Building Products II, LLC, one of the company's subsidiaries, in
Washington who sought to represent all similarly situated workers.
They sought all unpaid wages, along with litigation costs and
fees.

A lawsuit was filed in July, 2013 in federal court in the Middle
District of Tennessee against one of the company's subsidiaries,
TCI d/b/a Installed Building Products of Nashville, alleging
unpaid overtime and failure to pay lawful wages under federal law,
Tennessee common law and in unjust enrichment and in breach of an
alleged contract. The named plaintiffs were former insulation
installers in Nashville. The plaintiffs sought to have this case
certified as a collective action under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and as a class action under Tennessee law. They
sought reimbursement of the overtime wages for all time worked
over forty hours each week, as well as liquidated damages and
litigation costs and fees.

Both lawsuits were settled in January 2014 and approved by the
court by April 2014 for a total cost of approximately $1,407,000.
Approximately $1,200,000 of this cost was recorded as an accrued
expense included in other current liabilities on the company's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2013. No
accrued expense remained as of June 30, 2014.


ISIS PARENTING: Former Employees File Class Action Over Layoff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writing for Boston Globe, reports that former
employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against Isis Parenting
Inc., the high-end maternity business that catered to new and
expectant mothers before it abruptly closed its doors in January.

The suit contends Isis and top managers violated federal law by
failing to alert employees that they would be laid off.  It also
claims instructors for Isis's childbirth and parenting classes
were not paid for their work setting up and tidying up after
classes.

Isis, which developed a devoted following at its four Boston-area
locations, offered in-person and online classes on parenting and
childbirth for nearly 10 years.  On Jan. 14, however, the company
announced on its Facebook page that it would be shutting down
immediately.  Classes were canceled, sparking anger and confusion
among customers.

"We believe that the defendants had ample knowledge of the
impending shutdown but still failed to give notice to the
employees," said Nick Rosenberg, who represents the plaintiffs.

The complaint was filed on Sept. 19 against Isis, former chief
financial officer Peter Delahunt, the company's largest investor,
Palladin Consumer Retail Partners LLC, and Palladin chief
executive Mark Schwartz.  It seeks 60 days of back pay and damages
to be determined by a jury.  None of the defendants could be
reached for comment.


LAKERIDGE HEALTH: Settles TB Class Action for C$1.7 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that hundreds of
Ontario residents who might have contracted tuberculosis from
undiagnosed, active-TB patients at a local hospital have won a
$1.7-million settlement in an unusual class-action lawsuit.

With hospital-acquired infections rampant across Canada, the case
raises thorny questions about a health-care institution's legal
responsibility for contagious patients -- and how to prove the
source of an airborne infection.  It is among a handful of class
actions launched in recent years over disease picked up in
hospitals, with none of the cases yet going to trial and producing
a ruling that could set legal precedent.

In the latest settlement, more than 400 people tested positive for
latent -- non-symptomatic -- tuberculosis a decade ago after
possibly encountering two patients at Oshawa-based Lakeridge
Health who had the active form of the illness.  The suit alleged
in part that the hospital and its doctors should have diagnosed
those patients earlier.  About one in 10 people in the general
population carry latent TB, however, and the plaintiffs never
proved they had contracted their illness from the hospital's two
patients.

"The settlement is an excellent result in a very difficult and
very risky class action," said Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul
Perell, who approved the payout in a decision this month.

But the lawyer who led the plaintiffs' case said Wednesday the
people who discovered they had TB -- and might have caught it in a
health-care centre -- were devastated.

"There's always the chance that latent TB can be activated into
active TB, which can be fatal," said Jonathan Ptak.

"The signs and symptoms of an active TB diagnosis are actually
quite similar to cold or serious flu. . . . So you can go through
your whole life wondering if you may have contracted active TB,
which may give you great fear for infecting your family members."

Active TB can cause chronic cough, fever, coughing up of blood and
ultimately death, if not treated with antibiotic courses that last
at least six months.  The hospital and its lawyer declined to
comment on details of the case.  The settlement contains no
admission of liability.

"We regret the situation that occurred 11 years ago and are
pleased that this matter has now been resolved for the people
involved," said Aaron Lazarus, a Lakeridge spokesman.

The C$1.7-million settlement includes just over C$500,000 in
contingency fees paid to the plaintiffs' lawyers, as well as other
costs, leaving C$715,000 for about 370 people who remained part of
the class.  The individual payments will range from a few thousand
dollars to more than C$27,000, according to Judge Perell's
decision.

Canada's health-care system has paid increasing attention in
recent years to infections acquired in hospital and other health-
care facilities, with some reports estimating that 200,000
patients catch a bug that way, 8,000 of them dying.  Proving the
causal relationship in a legal setting is less clear-cut, though.

A few other infection-related class actions have been launched
against hospitals, typically over contaminated medical instruments
or outbreaks of C. difficile.  Joseph Brant hospital in
Burlington, Ont., agreed to a $9-million settlement last year
after 223 patients contracted the diarrhea-causing bacteria, 91
dying.  Toronto's Sunnybrook Health Sciences agreed to a
C$1.2-million settlement in 2009 for 900 people who had come in
contact with prostate biopsy instruments that had not been
properly disinfected.  None contracted any disease as a result.

The Lakeridge case involved a still more uncertain cause and
effect connection. In two incidents separated by less than a year
in 2003 and 2004, the institution reported to public health
officials it had discovered patients were suffering from active
TB.  The public health office responded with a widespread
investigation, issuing press releases and eventually identifying
4,400 individuals who might have come in contact with the
carriers.

About 410 people -- many of whom had been attending Lakeridge for
cancer treatment -- tested positive for latent tuberculosis, which
rarely develops into the symptomatic form of the disease.  That
represented 11.5% of those tested.

About 10% of Canadians, and a third of the world's population,
have latent TB.

The lawsuit alleged partly that Lakeridge and two doctors working
there should have screened and diagnosed the active patients
sooner, and done more to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.  The
hospital and the doctors, however, denied that they had caused any
of the TB cases.  The only way to confirm that transmission from
one person to another is by comparing active strains of
tuberculosis.  That was impossible in the Lakeridge case, though,
since none of the plaintiffs had active disease, said Judge
Perell.

Had there not been a settlement and the case had gone to trial as
scheduled in February, "proving individual causation was going to
be an imposing task," he said.


LINKEDIN CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Use of Member Photos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for
LinkedIn Corp. have renewed their effort to knock out a lawsuit
claiming the company pestered users' contacts with spam-like
invitations to join the professional networking site.

The lawsuit, originally filed in September 2013, accused the
company of harvesting email addresses from users' contact lists
and using them to send repeated invitations to join a user's
LinkedIn network.  Plaintiffs claim that the invitations, which
include information and images users shared as part of their
LinkedIn profiles, appear as if they were sent by users themselves
rather than the company.

In a motion to dismiss, lawyers at Munger, Tolles & Olson defend
the company's use of members' names and photographs as incidental
and customary in online networking.  The lawyers also assert for
the first time that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both the
Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.

In June, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose refused to wipe
out the lawsuit after LinkedIn's first motion to dismiss.  She
found the repeated emails could harm users' reputations by making
them seem like "the types of people who spam their contacts or are
unable to take the hint that their contacts do not want to join
their LinkedIn network."

Judge Koh allowed the plaintiffs' common-law, right-of-publicity
claims to move forward along with a claim under California's
Unfair Competition Law.  Judge Koh, however, dismissed claims
brought under the Stored Communications Act and the Wiretap Act,
finding that the plaintiffs had given LinkedIn consent to access
their email contacts when signing up for the invitation service.

Since Judge Koh's decision in June, additional counsel at Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein have appeared on the docket for the
plaintiffs.  Alongside original counsel at Russ August & Kabat,
Lieff Cabraser's Michael Sobol filed a second amended complaint in
August.  The latest complaint adds a claim that LinkedIn violated
California's right-of-publicity statute by using the plaintiffs'
names and photographs in the invitations.  According to the
complaint, that claim carries statutory damages of $750 per
LinkedIn user.

LinkedIn's lawyers at Munger Tolles fired back on Sept. 18 with a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  In it, they argue
that the plaintiffs' new claim for statutory damages should be
tossed because the alleged injuries are based on economic harm,
not mental harm.  "The California Court of Appeal has held that
the statutory damages provision applies only to claims based on
mental harm," they write.

LinkedIn's lawyers also argue that the plaintiffs' claims run
afoul of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.
As an interactive computer service, they maintain, LinkedIn is
protected from claims stemming from content provided by users.

LinkedIn's lawyers argue that the invitations fall under the CDA
since users create the content ultimately used in them.  LinkedIn
further argues that its reminders are protected under the First
Amendment.  "Reminders promote the First Amendment rights of free
speech and association and, therefore, concern matters of public
interest," they write.  The Munger Tolles lawyers maintain that
even if the reminders are commercial speech, the use of member
names and likenesses in them amounts to an incidental use subject
to First Amendment protection.

Lieff Cabraser's Mr. Sobol and Larry Russ --
lruss@raklaw.com -- of Russ August didn't immediately respond to
calls for comment.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Unpaid All-Star Volunteers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that Major League
Baseball was hit on Sept. 22 in New York state court with a
putative class action alleging the league violated state wage laws
by failing to pay volunteers who staffed the fan festival
surrounding the 2013 all-star game.

John Chen, who volunteered to staff MLB's "All-Star FanFest" in
the summer of 2013, lodged putative class allegations that he and
others should have been paid for the tasks they performed during
the week-long set of events around the professional baseball
league's all-star game.  The 2013 all-star game took place in New
York City and, among other events, FanFest included a 5K running
race, concert and parade, the suit said.

Mr. Chen alleges he and other volunteers -- who were categorized
as hospitality volunteers, ticket takers and greeters, among other
roles -- effectively served as MLB employees during the week of
events, but instead of receiving wages, they were offered gifts
that did not cover the league's obligations to pay minimum wage.

