CAR_Public/141007.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 199

                             Headlines

99 MILES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in "Augustus" Case Remains Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule on Oral Argument in "Bucio" Appeal
AFRICAN BANK: May Face Class Action Over Lending Practices
AJD-NYC INC: "Avendano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
APPLE INC: Nov. 17 Trial Scheduled for iPod Antitrust Suit
ATP OIL: Dist. Court Tosses Claims in Securities Suit vs. D&Os
B&G FOODS: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Alduey" Suit Claims
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Accord Ends Legal Action v. Storm Founders

BBQ CHICKEN DON ALEX: Faces "Asfaw" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BENSON & HEDGES: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Ban Cigarette Sale
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Damages in Mesh Suit Slashed to $34.6 Million
CAFE LALO: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CANADA: Soldier Files Class Action Over Home Sale Losses

COMPUTER EXPRESS: "Jimemez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Faces "Sifonte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Valid Health Claims
CROWLEY PAINTING: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castellanos" Suit Says
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Franchisees Sued for Withholding Service Charge

DON PEPI: "Dorantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EL NUEVO VALLE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ELI LILLY: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Testosterone Replacement Drug
EXPRESS MEE: "Yang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FAIR ISAAC: Faces "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations

FAIR ISAAC: Faces 2nd "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations
FANNIE MAE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
FAST WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Slavkov" Suit Says
FEDERAL RESERVE: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Artis" Race Bias Suit
FERELLGAS LP: Faces Route 49 Suit Over Propane Gas Price-Fixing

FIFTH GENERATION: Falsely Marketed Vodka Products, Suit Claims
FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal Pending on Class Action Dismissal
FORGE GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Over Collapse Expanded
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Suits First Trial Likely in 2015
GULF COAST COLLECTION: 11th Cir. Reversed Ruling on "Mais" Suit

H&R BLOCK: Court Stays RAL and RAC Litigation Pending Arbitration
H&R BLOCK: Missouri Appeals Court Remanded "Lopez" Case
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Case Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Court Granted Arbitration Bid in Form 8863 Litigation
H&R BLOCK: Awaits Final Order in McGladrey Class Action Deal

HASBRO INC: Denial of "O'Brien" Class Certification Upheld
IMO INDUSTRIES: Insurance Firms Must Pay $1.85MM Asbestos Claims
INDIA: Prime Minister Modi Sued in NY Over Human Rights Violation
INDIAN CREEK: Faces "Piner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
J.CREW GROUP: Oct 15 Final Hearing on Class Action Settlement

KARPATHOES INC: "Ports" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LA BELLA MARKETPLACE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LA DULCE: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LEIDOS INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D. Cal. Over Data Breach
LLOYD'S LONDON: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Settlement Agreement

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Limited Discovery in Voss Litigation
MENDOTA INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pro Rata Share
MODEL SERVICE: Faces "Agerbrink" Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAVISTAR CANADA: Harrison Pensa Files MaxxForce Class Action
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Business Practices

NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers File Class Suit Over Psa Outbreak
NUTELLA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Settlement Order in Deceptive Mktg Suit
NVIDIA CORP: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
OIL STATES ENERGY: "Frost" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Action in Discovery Phase

PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 4 Hearing on Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Case
PELLA CORP: Clifford Named New Class Counsel in Windows Suit
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: US Ruling Limits Price-Fixing Suit Coverage
RICHEY SHIPLEY: "Uscanga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RITE OF PASSAGE: "Keele" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

RODRIGUEZ PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SEARS CANADA: Hometown Store Dealers' Class Action Can Proceed
SKO BRENNER: Faces "Casagnap" Suit in Over Violation of FDCPA
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Violation of ADA

STATE FARM: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Legal Costs
SUPERFRESH GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
THOMAS MANUFACTURING: Sued in D.N.J. Over Violation of FLSA
TRS RECOVERY: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss

UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Consolidation Request
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Drops Holdings Securities Case Appeal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Israel Class Suit Continuation
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: April 2015 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
VERINT SYSTEMS: Says Class Suit Mediation Process "Unsuccessful"

WORLD JOURNAL: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
XYZ CORPORATION: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ZURICH NA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act


                            *********


99 MILES: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elias Perez Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 99 Miles to Philly, Inc., d/b/a 99 Miles to Philly,
Brad Kranz, and Neil Barshy, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07811
(S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as 99 Miles to
Philly located at 94 Third Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABM INDUSTRIES: Appeal in "Augustus" Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeals in the Augustus case remains pending, ABM Industries
Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2014.

The Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case"), is
a certified class action involving allegations that we violated
certain state laws relating to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest
break claim, which sought damages in the amount of $103.1 million,
and we filed a motion for decertification of the class. On July 6,
2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the
"Superior Court"), heard plaintiffs' motion for damages on the
rest break claim and the Company's motion to decertify the class.
On July 31, 2012, the Superior Court denied the Company's motion
and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million. This $89.7 million is included in the
range of loss for all reasonably possible losses. The $89.7
million amount did not include plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of
the State of California, Second Appellate District (the "Appeals
Court") on August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three separate
motions for attorneys' fees with the Superior Court. One motion
sought attorneys' fees from the common fund. (The common fund
refers to the approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in
favor of the plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys'
fees from the Company in an aggregate amount of approximately
$12.4 million.

The Company said, "On October 12, 2012, we filed oppositions to
the two fee motions seeking attorneys' fees from us with the
Superior Court. On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all
three fee motions and it granted plaintiffs' fee motion with
respect to the common fund in full. The Superior Court denied one
fee motion in its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to
approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5 million is included in the
range of loss for all reasonably possible losses.  We have
appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Appeals Court, and on
April 30, 2013, the Appeals Court agreed to consolidate the
appeals."

"We strongly disagree with the decisions of the Superior Court
both with respect to the underlying case and with respect to the
award of attorneys' fees and costs. We firmly believe that we have
complied with the applicable law."

ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of end-to-end integrated
facility solutions to thousands of commercial, industrial,
institutional, retail, residential, and governmental facilities
located primarily throughout the United States.


ABM INDUSTRIES: No Schedule on Oral Argument in "Bucio" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument relating to the appeal in the Bucio case has not
been scheduled, ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4,
2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.

The Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial
Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case") is a
purported class action involving allegations that we failed to
track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial
court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The
plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial
court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the
appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate
brief on the class certification issues.

"We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument
relating to the appeal has not been scheduled," the Company said.

"We expect to prevail in these ongoing cases. However, as
litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance
in this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases,
or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect
on our financial position or cash flows."

ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of end-to-end integrated
facility solutions to thousands of commercial, industrial,
institutional, retail, residential, and governmental facilities
located primarily throughout the United States.


AFRICAN BANK: May Face Class Action Over Lending Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Lerato Zikalala, writing for BusinessDay, reports that in the wake
of the unsuccessful bid to form a class action for affected
consumers in the R699-car-scheme, and with murmurs of a class
action being launched over African Bank's alleged reckless lending
practices, it seems this mechanism is increasingly being
considered to obtain recourse for aggrieved consumers.

The class action, a procedure where a person can institute action
on behalf of a similarly affected group of people, aggregates the
small claims of many into one significant claim.

In countries where this legal procedure is more developed,
companies have bemoaned the potentially oppressive nature of class
actions, which use the threat of mass-scale litigation to induce
settlements.

In South African law, use of class actions is not only a new
development, it also significantly changes the bargaining
positions of parties in liability litigation that companies cannot
rely only on their ability to out-lawyer an opponent.

In the past, companies were relatively immune from litigation in
which many people had claims, particularly relatively small
claims, because the risk of incurring legal costs often outweighed
the potential benefit for individual litigants.