"Instead of paying volunteers cash wages for their work, MLB, the
world's preeminent professional baseball league with annual
revenue of more than $7 billion, provided these volunteers with,
among other things, 'a shirt, a cap and a cinch drawstring
backpack'; free admission for the volunteer and one guest to
FanFest; a water bottle; a baseball; and a lanyard," the suit
said.

The suit goes on to allege that MLB could "have easily afforded"
to pay all the volunteers who staffed the all-star week events and
said that, by not doing so, the league violated the New York Labor
Law.

"MLB's failure to pay its volunteers any wages violated federal
and state minimum wage laws, which require employers to pay at
least the minimum wage for all work that they 'suffer or permit,'"
the suit said.  "By failing to pay [Chen] and thousands of others
for their productive work, MLB denied federal, state and local
governments significant tax revenue and denied the volunteers
important benefits of working, including workers' compensation
insurance, social security contributions, and, most importantly,
the ability to earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's work."

With the suit, Mr. Chen -- who said he worked about 17 hours
during the FanFest week without pay -- seeks to represent a
proposed class of all volunteers during both the 2013 FanFest and
the 2008 version of the event, which also took place in New York,
according to the complaint.

The suit includes claims for three violations of the NYLL and
seeks unpaid wages, damages and attorneys' fees in connection with
the alleged minimum wage violations.

The volunteers are represented by Justin M. Swartz and Juno Turner
of Outten & Golden LLP.

The case is Chen v. Major League Baseball Properties Inc. et al.,
case number 652884/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County.


MEGA LINE: "Isakov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nisimkhay Isakov individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Mega Line Inc., Diana Transportation Inc., and
John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05532 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an ambulette company based in Queens, New
York, for the purpose of transporting people to and from medical
appointments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plaintiffs in TCA Suit Appeal Summary Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company over its use of the TCA to pay life insurance
benefits are appealing a grant of summary judgment to the
defendants to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court
on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011)

These putative class action lawsuits, which have been
consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of the TCA to pay life
insurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life
Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Owens" Lawsuit Over TCA in Georgia Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A suit Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
April 17, 2014, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's use of the TCA as the settlement option for
life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies
violates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts
owned by members of the putative class.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Continues to Face Sun Life Indemnity Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada continues to seek indemnity
claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for lawsuits
alleging sales practices claims, according to Metropolitan Life's
Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking
a declaration that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company remains
liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual
life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life had
asked that the court require Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's Canadian operations entered into in June of
1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given
timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it
found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss,
granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for summary
judgment. Both parties appealed but subsequently agreed to
withdraw the appeal and consider the indemnity claim through
arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices
claims regarding the same individual policies sold by Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life. An amended
class action complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May
2013, again without naming Metropolitan Life Insurance Company as
a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales
practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and transferred to Sun Life.
Sun Life contends that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is
obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in
these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Nov. Hearing on "Fauley" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill.
scheduled for November 2014, a final approval hearing for the
settlement of Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al.,
according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to
S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al.
(Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill.,
July 3, 2014).

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

Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in Illinois,
and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily dismissed. In
August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved the
settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and scheduled
the final approval hearing for November 2014.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Ventura, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-05586 (E.D.N.Y., September 23, 2014) alleges violations of
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


MORGAN STANLEY: Denied Appeal of Certification in "Ge Dandong"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied defendants' petition seeking permission to appeal a
decision granting class certification in Ge Dandong, et al. v.
Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al., according to Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney Spectrum Currency And Commodity L.P.'s Aug. 13, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On October 25, 2010, MS&Co., certain affiliates and Pinnacle
Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle, were named as
defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by the special purpose vehicle in Singapore, commonly
referred to as Pinnacle Notes.  The case is styled Ge Dandong, et
al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY").  An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012.

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on
October 17, 2013.  On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a
petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting
class certification.  On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.  The second amended complaint alleges
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud
investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited
subsequently from the securities' failure.  In addition, the
second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering
materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding
the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of
interest between the defendants and the investors.  The second
amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and
abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting
fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  On March 25, 2014, the court denied
defendants' petition seeking permission to appeal the court's
decision granting class certification.  Plaintiffs seek damages of
approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and
interest.


MT GOX: Bitcoin Class Action Gets Partial Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Ontario Superior Court has
partially certified a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone
in Canada who lost Bitcoins and other currency in the collapse of
the Mt. Gox Bitcoin exchange, a Toronto law firm said on Sept. 24.

Charney Lawyers said the partial certification paves the way for
the court to consider whether to approve a settlement reached in
June between the plaintiffs and the defendants Jed McCaleb, a part
owner of the online exchange based in Japan, and Gonzague
Gay-Bouchery, the exchange's former chief marketing officer and
manager of business development.

The case was not certified against the defendants Mt. Gox KK,
MtGox Inc., Mt. Gox North America Inc., Tibanne KK, Mizuho Bank,
Ltd., and Mark Karpeles, who was the CEO of Mt. Gox, all of whom
deny all liability.

The lawsuit claims $500 million in compensation.

Charney Lawyers said the settlement is contingent on the trustee
in bankruptcy of Mt. Gox KK approving and implementing a
rehabilitation plan in Japan to restore the exchange under a new
ownership structure in which the class members will have a 16.5
per cent interest.

If implemented, the plan would also compensate the class members
with a pro rata share of 200,000 Bitcoins that were discovered
only after the class action was started, Charney Lawyers said,
adding that the recovered Bitcoins have a value of about $100
million US.

"The partial certification of this class action is a positive step
forward in eventually returning lost currency and bitcoins to the
class members," said Ted Charney, principal and senior partner at
the firm.

"There is a possibility of full restitution to the class members
unlike a liquidation scenario where creditors only receive pennies
on their dollars," he added.

It is estimated that the Bitcoins held by Mt. Gox on behalf of its
users were valued at approximately $465 million US, the firm said.


NECESSARY CLOTHING: Faces "Bucknor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Bucknor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Necessary Clothing, Inc., Isaac Cohen, and Saul Cohen, Case No.
1:14-cv-07651 (S.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Necessary Clothing, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling
clothing at the retail-level at its various stores located
throughout Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
      Hsien Chih Kung, Esq.
      XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      401 Broadway, Suite 1009
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 219-2275
      Facsimile: (212) 219-2276
      E-mail: bbxlaw@gmail.com
              thomaskung@xuelaw.com


NEW A&J PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jovita Tapia Villanueva, on behalf of herself, and others
similarly situated v. New A&J Pizza & Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a A&J
Pizza, and Hai Li Xue, Case No. 1:14-cv-05544 (E.D.N.Y., September
22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

New A&J Pizza & Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates A&J Pizza
restaurant with a principal place of business located at 71-37
Austin Street, Forrest Hills, New York 11375.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Class Action Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
David L. Shaw, writing for Finger Lake Times, reports that the
New York State Court of Claims has granted preliminary approval to
a proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit filed over the
2005 cryptosporidium outbreak at the Seneca Lake State Park spray
park.

If the settlement receives final approval, it would end nine years
of litigation with the state of New York involving some 2,500
class members that was weeks from going to trial.

Under terms of the proposed settlement, the state, defendant in
the case, has agreed to pay $5 million to end the litigation
without going to trial.  That amount, minus any attorney fees and
costs awarded by Court of Claims Judge Nicholas Midey Jr. to
lawyers for the class will be distributed among the class members
according to their award category.

The categories are those who were hospitalized with the diarrheal
illness, those who were treated at an emergency room, those who
were treated at a non-hospital emergency room and those who
received other forms of medical care.  The money also would be
used to pay settlement administration costs.

Any funds remaining after the allocation of class member awards
and payments for administration expenses would then be allocated
on a pro-rated basis among class members who filed a claim form.
To participate in the settlement, a class member must return a
claim form postmarked no later than Nov. 14.  Claim forms were
mailed to all class members.

To be excluded from or to object to the settlement, a class member
must do so in writing on or before Oct. 31.

Judge Midey, a Seneca Falls native, will conduct a final hearing
to determine whether to approve the settlement at 11:00 a.m.
Nov. 20 at the Court of Claims Courthouse, Salina Place, 205 S.
Salina St., Syracuse.

"This was a serious case and we were lucky none of the children
died," said attorney Paul Nunes -- pnunes@underbergkessler.com --
of the Underberg & Kessler law firm of Rochester, one of three law
firms representing class members.  "We were heading toward trial.
We had hotel rooms reserved in Syracuse for five of our experts
who were going to testify."

Mr. Nunes said that lawyers with the State Attorney General's
Office had made numerous requests to dismiss and then delay the
case since it was filed in 2005.  He said Judge Midey asked the
state's presiding Court of Claims Judge in Albany, Richard Sise,
to mediate the matter.

"Judge Sise got involved in May and the settlement offer was made
in June," Mr. Nunes said.

He estimated that after legal fees and other costs are deducted,
there still will be $3 to $4 million for the 25,000 class members
to divide.

Mr. Nunes praised the efforts of Judge Midey and then Judge Sise
to get to a point of a resolution and is confident the proposal
will be approved.  Any class member who fails to submit a valid
and timely claim form will not receive any money from the
settlement but will be bound by the court's judgments and forever
release any rights to sue the state.

The exception is a class member who filed a written request to be
excluded from the settlement.

The full Notice of Proposed class action settlement and final
hearing, claim forms and other information are available at
www.sprayparkoutbreak.com by writing to the Seneca Lake Claims
Administrator in care of the Notice Company, P.O. Box 455,
Hingham, Mass., 02042 or spraypark@notice.com or by calling 1-800-
410-7630.

About the lawsuit

In 2005, between June 1 and Aug. 17, hundreds of people who used
the new spray park facility at Seneca Lake State Park in Waterloo
came down with a diarrheal illness caused by cryptosporidium in
the water.

So many were made ill by ingesting bacteria-contaminated water
during that period that a class action lawsuit was filed by some
2,500 people.

The class was established by March 31, 2008.

Class members are:

    * Those who experienced a diarrheal illness within 1 to 15
days after using the spray park.

    * Those who experienced diarrheal illness 1 to 15 days after
exposure to a person who was ill.

    * People who have the legal obligation for medical bills
incurred by a person who met one of the two criteria.

The outbreak caused the state Department of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation to shut down the spray park.  A new system
eventually was installed and has been operating without problems
since then.


NEW YORK: Eric Holder Supports Class Suit Over Legal Aid for Poor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Apuzzo, writing for The New York Times, reports that Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr., who last year declared a crisis in
America's legal-defense system for the poor, is supporting a
class-action lawsuit that accuses Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and the
State of New York of perpetuating a system that violates the
rights of people who cannot afford to hire lawyers.

The lawsuit claims that public defenders in New York are so
overworked and overmatched that poor people essentially receive no
legal defense at all.  It describes a system in which indigent
defendants navigate courts nearly alone, relying on spotty advice
from lawyers who do not have the time or money to investigate
their cases or advise them properly.

Because of substandard legal aid, children are taken from their
parents, defendants in minor cases are jailed for long periods and
people are imprisoned for crimes for which they might have been
acquitted, the civil rights lawyers who filed the suit said.

Although the United States is not a party to the case, Mr. Holder
is using the same core legal arguments as the plaintiffs and the
weight of the federal government to resolve what he sees as deep-
seated unfairness in local criminal courts.  His views will bring
national attention to a case that has mainly been of interest in
New York.  After Mr. Holder weighed in last year in a similar case
in Washington State, the judge strongly rebuked the public-defense
systems in two cities there and ordered improvements.

If the New York lawsuit succeeds, the state could be forced to
take over the public-defense system, which is now run by county
governments.  Such an outcome would also quite likely encourage
similar lawsuits, and, in turn, additional intervention by the
Justice Department.

Mr. Holder has made the right to legal representation part of a
broad effort to address inequities in the criminal justice system.
He has pushed to reduce harsh sentences that were adopted during
the country's crack epidemic, for example, and to eliminate
mandatory-minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.

"To truly guarantee adequate representation for low-income
defendants, we must ensure that public defenders' caseloads allow
them to do an effective job," Mr. Holder said in a statement.
"The Department of Justice is committed to addressing the
inequalities that unfold every day in America's courtrooms."

The lawsuit, which was filed by the New York Civil Liberties
Union, has been winding through the courts for seven years and is
set for trial on Oct. 7. It names three upstate counties --
Onondaga, Schuyler and Washington -- and Suffolk County on Long
Island as defendants.

In some felony cases, according to the lawsuit, staffing shortages
have meant that defendants spoke to their lawyers for less than
one hour.  Some lawyers said they had never spoken with their
clients in person.  Investigators, whose work might undermine the
prosecution and offer reasonable doubt, were rarely hired.

While the Justice Department is not officially taking sides in the
case, in court documents -- called a "statement of interest,"
similar to an amicus brief -- that was set to be filed in State
Supreme Court in Albany on Sept. 25, government lawyers write that
threadbare budgets and vast caseloads can "force even otherwise
competent and well-intentioned public defenders into a position
where they are, in effect, a lawyer in name only."

Mr. Holder, who was once a Superior Court judge in Washington,
D.C., has offered more federal money and training to support
public defenders.  But only state and local governments can make
significant changes.  The court filing on Sept. 25 is part of a
nascent Justice Department effort to piggyback on state lawsuits
that aim to force those changes.

"It would be a revolution in how the public-defense system is
operated," Corey Stoughton, the lead lawyer on the case for the
New York Civil Liberties Union, said.  "The state thinks that the
responsibility belongs to the county governments.  But the
counties don't have the tax base or the political will."

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to legal representation,
but it was the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v.
Wainwright that forced states to provide defense lawyers to poor
people charged with serious crimes.  Two years later, New York
created a public-defense system run by the counties, not the
state.

In 2006, a commission appointed by the state's chief judge, Judith
S. Kaye, found that the patchwork system provided "an
unconstitutional level" of legal defense, "based on no factor
other than geography."  Civil rights lawyers filed the New York
class-action lawsuit the following year.

The New York public-defender system has been "abusing low- and
middle-class people in this system since 1965," said Jonathan E.
Gradess, the executive director of the New York State Defenders
Association, who said he expected to testify at trial.  "It's
broken. It's just terrible. We're just damaging people every
single day."

But Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, the lead
lawyer defending the state against the lawsuit, has argued in
court documents that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit offer no proof
that their rights were violated.  Even if lawyers provided
inadequate representation in some cases, Mr. Schneiderman said,
that does not prove a systemic problem.

"Plaintiffs do not have a case," Mr. Schneiderman wrote last year.
"Their theories, as laudably intended as they may be, are just
that -- theories."

In its filing, the Justice Department urges Justice Gerald W.
Connolly, who is overseeing the case, to review the system as a
whole, not individual cases, arguing that the right to a competent
lawyer is central to American justice.  "This right is so
fundamental to the operation of the criminal justice system that
its diminishment erodes the principles of liberty and justice that
underpin all of our civil rights in criminal proceedings," wrote
Molly J. Moran, the Justice Department's top civil rights
prosecutor.

Civil rights lawyers said public-defender offices in New York
received so little money that they were chronically understaffed.
A public defender could handle hundreds of cases per year, in some
instances hundreds at any one time.

In Suffolk County, where the Legal Aid Society takes on over
25,000 criminal cases a year, the agency's five investigators
lacked sufficient training and spent most of their time on
administrative duties, the suit said.

In 2011, the state created the Office of Indigent Legal Services
to help improve legal defense for the poor, but part of its budget
has been transferred elsewhere.  Several county leaders have
called for the state to take over the public-defender system, but
that would mean creating a costly new structure from scratch.

"This is a problem that's going to require a substantial
investment in reform," said Ms. Stoughton, the civil rights
lawyer.

Mr. Gradess said that, decades ago, he believed a county-based
defense system could work, with the right structure and enough
money.  But he soon changed his mind.  "It's a really primitive
system," he said.

Last year, at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the
Gideon ruling, Mr. Holder told Justice Department colleagues that
ensuring equal access to lawyers was "our solemn responsibility
and our moral calling."


NUCOR CORP: Seeks Approval of Settlement in Antitrust Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation is seeking court approval for settlements
reached in some antitrust cases filed against it by steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The majority of these complaints were filed in September
and October of 2008, with two additional complaints being filed in
July and December of 2010. Two of these complaints have been
voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending. The plaintiffs
allege that from April 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007, eight
steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Five of the eight
defendants have entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs, which agreements are in the process of court approval.


NUCOR CORP: Appeals Damage Award in Texas Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit Court a damage judgment against it in an
antitrust lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, according to the company's Aug. 13,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On March 25, 2014, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas returned a verdict against Nucor and
five other co-defendants in an antitrust lawsuit brought by
plaintiff MM Steel, LP, a steel plate service center located in
Houston. The jury returned a verdict of $52.0 million in damages
against all defendants jointly and severally. On June 1, 2014,
pursuant to antitrust laws providing for treble damages, the court
awarded a judgment to MM Steel jointly and severally against the
defendants in an amount totaling $160.8 million after including
costs and attorneys' fees. The Company has appealed the judgment
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and believes
that it has valid grounds to have the judgment vacated or
reversed. The Company believes that the evidence against Nucor was
insufficient to support any finding that Nucor was involved in a
horizontal conspiracy. The Company believes that the trial court
wrongly excluded relevant testimony of Nucor's expert witness. The
Company believes that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay
evidence. Finally, the Company believes that the trial court did
not sufficiently instruct the jury on applicable legal principles.
As a result, the Company believes that the likelihood that the
judgment will be affirmed is not probable, and, accordingly, it
has not recorded any reserves or contingencies related to this
legal matter. Although the company is defending this lawsuit
vigorously, its ultimate resolution is uncertain.


NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Crew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Etter Wilkes v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00224-KGB (E.D. Ark., September 23, 2014) seeks to vindicate
alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil rights and to redress
the unlawful and discriminatory conduct and employment practices
of the Defendant.

Ms. Wilkes is an adult African-American female over the age of 40,
who has a known disability.  She alleges that she experienced an
adverse employment action based on the Defendant's discrimination
against her.  She notes that she was the only African-American
female on her work crew and the only female in the entire
finishing department.

Blytheville, Arkansas-based Nucor-Yamato Steel Company is a steel
mill company that produces structural steel shapes, which includes
H-piling, PZ, wide-flange beams, steel piling and standard I-beams
that are used in construction and manufacturing industries.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


PENNSYLVANIA: Monroe County Residents Mull Suit v. State Police
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Falsone, writing for The Express-Times, reports that the
lawyer seeking out residents affected by the police manhunt for
alleged cop killer Eric Frein says he has been contacted by
several residents who believe police violated their constitutional
rights.

Joshua Prince, of Bechtelsville, Pa.-based Prince Law Offices,
said in a phone interview on Sept. 23 that those from Pike and
Monroe counties who have contacted his firm have reported
incidents of police kicking them out of their homes without
probable cause.

In one case, according to Mr. Prince, residents in a Monroe County
home had to leave behind their three dogs after police ordered
them out on Sept. 21.  The residents have not been allowed to
return to care for their dogs since, he said.

"It's extremely shocking to me that in this day and age, with our
Fourth Amendment protections, that the police would move forward
with such actions," Mr. Prince said.

Pennsylvania State Police, who have been searching for Mr. Frein
since identifying him as the suspect in the Sept. 12 fatal
shooting of state police Cpl. Bryon Dickson and the wounding of
another outside the Blooming Grove barracks in Pike County,
dispute Prince's allegations.

Trooper Adam Reed, a spokesman for the agency, released a lengthy
statement on Sept. 18 addressing media reports about residents not
being able to access their homes during the search.