However, following the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment in a
matter involving the Children's Resource Trust, which established
the procedure needed for instituting a class action in South
African law, the likelihood of any company in the throes of a
massive consumer debacle actually being visited with mass
litigation moved from a legal improbability to a factual
possibility.

In the past few years we have heard about class actions in the
miners' silicosis case against mining companies, the bread price-
fixing case against bread manufacturers, the Transnet pensioners'
case, and class actions instituted by rights groups against the
Department of Education in the Eastern Cape, to name a few.

There are many benefits to this development.  Class actions can
spur social and economic reform, particularly in rights cases.
Most importantly, they enable people who do not ordinarily have
the means to take legal action to do so.

And because companies are likely to be defending class actions
rather than instituting them, the litigation risk matrix is
significantly changed. When dealing with class actions, it is not
simply a case of "we'll fight it out in court".  In countries
where class action is well developed, it is generally understood
that the matter will probably not proceed to court to decide the
actual merit of the case.  Instead, the eventual success of the
claim will be dictated by the size of the affected group and the
size of the claim, sometimes irrespective of whether the claim is
defendable.

So companies should not lackadaisically approach the formation of
a class, or dismiss as a mere technicality the certification
process just because they believe they have a good case on the
merits of the matter.  These initial procedural steps set the
parameters for the "fight" on the road to a settlement.

Another issue that companies should bear in mind is that class
action in South Africa is new, with the rules being made up as we
go along.  While the thought of a test case is thrilling for
lawyers and academic writers, it is the type of litigation that
companies should be wary of engaging in.

In other jurisdictions, safeguards have been developed to guard
against the potential abuse of this procedure by enterprising
lawyers eager to win a big settlement.  In fairness, our courts
are mindful of the potential for abuse, having announced that
safeguards will be developed following a period of trial and
error.  But which company wants to be on the receiving end of that
exercise?

Our law makes specific room for use of the class action procedure
in giving recourse to people and affected parties in various
circumstances, so the development of the procedure is inevitable.

Class actions remain high-stakes litigation, involving big
numbers, an often high profile and a likely effect on the bottom
line.

That said, the fact that the recent attempt to establish a class
action in the R699-car-scheme failed, is evidence that these
procedures are not easy to initiate.

In addition, the launching of a mass claim offers companies a
unique opportunity to deal with their litigation risk exposure in
one go, which may eventually improve their future prospects.

A company should approach this type of litigation by first
understanding the ambit of the potential class, whether proceeding
using this mechanism is indeed the only option, and whether there
are alternative dispute mechanisms that it can pursue.


AJD-NYC INC: "Avendano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Avendano, Edwin Baizan, Mario Pretel and Antonio Perez, on
behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v.
AJD-NYC Inc. d/b/a De Santos, Alejandro Gonzalez, Luis Miguel
Amutio, Jose Manuel Amutio and Juan Pedro Lambert, Case No. 1:14-
cv-07835 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant under the trade name
De Santos located at 139 W. 10th Street, New York, NY 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa 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


ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Helfenbein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Altair Nanotechnologies, Inc., Alexander
Lee, Richard W. Lee, Guohua Sun, James T. Zhan, Stephen B. Huang,
Paula Conroy, and Karen Warner, Case No. 1:14-cv-07828 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 26, 2014), alleged that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies, and internal controls over financial reporting.

The Defendants design, manufacture and deliver energy storage
systems for clean, efficient power and energy management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


APPLE INC: Nov. 17 Trial Scheduled for iPod Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge has hit the play button on antitrust allegations targeting
Apple Inc. iPods, sending the case toward trial after nearly 10
years of litigation.

Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to show certain iPod
models only played music downloaded from the Apple iTunes store,
creating a monopoly that allowed the company to overcharge
customers, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
Northern District of California ruled on Sept. 26.  The judge
denied Apple's motion for summary judgment, and the case now
proceeds toward a Nov. 17 trial date.  Plaintiffs estimate damages
at about $350 million.