"To clear up any misconceptions regarding the search, we have been
diligent in respecting the rights of the public while working hard
to keep both residents and law enforcement personnel safe,"
Mr. Reed said.  "At no time did we completely restrict access to
homes in the area.

"If a resident required access to their home for a vital reason
such as retrieving medication, we provided an escort to their home
to ensure their safety.

"There is currently no shelter in place advisory and access to
homes is not affected.  The Pennsylvania State Police appreciate
the assistance and patience we have received from the public as
our search efforts continue."

Prince said he has not filed any action in court at this time, but
expects he will at some point.  He said his firm is reviewing the
cases and needs to in part determine whether they should be
handled individually or as a class action.  The firm first
publicized its efforts to find residents affected by the police
activity through a message posted on its website on Sept. 22.  In
the comments section below the message, there were several
criticisms of the firm's efforts.

"Really . . . there is a lunatic in the woods with no regard for
human life and you are looking to drum up business through
lawsuits?" read one of the comments.  "You are an opportunist."

Mr. Prince, who said he often handles cases involving the
protection of Second Amendment rights, countered the criticism by
pointing to the Constitution and law enforcement's sworn duty.

"Their job is to uphold the Constitution, not to violate innocent
people's lives," Mr. Prince said.  "We are looking out for those
individuals who have no relation to the shooter and whose lives
have been turned upside down by the Pennsylvania State Police and
the FBI."

Mr. Frein is on the FBI's 10 most wanted list and is considered by
authorities to be armed and extremely dangerous.  He is accused of
fatally shooting 38-year-old Dickson and severely wounding Trooper
Alex Douglass.  The manhunt as focused on areas in Bartlett
Township, Monroe County, and Price Township, Pike County, near the
31-year-old Mr. Frein's last known address.

Authorities first reported temporary displacements of residents on
Sept. 18.  There have also been school closures, road closures and
other measures taken in an effort to protect residents,
authorities have said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Illinois Supreme Court to Review Cigarette Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a decade
ago, the Illinois Supreme Court killed off a $10 billion deceptive
marketing verdict against Philip Morris USA Inc., only to have a
lower court reinstate the verdict this April based on evidence
that came out after trial.  Given the stakes and the unusual
history of the case, the state's highest court now wants to sort
out this mess out once and for all.

In a one-sentence order issued on Sept. 24, the Illinois Supreme
Court agreed to review the Illinois' Fifth District Appellate
Court's April 29 decision to reinstate a bench verdict that Philip
Morris misled the public about light cigarettes.  Philip Morris'
lawyers had petitioned for relief from the Fifth District's
ruling, arguing that there was no legal basis for the court to
reawaken the 15-year old legal battle.

The case, Price v. Philip Morris, is one of several class actions
over light cigarettes filed in the late 1990s.  Stephen Tillery of
the St. Louis firm Korein Tillery represents a class of 1.4
million smokers in Illinois who say Philip Morris, now a unit of
Altria Group, misled them into believing light cigarettes are
safer.  Philip Morris lead counsel George Lombardi of Winston &
Strawn argued at trial that his client's use of descriptors like
"light" and "low tar" had been authorized by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

After a bench trial in Madison County Circuit Court, a judge ruled
in 2003 that Philip Morris knew that light cigarettes aren't safer
than regular smokes.  The judge ordered Philip Morris to pay about
$7 billion compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitives.

Philip Morris appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court,
which vacated the verdict in 2005 based on the company's defense
that the FDA approved its use of descriptors.  After more
briefing, the trial judge entered a final judgment for Philip
Morris in 2006.

The case appeared to be over.  But in 2008, the U.S. government
wrote in an amicus brief in another case that it never authorized
the descriptors "light" and "low tar."  Based on that disclosure,
Korein Tillery immediately filed a petition in Madison County for
relief from the final judgment.

The trial judge denied the petition, but the Fifth Circuit
reversed and granted it in April.  The court accepted Korein
Tillery's argument that the outcome would have been different if
the FTC's guidance had come out before trial.

When the Fifth District issued its decision, Altria associate
general counsel Murray Garnick said in a statement the court
"erred in ordering reinstatement despite the fact that the
Illinois Supreme Court previously raised other problems with the
judgment, including whether the case was properly certified as a
class action."

In addition to Winston & Strawn's Lombardi, Philip Morris is
represented by Michele Odorizzi -- modorizzi@mayerbrown.com -- of
Mayer Brown and Lisa Blatt -- Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com -- of Arnold
& Porter.


PREMIER ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces Suits in N.J Over Tainted Medication
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
fifteen suits have been filed in federal court in the District of
New Jersey in the past week against physicians at a Vineland,
N.J., clinic who prescribed steroids from the New England
Compounding Center, a pharmacy at the center of a deadly
meningitis outbreak.

Named as defendants in the New Jersey suits are Premier
Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Associates of Vineland and two of
its physicians, Kimberley Smith and Thomas Dwyer.  The suits claim
Ms. Smith, Mr. Dwyer and Premier Orthopaedic were negligent for
administering drugs from NECC without exercising reasonable care
to ensure the drugs from that facility were produced in sanitary
conditions.

The suits also bring claims against the officers of NECC, of
Framingham, Mass., and companies affiliated with it.  Federal
officials shut down NECC in 2012 after finding it produced fungal-
contaminated lots of methylprednisolone acetate (MPA), a drug
administered in epidural injections for back pain.  NECC, which
filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 after the meningitis
outbreak, is not named in the latest group of suits.

The meningitis outbreak caused 64 deaths nationwide, according to
the Centers for Disease Control.  Authorities said they found
unsanitary conditions at the NECC.  As a compounding pharmacy,
NECC is authorized, under a physician's orders, to mix or alter
ingredients to create specific formulations of drugs to meet a
patient's needs.

But Premier Orthopaedic, Ms. Smith and Mr. Dwyer issued
prescriptions to made-up names or the names of past patients to
obtain office supplies of MPA for injection into patients under
treatment, the suits claim.  Ms. Smith also wrote in the name of a
brand-name product on medical reports after injecting the product
made by NECC, the suits claim.  NECC competed in the marketplace
by offering cheaper prices for MPA and other drugs, which appears
to be the reason Ms. Smith and Mr. Dwyer chose to obtain drugs
there, the suits claim.

The suits also bring counts for battery and lack of informed
consent against the health-care providers.  The New Jersey suits
bring claims of negligence, negligent supervision and products
liability against the NECC-related defendants and bring claims for
civil conspiracy and violation of New Jersey and Massachusetts
consumer protection laws against both the NECC defendants and the
health-care provider defendants.

The latest cases bring the number of cases filed in New Jersey to
about 45 in connection with the NECC meningitis outbreak.  The
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
earlier cases in the District of Massachusetts for joint pretrial
proceedings.  About 300 cases are pending in the JPML.

The latest group of New Jersey cases is expected to be moved to
Massachusetts as well, according to Michael Coren of Cohen,
Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, N.J., whose firm filed two of the
recent group of cases.

No deaths from the NECC drugs have been reported in New Jersey,
according to Mr. Coren.  The multidistrict litigation in
Massachusetts is just heading into the discovery stage, he said.

The other suits in the latest group were filed by Michael Barrett
-- mbarrett@smbb.com -- of Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky
in Marlton, N.J. He could not be reached for comment.

Messages left for Mr. Smith and Ms. Dwyer were not returned.
No appearance has been entered for Premier Orthopaedic, Mr. Smith
or Mr. Dwyer.  Jay Blumberg, the Woodbury, N.J., attorney
representing them in some of the other cases, did not return a
call.


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Faces Class Action Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that New Jersey's largest collections firm, Pressler & Pressler,
has been hit with a putative class action based on a ruling by a
judge in an unrelated lawsuit that looking at a complaint for as
little as four seconds before filing it does not qualify as
meaningful attorney review under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Politi v. Pressler & Pressler, originally filed in state court,
was removed to federal court in Newark on Sept. 16.

Attached to the complaint is a copy of the June 30, 2014, opinion
in Bock v. Pressler & Pressler in which U.S. District Judge Kevin
McNulty faulted a mode of operation in which a single lawyer
reviews and signs hundreds and as many as 1,000 complaints in the
course of a day, as the culmination of a pre-filing process
featuring no other attorney involvement.

Judge McNulty found the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing a complaint that implied a
nonexistent level of attorney involvement.  He determined that
level of involvement should be guided by the frivolous litigation
rules, which provide for the sanctioning of lawyers based on their
court filings: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
New Jersey Court Rule 1:4-8.

The filing of a complaint "entitles the proverbial 'least
sophisticated debtor' to conclude that an attorney is working
vigorously on the creditor's behalf, is reasonably knowledgeable
about the creditor's case against the debtor, and has exercised
his or her professional judgment," Judge McNulty wrote.

"Accordingly, I hold that a signed complaint is inherently false
and misleading, in violation of [the FDCPA], where, at the time of
signing, the attorney signing it has not 1) drafted, or carefully
reviewed, the complaint; and 2) conducted an inquiry, reasonable
under the circumstances, sufficient to form a good-faith belief
that the claims and legal contentions in the complaint are
supported by fact and warranted by law."

He held that Pressler failed to comply with the standard in Bock
because the only attorney involvement prior to filing suit was a
"hurried, ministerial review of the accuracy of certain aspects of
the complaint," with "no reasonable inquiry or exercise of
professional judgment."

Computer records showed that the collections complaint in Bock,
filed on behalf of client Midland Funding, had been reviewed for
no longer than four seconds.

Case law was sparse on what constitutes reasonable attorney review
and people can disagree on the subject, Judge McNulty noted.

"But whatever reasonable attorney review may be, four seconds is
not it," he wrote.

Judge McNulty disagreed with Pressler's argument that the rules
require only a belief that the allegations are likely to have
evidentiary support, saying an "attorney's good-faith belief
cannot simply be willed into existence, but must be formed after
an inquiry."

Discovery during the Bock case brought to light debt-screening and
complaint-drafting processes done almost entirely by automation
and nonattorney personnel, and involved the sending of form
collection letters reviewed by non-lawyer staff for accuracy.

Andrew Politi, the would-be class plaintiff, seeks to rely on
McNulty's findings with respect to a collection letter sent to him
in May, which is printed on Pressler letterhead but is not signed
and does not identify an individual sender.  It said Mr. Politi
owed $5,833 to Midland Funding and offered to settle for 90
percent or for the entire sum, starting with a 25 percent payment.

Citing the procedures uncovered in Bock, Mr. Politi alleges that
the Pressler firm "violated the FDCPA by sending such letters on
its letterhead without an attorney first exercising professional
judgment by independently evaluating collection demands and
determining that proceedings to enforce collection are warranted."
He claims additional FDCPA violations based on the firm's alleged
pursuit of debts on which the statute of limitations has expired
and the letter's reference to an I.R.S. reporting requirement for
debts that are forgiven without mentioning the exceptions to that
requirement.

On Sept. 23, the Pressler firm asked the court to extend the time
to respond until Oct. 7.  The case is assigned to U.S. District
Judge Susan Wigenton and U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Mannion.

Lawrence McDermott, a partner in the Parsipanny, N.J. firm,
declined comment on Mr. Politi but said an appeal is planned in
Bock.  Mr. Politi's lawyer, Daniel Rubin --
drubin@wolflawfirm.net -- of the Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick,
N.J., said that the Bock decision "clarified the parameters for
what needs to be done before these letters can be sent."

Mr. Rubin is also relying on a 2012 New Jersey ethics opinion that
said "before sending a debt collection letter, lawyers must
exercise professional judgment by independently evaluating
collection demands and determining that proceedings to enforce
collection are warranted."

The opinion was issued jointly by two New Jersey ethics bodies,
the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and the Advisory
Committee On Professional Ethics.

Bock's attorney, Maplewood, N.J., solo Philip Stern, said he is
pleased to see that other lawyers recognize the value of the
decision.

On Sept. 15, Judge McNulty approved a stipulation to $1,000 in
statutory FDCPA damages in Bock, but legal fees -- which Stern
says are in the five figures -- still need to be resolved before a
final judgment can be entered.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Dai-ichi Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple purported class action lawsuits have been filed by
Protective Life Insurance Company shareowners seeking injunctive
relief, including enjoining or rescinding its Merger with The Dai-
ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, according to the company's
Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Transactions such as the Merger are often subject to lawsuits by
shareowners. To date, multiple purported class action lawsuits
have been filed by PLC shareowners seeking injunctive relief,
including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, an award of
unspecified damages, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and
other relief. Conditions to the closing of the Merger require that
no laws or legal restraints must have been adopted or in effect,
and that no restraining order, injunction or other order,
judgment, decision, opinion or decree must have been issued, in
each case having the effect of making the Merger illegal or
otherwise prohibiting the consummation of the Merger. The company
cannot assure you as to the outcome of these or any similar future
lawsuits, including the costs associated with defending the claims
or any other liabilities that may be incurred in connection with
the litigation or settlement of these lawsuits. If the plaintiffs
are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties
from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, such an
injunction may prevent the completion of the Merger in the
expected time frame or altogether.


QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Suit Alleging Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Gruby, Susan Neuhaus, Adam Rittenhouse and Yvonne Rumsey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05912-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 23, 2014) asserts claims for product liability.


RADIOSHACK CORP: 7th Circuit Reverses Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
After RadioShack offered $10 coupons to settle claims over the
spread of its customers' credit card details, class counsel should
not take home $1 million, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse
News Service, citing a 7th Circuit ruling.

Scott Redman brought the suit against RadioShack Corp. in
September 2011, hoping to represent a class whose receipts
contained their credit or debit card's expiration date, in alleged
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).

The law also bars businesses from electronically printing more
than the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card
numbers on receipts.

In a proposed May 2013 settlement, each class member would receive
a $10 coupon to use at any RadioShack store within six months.
They would not get change, however, if the item cost less than
$10.  The settlement allowed customers to also sell their coupons,
or buy up to two more from other class members.

Though the class was assumed to contain 16 million members, fewer
than 5 million consumers ultimately received notice of the
proposed deal, and only 83,000 submitted claims.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez in Chicago approved the
settlement, but the 7th Circuit reversed on September 19, 2014.

"The magistrate judge's statement that 'the fact that the vast
majority of class members -- over 99.99 percent -- have not
objected to the proposed settlement or opted out suggests that the
class generally approves of its terms and structure' is na‹ve, as
is her basing confidence in the fairness of the settlement on its
having been based on 'arms-length negotiations by experienced
counsel,'" Judge Richard Posner wrote for a three-judge panel.
"The fact that the vast majority of the recipients of notice did
not submit claims hardly shows 'acceptance' of the proposed
settlement: rather it shows oversight, indifference, rejection, or
transaction costs.  The bother of submitting a claim, receiving
and safeguarding the coupon, and remembering to have it with you
when shopping may exceed the value of a $10 coupon to many class
members.  And 'arm's-length negotiations' are consistent with the
existence of a conflict of interest on the part of one of the
negotiators -- class counsel -- that may warp the outcome of the
negotiations."

The court also rejected the settlement's $1 million class counsel
award.

"But here's the rub, regarding the second suggested adjustment in
the settlement, the adjustment that increases the size of the
settlement rather than its division between class counsel and
class members: RadioShack is in terrible financial shape," Posner
wrote.  "Recently Moody's reduced the company's credit rating to
Caa2 ('rated as poor quality and very high credit risk').  An
article by William Alden ominously entitled 'RadioShack Sees
Filing for Bankruptcy Near' was published in the third week of
September in the New York Times.

"Adding millions to the cost of the settlement to RadioShack
might, if not precipitate the company's failure, make it more
likely -- an outcome that might leave very little for the class
members," the judge added.  "A modest settlement is the prudent
course.  And a coupon settlement has the virtue of boosting
RadioShack's business, since as we've noted couponing is a
marketing device that must sometimes be more effective than an
equivalent price cut.  So even if the proposed settlement of
$830,000 in coupons is worth a good deal less than face value and
is therefore modest relative to a potential class of millions of
consumers, we think it was adequate in the parlous circumstances
in which the defendant finds itself.  But that is not to say that
the $1 million attorneys' fee is reasonable; and if it were cut
down the amount saved could be reallocated to the class, thereby
increasing the meager value of the settlement to the class
members."


RAINBOW RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catalino Pina and Jose Carlos Pina, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. Rainbow Restaurant, Inc.,
and Nick Dimitrelis, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07368 (N.D.
Ill., September 22, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Rainbow Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant within the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      E-mail: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


SCOTT COUNTY, MS: Sued for Excessive Pre-Indictment Detention
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octavious Burks; Joshua Bassett, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Scott County, Mississippi; The
Honorable Marcus D. Gordon, in his official capacity; The
Honorable Bill Freeman, in his official capacity; The Honorable
Wilbur McCurdy, in his official capacity; Mark Duncan, District
Attorney for the 8th Circuit Court District, in his official
capacity; Mike Lee, Scott County Sheriff, in his official
capacity, Case No. 3:14-cv-00745-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.,
September 23, 2014) is brought for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end and remedy the Defendants' alleged unconstitutional
policies, which violate the Plaintiffs' Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights to the assistance of counsel, their Sixth
Amendment rights to a speedy trial, their Fourteenth Amendment
rights against excessive and punitive pre-indictment detention,
and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to an individualized bail
hearing and determination.

Plaintiff Octavious Burks is an unindicted felony defendant, who
has been held in the Scott County Detention Center without counsel
since November 18, 2013.  Plaintiff Joshua Bassett is an
unindicted felony defendant, who has been held in the Scott County
Detention Center since January 16, 2014.

Scott County is one of four counties in the Eighth Circuit Court
District of Mississippi.

The Honorable Marcus D. Gordon is the senior circuit judge for the
Eighth Circuit Court District of Mississippi, located in
Philadelphia, Mississippi, and comprised of Leake, Neshoba,
Newton, and Scott Counties.  Bill Freeman and Wilbur McCurdy are
the Scott County Justice Court judges.  Mark Duncan is the
District Attorney for the Eighth Circuit District of Mississippi.
Defendant Mike Lee is the Sheriff of Scott County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Buskey, Esq.
          Ezekiel Edwards, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004 212-284-7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org
                  eedwards@aclu.org

               - and -

          Charles Irvin, Esq.
          ACLU OF MISSISSIPPI, FOUNDATION, INC.
          233 East Capital Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 3543408
          E-mail: cirvin@aclu-ms.org

               - and -

          James Craig, Esq.
          Katie Schwartzmann, Esq.
          RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          4400 S. Carrollton Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70119-6824
          Telephone: (504) 620-2259
          E-mail: jim.craig@macarthurjustice.org
                  katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org

               - and -

          J. Cliff Johnson, Esq.
          RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER
          P.O. Box 1848
          University, MS 38677
          Telephone: (662) 915-7629
          E-mail: cjohnson@macarthurjustice.org


SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Stock Suit Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in In re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation is
stayed pending a resolution of the Independent Directors' Motion
to Dismiss, according to Shengdatech Liquidating Trust's Aug. 13,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third
amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,
against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former
officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the
"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,
KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged
misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements made during the class period and asserts a claim
against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.
While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery
against the Company under the Plan is limited to available
insurance coverage and proceeds.

On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved
to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on
the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable
claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1,
2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice to renewal. The Independent Directors' Motion to Dismiss
remains pending.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the
allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In
its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.

Discovery in the matter is stayed pending a resolution of the
Independent Directors' Motion to Dismiss.


SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Adderall Marketing Suit for $56.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer,
reports that the maker of Adderall, Pennsylvania-based Shire
Pharmaceuticals, has settled a whistleblower suit for $56.5
million in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Gerardo Torres -- who had been an executive at Shire --
originally brought claims against the company under the federal
False Claims Act in 2008.  He alleged that Shire had marketed
Adderall XR and other drugs to treat attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as being effective in ways that
weren't supported by clinical data.

Shire denies the allegations and, under the terms of the
settlement, doesn't admit liability.

Shire had marketed Adderall XR as being superior to drugs that
treat ADHD from other manufacturers and "also suggested that
treatment with Adderall XR would help prevent certain issues
linked to ADHD, such as poor academic performance, loss of
employment, criminal behavior, traffic accidents, and sexually
transmitted disease," according to the allegations listed in the
settlement agreement.

Similarly for its drug Vyvanse, Shire had claimed that it "would
help prevent certain issues linked to ADHD, despite a lack of
clinical data sufficient to support such claims.  For example, the
company implied that use of Vyvanse would reduce car accidents,
divorce, being arrested, and unemployment," according to the
settlement.

For that drug, the company had also marketed it as one that
wouldn't create dependency, according to the settlement.

"Certain Shire sales representatives also promoted Vyvanse as
'non-abusable' and/or less abusable than Adderall XR despite a
lack of clinical data sufficient to support such a claim,"
according to the settlement.

"Adderall is clearly abusable," said Stephen A. Sheller --
sasheller@sheller.com -- of Sheller P.C., who represented the
relator, Dr. Torres.

Mr. Sheller called this "an unusual case" since Dr. Torres was an
executive who hadn't been fired from the company he was blowing
the whistle on; rather, he objected to the marketing of addictive
amphetamines for youths.  The rate at which teachers and school
counselors push drugs like Adderall and Vyvanse is disturbing,
Mr. Sheller said.

"Shire also promoted Adderall XR for the treatment of conduct
disorder, an indication for use which was not approved by the
[U.S. Food and Drug Administration], was not a medically accepted
indication . . . and was not covered by state Medicaid programs,"
according to the settlement.

Mr. Sheller called "conduct disorder" a "non-disease."

The company marketed another of its ADHD drugs called Daytrana,
which is administered through a patch, as being harder to abuse
than traditional pill-type ADHD medications without having any
clinical support for the claim, according to the settlement.
Those patches also had problems sticking to patients' bodies and
coming off of the packaging, according to the settlement.

The government, through the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Philadelphia, chose to intervene in the matter for the purpose of
the settlement last week, according to the docket.

U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, who handled the case, granted that office's motion
to keep under seal its six motions seeking to extend the
intervention deadlines.

"After an in camera review of the six documents at issue, I find
that they contain 'confidential investigative' procedures and
information relating to non-parties, the disclosure of which could
result in harm to the government or third parties," Judge Diamond
said in the order issued on Sept. 24.

"Marketing efforts that influence a doctor's independent judgment
can undermine the doctor-patient relationship and short-change the
patient," said Zane David Memeger, U.S. attorney for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, in a prepared statement.  "Where
children's medication is concerned, it can interfere with a
parent's right to clear information regarding the risks to the
safety and health of their child.  Shire cooperated throughout
this investigation and, in advance of this settlement, began to
correct its marketing activities."

Shire has also agreed to a corporate integrity agreement to modify
its marketing efforts.

"We are pleased to have reached a resolution and to put this
matter behind us," Shire CEO Flemming Ornskov said in a prepared
statement.  "We remain focused on our mission of enabling people
with life-altering conditions to lead better lives, and we are
committed to conducting our activities to meet the highest ethical
standards.  The company has had, and will continue to have, a
comprehensive compliance program and internal controls to ensure
we comply with applicable laws and regulations."

Shire said it will pay $35.7 million to the federal government,
from which will come Dr. Torres' $5.9 million share, and it will
pay $20.8 million to the Medicaid-participating states.  On top of
the $56.5 million settlement, Shire will also pay $2.9 million to
settle a civil complaint in Louisiana over violations of that
state's laws, according to Shire's statement.

The company will also pay $922,086 for the relator's attorney fees
and expenses, according to the settlement.


SPA CASTLE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Pursuant to FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zheng Nan Jin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Spa Castle, Inc. and Steve S. Chon, Case No. 1:14-cv-05545
(E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Spa Castle, Inc. owns and operates a sauna and spa complex under
the trade name Spa Castle located at 131-10 11th Avenue, College
Point, New York 11356.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


TAKATA CORP: Defective Airbag Recalls May Include GM Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Klayman and Yoko Kubota, writing for Reuters, report that the
safety recall in parts of the United States of millions of
vehicles with potentially defective air bags made by Japan's
Takata Corp. may expand to include General Motors Co., according
to documents filed last week with U.S. regulators.

More than 4.3 million cars produced by automakers including Honda
Motor, Fiat's Chrysler and Toyota Motor, are affected by the
regional recalls.  They began in June in certain high-humidity
areas of the United States after the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) started investigating reports of air
bag explosions in Florida and Puerto Rico.

The regional recalls initially affected nine automakers, but
documents filed by Takata for a meeting this month with NHTSA and
the affected companies listed GM for the first time as being
potentially affected.  The Takata documents, posted online last
week by NHTSA, said the number of vehicles produced by the largest
U.S. automaker was undetermined.

GM declined to comment.

Over the last six years, Takata has recalled 16 million vehicles
globally for defective air bags, including the regional recalls.

Takata said on Sept. 26 the world's No. 2 maker of auto safety
products was working to get the replacement inflator kits to its
automotive customers.  The September meeting documents included a
forecast showing automakers had asked Takata to build almost 1.47
million inflator kits in the next six months.

That total was down about 39 percent from the August meeting's
2.39 million estimate, but Takata spokesman Alby Berman said the
forecasts were not comparable.  He said the August number included
inflator kits required for recalls outside the United States,
while the September estimate only pertained to kits required for
the U.S. recalls.

NHTSA officials said they do not comment on ongoing
investigations.

Prompted by NHTSA, Takata and automakers are seeking to determine
whether exposure to high humidity caused any defect in the
inflators collected though the regional recalls.

Takata said in the documents it may take three to four months
after receiving enough of the recalled inflators before "we see
patterns emerging in the data."  Takata had received 4,109 of the
recalled inflators for testing as of Sept. 15.

In the documents posted last week, Takata said it had faced
production problems with the replacement inflator kits, because of
a shortage of wire harnesses used in the part.  Takata's Berman
called that a "minor issue" and said it had been resolved.

Other automakers affected by the regional recalls include BMW,
Ford Motor, Mazda Motor, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan Motor and
Fuji Heavy Industries' Subaru.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces "Verdieck" Suit in Nebraska District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Verdieck, A California Citizen, Individually And On Behalf
Of All Others Similarly Situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., a New
York Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-00289-JFB-TDT (D. Neb.,
September 23, 2014) alleges breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Epstein, Esq.
          David S. Houghton, Esq.
          HOUGHTON, WHITTED LAW FIRM
          6457 Frances Street, Suite 100
          Omaha, NE 68106
          Telephone: (402) 952-4440
          Facsimile: (402) 930-1099
          E-mail: depstein@houghton-law.com
                  dhoughton@houghton-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          William R. Restis, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, KRINSK LAW FIRM
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
                  mlk@classactionlaw.com
                  trk@classactionlaw.com
                  wrr@classactionlaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Translator Objects to Sanctions in Acceleration Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a translator who provided internal Toyota documents
to news reporters has objected to the carmaker's requests for
sanctions against her for alleged failure to obey a protective
order in litigation over sudden acceleration.

U.S. District Judge James Selna has ordered Betsy Benjaminson to
show cause why she should not be sanctioned and to appear in his
Santa Ana, Calif., courtroom on Oct. 27.

Ms. Benjaminson, who lives in Israel and is a self-described
whistleblower, said in court papers that there was "no urgency in
the proceeding" because she has removed all of the documents from
cloud service DropBox and from her blogs.

Ms. Benjaminson said she would not publish the documents at issue
without a court order permitting her to release them to the U.S.
Department of Justice or an independent monitor.  She argued that
Toyota was trying to use the powers of the court to censor her
legal speech.

There exists "a bona fide dispute as to whether the vast majority
of the Toyota documents in her possession are covered by the
protective order, instead of a private contractual agreement with
a translation company, [Linguistic Services Inc.]," her counsel,
David Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- of Milberg argued.  "The
translation work for LSI started years before she was asked to
sign the protective order, and ended months before she signed it
in June 2012 in conjunction with starting work for a different
translation agency."

When Ms. Benjaminson worked for LSI, it was on behalf of Debevoise
& Plimpton, which represented Toyota while the government
investigated the company for criminal liability.

"It was during that work for LSI in relation to the government's
investigation that Benjaminson came to the belief that Toyota's
internal documents revealed that its public statements about
sudden unintended acceleration did not match its statements to
investigators, Congress, and the public about the important
vehicle safety concerns at issue," Mr. Azar wrote.  "Benjaminson
was no 'rogue' translator."

Mr. Azar represents her in the civil context.  H. Dean Steward of
San Clemente, Calif., was appointed on Sept. 2 to represent
Ms. Benjaminson in the contempt proceedings.  But Mr. Steward has
asked to be replaced because he has been appointed to represent a
client facing the federal death penalty and has additional time-
consuming legal matters on his plate.  Judge Selna now has
appointed Hemant (Shashi) H. Kewalramani as Benjaminson's counsel.


TWITTER INC: Seeks Dismissal of Text-Message Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
denouncing a putative class action against it as "abusive,"
Twitter Inc. has asked a California federal judge to throw out
allegations the company unlawfully sends texts to new holders of
cellphone numbers without their consent.

In a Sept. 16 motion to dismiss, the company denounced as
unfounded allegations by Massachusetts plaintiff Beverly Nunes
that Twitter violated the federal Telephone Computer Protection
Act by delivering automated and unauthorized texts to her after
she was assigned a phone number that had belonged to a previous
customer.

Ms. Nunes, who doesn't even have a Twitter account, said in her
June 19 complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, that she never gave Twitter permission to send the
texts to her number, a requirement under the act.  Although she
demanded multiple times that Twitter end them, the automatically
generated, impersonal and commercial messages continued unabated,
as many as four to six a day and at all hours, the complaint
contends.

Twitter counters that it has not fallen afoul of the law because
it does not use an "automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice" to send the texts -- a definition
expressly crafted by Congress to limit the scope of the law.  The
company says Ms. Nunes did not submit a valid opt-out request.

As for Ms. Nunes' contention that Twitter was obligated to gain
her specific consent after she became the new holder of the
number, Twitter argues that's a misreading of the statute.  The
company acted lawfully by getting the permission of the first
holder; to require prior consent from unintended text recipients
would raise constitutional issues, the defense motion argues.

Ms. Nunes' complaint alleges Twitter has a financial interest in
keeping the texts flowing, whoever the recipient is.  "Twitter is
paid based on the volume of activity of people using its platform.
The more SMS text messages Twitter sends (authorized or not), the
more people who may participate in Twitter and engage in its
advertisements, generating more money for Twitter," the complaint
contends.

Twitter's motion turned the accusation of financial gain back on
the plaintiffs.

"This case is another in a growing line of abusive, putative class
action lawsuits brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act," the company's motion argues.  "The statute, intended to
curtail certain kinds of invasive telemarketing practices, has
been co-opted by the plaintiffs' bar to seek windfalls for
practices and from companies that Congress never intended to
regulate."

Twitter is represented by David Kramer -- dkramer@wsgr.com -- and
Tonia Ouellette Klausner -- tklausner@wsgr.com -- of Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.  Plaintiffs' attorneys include Jeffrey
Keller, Carey Been and Sarah Holloway of Keller Grover; John
Jacobs and Bryan Kolton of Jacobs Kolton; and David Schachman of
the Law Offices of David Schachman.


U.S. MESSENGER: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Malnarick and Jeffrey Szalacha, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. U.S. Messenger & Logistics, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07350 (N.D. Ill., September 22, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

U.S. Messenger & Logistics, Inc. is in the business of delivering
packages and other goods by courier for its customers in the
Chicago land area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher Wilmes, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM Ltd.
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 580-0100
      Facsimile: (312) 580-1994
      E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
              cwilmes@hsplegal.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over IRS Annual Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two certified public accountants have
filed a class action lawsuit against the United States, claiming
the Internal Revenue Service's regulations requiring tax preparers
to pay annual fees to the agency.

Adam Steele and Brittany Montrois claim as certified public
accountants, they are required to register and pay annual fees to
the IRS to renew a preparer tax identification number to be placed
on tax returns prepared by tax return repairers for others for
compensation and to prohibit the U.S. Treasury Department from
charging such fees in the future, according to a complaint filed
Sept. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In 2010 and 2011, Mr. Steele and Ms. Montrois each filed IRS Form
W-12 and each paid the U.S. Treasury Department $64.25 to receive
a PTIN for utilization, according to the suit.  To renew their
PTINs the following years, they each paid the Treasury $63 each
time.

"Their PTINs did not change from the PTINs received for 2011 and
2012," the complaint states.  "Prior to March 2, 2014, Adam Steele
filed three (3) separate refund claims, requesting reimbursement
of the PTIN user fees paid for 2011-2013.  Adam Steele did not
receive a refund claim rejection notice or approval notice from
the U.S. Department of the Treasury with respect to his initial
PTIN fee payment of $64.25 or his two PTIN renewal fee payments of
$63."

In January 2010, the IRS issued IRS Publication 4832, "Report
Preparer Review (Rev. 12-2009)."  This document, which is not law,
proposed certain actions be taken to regulate the tax return
preparation industry, the suit says.

"Currently, any person may prepare a federal tax return for
another for a fee," the publication states.

"With the exception of persons prohibited from preparing tax
returns by court order, the quoted sentence of the immediately
preceding paragraph was correct upon the date of issuance of
Publication 4832, and it has remained correct through the present
date," the complaint states.

No recently enacted legislation led to preparation and issuance of
Publication 4832, according to the suit.  Instead, this
publication is purely an IRS-generated product, it says.

The plaintiffs claim no law has been enacted since issuance of
Publication 4832 that would permit the Treasury or any federal
agency to prohibit anyone from preparing tax returns for
compensation.

"No law existed prior to the issuance of Publication 4832 that
would have permitted any Treasury or any federal agency to issue a
regulation or regulations that would have prohibited anyone from
preparing tax returns for compensation," the complaint states.

Publication 4832 recommended that the tax return preparation
industry be regulated in a particular manner, including IRS
testing of certain preparers to determine eligibility to be able
to prepare returns for others for compensation and annual
continuing professional education requirements for those persons
who passed the IRS's test, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim previously, the IRS required tax return
preparers to include an identifying number of prepared returns.
Return preparers could use their Social Security Number or obtain,
for free, a PTIN from the IRS.

"Publication 4832 recommended that, in order to aid the IRS,
individuals who prepare tax returns be required to acquire a
Treasury provided PTIN, and be charged upon issuance and every
three years thereafter for the PTIN," the complaint states.

Once issued, a PTIN does not change.

The challenged regulations were issued several years ago as part
of a broad IRS initiative to radically expand its oversight of
attorneys, accountants and other tax return preparers who prepare
tax returns for compensation.

Earlier this year, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that large
portions of the regulations issued by the IRS were invalid because
the IRS lacked statutory authority to issue the regulations in
Loving v. United States.

Congress allowed the IRS to require practitioners who prepare
returns for compensation to place a PTIN on the returns to help
IRS identify the preparer.  The plaintiff CPAs contend that the
IRS lacks statutory authority, however, to charge fees to obtain
or renew a PTIN and the IRS cannot use fees it has collected for
unrelated activities.

"The courts have rejected the IRS's effort to regulate return
preparers and it is time for the IRS to return the PTIN
registration fees it has collected to support that effort,"
plaintiffs' attorney Stuart Bassin said.

The class is composed of individuals who prepare tax returns for
others for compensation and firms and companies the employees or
some or all of the owners of which prepare tax returns for others
for compensation.  It involves more than 700,000 individual
practitioners.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory
damages.  They are being represented by Mr. Bassin of The Bassin
Law Firm.

The case is assigned to District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia case number:
1:14-cv-01523


WALGREEN CO: Faces "Pope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kennetha Pope, et al., v. Walgreen Co. d/b/a Walgreens, Case No.
3:14-cv-00439 (E.D. Tenn., September 22, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Walgreen Co. operates retail stores in which it sells consumer
goods in categories such as pharmacy, hygiene, personal cosmetics,
grocery, nutrition, and general household goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JESSE D. NELSON, PLLC
      P.O. Box 22685
      Knoxville, TN 37933
      Telephone: (865) 383-1053
      Facsimile: (865) 383-1054
      E-mail: jesse@jessenelsonlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Kiefer" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Kiefer v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00502-MCR-CJK (N.D. Fla., September 23, 2014) seeks recovery of
overtime pay, which was allegedly due to the Plaintiff but has
remained unpaid.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALGREEN CO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages and Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Shea and Elmer Doney v. Walgreen Co., d/b/a Walgreens,
Case No. 6:14-cv-03759-MGL (D.S.C., September 23, 2014) is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Says Plaintiffs No Standing to Object to Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Arnold, writing for Times Record, reports that plaintiffs in
one lawsuit have no standing to object to a proposed settlement in
a separate class-action lawsuit, Whirlpool argued in a motion
filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith.

A joint motion seeking settlement of the class-action complaint
was filed in July.  The original complaint was filed in Sebastian
County Circuit Court in May 2013 and transferred to federal court
the following month.

According to Whirlpool, which closed its Fort Smith plant in June
2012, a plume of trichloroethylene, or TCE, a known carcinogen,
leaked into groundwater at the plant site, then later into a
neighborhood to the north.  TCE was used at Whirlpool as a
degreasing solvent between the late 1960s and early 1980s,
according to the company.

The complaint sought unspecified damages for nuisance, trespass,
violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, accuses
Whirlpool of fraudulent concealment and sought punitive damages.

Concerns of the contamination emerged after Whirlpool requested a
ban on new wells around the site earlier in 2013.

U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III will make a preliminary
finding on whether the settlement is fair.  If Judge Holmes
determines it is, class members will be notified of a formal
"fairness hearing," to provide an opportunity for argument and
evidence to be presented in favor of and in opposition to the
proposed settlement.

On Aug. 8, Judge Holmes scheduled a hearing on the joint motion
for Oct. 6 at 9:00 a.m.

A proposed schedule of events -- assuming Judge Holmes issues a
favorable ruling -- was also included in the settlement motion
that details deadlines for: notification of class members, filing
for attorney fees, opting out of the settlement, completion of
appraisals, scheduling a fairness hearing and final approval.

Two additional lawsuits were filed May 23, 2013, in Sebastian
County Circuit Court by Taylor Law Partners LLP of Fayetteville
and McMath Woods P.A. of Little Rock -- one on behalf of 10
homeowners, and the other, on behalf of landlords who own 36
properties in an area affected by the Whirlpool leak.  Those
lawsuits were also transferred to federal court, consolidated into
a single lawsuit Feb. 19 and seek damages similar to those sought
in the class-action complaint.

On Sept. 12, Little Rock attorney Samuel Ledbetter filed an
objection to the joint motion for settlement of the class-action
complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit.
Mr. Ledbetter argues the proposal is a great deal for Whirlpool
and Rogers attorney Kenneth Shemin, counsel for plaintiffs in the
class action, but Mr. Ledbetter's clients as likely members of the
class are losers in a deal that provides a one-time payment to
property owners based on flawed valuation methodology and requires
their property be encumbered in perpetuity by Whirlpool, with the
likelihood it will never be cleaned up.

The class-action complaint sought damages for "the reasonable
expense of necessary repairs and restoration of the property which
was damaged, plus the difference in the value of the property
before contamination and the value after restoration," damages for
the loss of enjoyment and use of their properties, and punitive
damages.

Last summer, Sebastian County Assessor Becky Yandell reduced the
value of properties in and around the contaminated area 25 percent
to 75 percent.  The contaminated area includes a total of 55
parcels, Ms. Yandell said.  Three are commercial properties, while
17 are homes in which the owners live.  More than 30 are rental
properties.

The proposed settlement calls for:

    * Property owners inside the area bounded by Ingersoll Avenue,
Brazil Avenue, Jenny Lind Road and Ferguson Street will receive
compensation in an amount equal to devaluation of those properties
estimated by the county assessor's office or determined by an
agree-upon independent property appraiser.

   * Class members outside the bounded area whose property value
was diminished by the contamination will receive $5,000, and
possibly more in the future, if TCE is detected above threshold
levels in groundwater beneath their property.

In return, Whirlpool wants a well-drilling ban and access
agreements on the properties.

Mr. Ledbetter argues in length and detail that the proposed
settlement fails the legal standard that it be "fair, adequate and
reasonable" and excludes multiple categories of damages.  Mr.
Ledbetter also argues the proposed class is fatally flawed and
should be rejected.

Mr. Shemin hasn't yet filed a response and couldn't be immediately
reached for comment, but South Carolina attorney Robert Brunson,
representing Whirlpool, filed a response on Sept. 22.

Mr. Brunson argues Mr. Ledbetter's objection is untimely, because
federal rules of civil procedure don't allow him to object until
the proposed class settlement is granted preliminary approval by
the court, class notice is completed and the deadline for opting
out of the settlement passes.

Further, Mr. Brunson argues that Mr. Ledbetter claims most if not
all of his clients would opt out of the proposed settlement if
it's approved by the court.  Potential members of a class action
that opt out of a settlement have no standing to then challenge
the court's approval of it, Mr. Brunson tells the court.

Mr. Ledbetter's client are seeking to opt out of the settlement
and at the same time derail it so Mr. Shemin's clients won't
benefit from it, Brunson said in his response.

If the court doesn't dismiss Mr. Ledbetter's objection,
Mr. Brunson argues it should at least defer action on it until
after the deadline to opt out passes.

Mr. Brunson also rejects Ledbetter's argument the proposed
settlement is unfair, inadequate and unreasonable.

A trial in the case for Ledbetter's clients remains set for
July 6, 2015.


YAHOO INC: Settles Localworks False Advertising Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a small business
has settled its false advertising lawsuit against Yahoo centering
on its Localworks program, court documents reveal.  The deal's
terms are confidential, according to a stipulation filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Judge
Beth Labson Freeman officially dismissed the lawsuit on Sept. 18.

The resolution brings an end to a potential class-action filed by
Wilson & Haubert, a small law firm based in North Little Rock,
Ark. The firm said in court papers that it paid $90 for a three-
month subscription to Localworks. That service aims to boost small
businesses by ensuring they are listed in online directories and
improving their visibility in search results, directories and map
applications.

The law firm alleged in its complaint that it found more than 87
errors in its directory listings after signing up for the service.

Yahoo responded in court papers that any inaccuracies in the
listings were due to an error the law firm made during the sign-up
process. "A five-minute call to Yahoo's customer service could
have resolved the problem," the company said.

Earlier this year, Yahoo argued that Wilson & Haubert should post
a bond in order to proceed with the case. U.S. District Court
Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California rejected
that request. "Yahoo has not shown a possibility of success on the
merits which warrant the posting of a bond," Chen said at the
time.


ZIPREALTY INC: Ariz. Court Approves $1.7M Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Arizona approved a
$1.7 million settlement reached in a labor suit filed by Patricia
Anderson and James Kwasiborski against ZipRealty, Inc., according
to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On February 17, 2012, two real estate sales agents formerly
employed by the company, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
company in the United States District Court, District of Arizona,
Patricia Anderson and James Kwasiborski v. ZipRealty, Inc. The
complaint concerned our compensation practices nationwide
regarding our real estate agents, who at the time at issue were
classified as employees. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the company failed to pay these persons minimum wage and overtime
as required by federal law. The complaint sought liquidated and
treble damages in addition to wages and overtime for an
unspecified amount. On December 23, 2013, the company reached a
settlement for $1.7 million to resolve both the federal and state
law claims. This settlement was subsequently approved by the
court. The company was also responsible for payment of the
employer's share of F.I.C.A. taxes and other employer tax for the
back wages which total less than $0.1 million. A liability and
corresponding expense for the $1.7 million settlement and
associated employer's share of F.I.C.A. taxes and other employer
taxes was included in litigation settlement charges in the
Company's Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31,
2013 because a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.


ZIPREALTY INC: Settles "Adewunmi" Labor Claims in Calif. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc. reached a $30,000 settlement to resolve all labor
claims filed by Tracy Adewunmi, according to the company's Aug.
13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On February 29, 2012, one real estate agent formerly employed by
the Company, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
individuals, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, Tracy Adewunmi v.
ZipRealty, Inc., concerning the Company's compensation practices
regarding real estate agents in California. Specifically, the
complaint alleged that the Company failed to pay these persons
minimum wage and overtime, failed to provide meal and rest
periods, failed to reimburse employee expenses and failed to
provide itemized wage statements as required by California laws.
The complaint sought unspecified damages including penalties and
attorneys' fees in addition to wages and overtime. On May 20,
2013, Ms. Adewunmi dropped the class claims in her complaint and
proceeded as an individual plaintiff. On January 28, 2014, the
Company reached a settlement with Ms. Adewunmi for $30,000 to
resolve all claims. The payment of this $30,000 settlement was
reflected in litigation settlement charges in the Company's
Statement of Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2014.


ZIPREALTY INC: Plaintiff in Suit Over Realogy Merger Drops Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda granted Veronica Masseo's motion to voluntarily dismiss
the lawsuit she filed over the proposed acquisition of the shares
of ZipRealty, Inc. by Realogy Group LLC, according to ZipRealty's
Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 22, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Veronica Masseo, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
ZipRealty stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda, captioned Masseo v.
ZipRealty, Inc. et al., against ZipRealty, Realogy Group LLC
("Realogy"), Honeycomb Acquisition, Inc. ("Purchaser"), and
members of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Company Board"),
challenging the proposed acquisition of the shares of ZipRealty by
Realogy through Purchaser (the "Proposed Transaction"). The
lawsuit claimed, among other things, that the members of the
Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing
to maximize stockholder value in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection
measures and by omitting allegedly material information from the
Company's Schedule 14D-9. The lawsuit further claimed that the
Company, Realogy and Purchaser aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit sought class
certification, preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting
the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, a declaration that
members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties,
costs and disbursements and any other equitable relief the Court
may have deemed just and proper. On July 30, 2014, the plaintiff
filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit, which was
granted by the court on the same day.


ZIPREALTY INC: Seeks Approval of Fundamental Partners Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc. is seeking final approval of a settlement reached
in "Fundamental Partners v. Baker et al.," which challenges the
Realogy Group LLC merger, according to ZipRealty's Aug. 13, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 22, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Fundamental Partners, on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated ZipRealty stockholders, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda, captioned
Fundamental Partners v. Baker et al., against the Company, Realogy
Holdings Corp., Realogy, Purchaser and members of the Company
Board, challenging the defendants' actions in causing the Company
to enter into the Merger Agreement and in omitting certain
information from Schedule 14D-9 and Schedule TO. The lawsuit
claims, among other things, that members of the Company Board
breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an allegedly unfair
process for exploring strategic alternatives. In addition, the
lawsuit claims that the Company and members of the Company Board
breached their fiduciary duties by omitting allegedly material
information from the Company's Schedule 14D-9. The lawsuit also
claims that Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy and Purchaser breached
their fiduciary duties by omitting allegedly material facts from
Realogy and Purchaser's Schedule TO. Finally, the lawsuit claims
that the Company, Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy and Purchaser
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by members of the Company
Board of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks class
certification, a declaration that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the Merger Agreement until the trial is conducted or corrective
disclosures are made, compensatory and/or rescissory damages,
interest, attorney's fees, expert's fees and other costs and any
other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

On August 11, 2014, the Company, Realogy Holdings Corp,, Realogy,
Purchaser and members of the Company Board (collectively, the
"Defendants") entered into a stipulation of settlement with the
plaintiffs and their counsel in this matter. The Company believes
that the lawsuit is without merit; however, to avoid the risk that
the litigation may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
completion of the Offer and the Merger and to minimize the expense
of defending such action, the Defendants have agreed to settle the
lawsuit pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of settlement.
The stipulation of settlement is subject to customary conditions,
including approval by the Superior Court of the State of
California following a hearing on the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. If the court does not grant final
approval, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
stipulation of settlement may be terminated.


ZIPREALTY INC: Del. Court Grants Voluntary Dismissal of "Trezoik"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted plaintiff's
request for dismissal of the case Trezoik v. ZipRealty, Inc. et
al., according to the company's Aug. 13, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

On July 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Maryann Trezoik, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
stockholders of the Company, in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, captioned Trezoik v. ZipRealty, Inc. et al., against
the Company, Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy, Purchaser, and
members of the Company Board, challenging the Proposed
Transaction. The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that the
members of the Company Board breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, by engaging in a sale process that
allegedly favored Realogy, by agreeing to allegedly preclusive
deal protection measures and by omitting allegedly material
information from the Company's Schedule 14D-9. The lawsuit further
claimed that the Company, Realogy Holdings Corp., Realogy and
Purchaser aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The lawsuit sought, among other things, class
certification, a declaration that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties or aided and abetted such breaches, a declaration
that the proposed transaction is unfair, unjust and inequitable,
preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the consummation
of the proposed transaction at unfair or inequitable prices,
rescission or rescissory damages in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated, damages resulting from the alleged
wrongdoing of the defendants, costs and disbursements and any
other relief the Court may deem just and proper. The plaintiff
filed a request for dismissal on August 7, 2014, which was granted
by the court on August 8, 2014.


                              *********

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  * * *