In response, Apple has beefed up its defense team with a slew of
Boies, Schiller & Flexner attorneys who entered appearances on
Sept. 29.  The team includes partner John Cove Jr. in the firm's
Oakland office, as well as partners William Isaacson and Karen
Dunn from Washington, D.C.

They join Robert Mittelstaedt -- ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- of
Jones Day, who argued Apple's motion for summary judgment in
Oakland federal court in August.

Apple had tried to throw out the case by attacking the plaintiffs'
damages expert, arguing he presented no admissible evidence that
Apple's practices had an effect on the market.

"The linchpin, and Achilles' heel, of Apple's argument is the word
'admissible.'" Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

There's no reason why the testimony of Roger Noll, a Stanford
University economics professor, is not admissible, she continued.
Apple had introduced two experts of its own to poke holes in
Noll's theories.  The University of Chicago professors argued Noll
failed to account for certain variables affecting iPod prices and
used the wrong model to calculate damages.

But Judge Gonzalez Rogers said "the battle between the economists"
should play out before a jury, and denied Apple's Daubert motion
to exclude Noll's testimony.

The iPod/iTunes litigation, led by plaintiffs lawyers with Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, began in 2005.  U.S. District Judge James
Ware, who retired in 2012, threw out two of the plaintiffs'
antitrust claims before Judge Gonzalez Rogers took over.  The one
surviving claim alleges a 2006 Apple upgrade illegally shut out
competitor RealNetworks Inc. from the MP3 market.  RealNetworks
had used its Harmony software to make its music compatible with
iPods, but after the 2006 upgrade, the company's music no longer
played on Apple devices.

The upgrade locked customers with large music libraries into Apple
products, plaintiffs argued, as customers who wanted new players
had to continue buying iPods or lose their music.

Plaintiffs lawyers represent a certified class of customers who
bought certain iPod models between 2006 and 2009.

Robbins Geller partner Bonny Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com -- said
she has every reason to believe the case will go to trial in
November.

"We're delighted that we're finally able to present the case to a
jury," she said.

Apple did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed concern during the August hearing
that plaintiffs provided no testimony from customers who bought
songs from RealNetworks and couldn't play them on their iPods. But
she changed her tune on Sept. 26.

"The lack of direct evidence of named individuals who used Harmony
does not disprove their existence," Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote.
"The court finds nothing unreasonable about an assumption that,
among the millions of persons who used iPods during the class
period, some may have purchased songs from Real."


ATP OIL: Dist. Court Tosses Claims in Securities Suit vs. D&Os
--------------------------------------------------------------
FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RELIEF FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. T.
PAUL BULMAHN, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-3935, C/W NO. 13-6083,
NO. 13-6084., 13-6233, (E.D. La.) is a securities class action
brought on behalf of all persons who acquired ATP Oil and Gas
Corporation (ATP) 11.875% Senior Second Lien Exchange Notes
traceable to an allegedly false and misleading Form S-4
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
ATP's December 16, 2010 exchange offer (the Exchange). ATP filed
for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on August 17, 2012 and is not named as a
defendant in this action. Instead, plaintiffs sued ATP's senior
executives and board of directors, alleging violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Defendants T. Paul Buhlman, Albert L. Reese, Jr., and Keith R.
Godwin (the Officer Defendants) have filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Defendants Chris A. Brisack, Arthur H. Dilly, Gerard J. Swonke,
Brent M. Longnecker, Walter Wendlandt, Burt A. Adams, George R.
Edwards, and Robert J. Karow (the Director Defendants) have
likewise filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Chief District Judge Sarah S. Vance granted the defendants' motion
and dismissed the plaintiff's claims in an order and reasons dated
September 26, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Vt5PAZfrom Leagle.com.

Specifically, these Section 11 claims are dismissed with
prejudice: (1) that the defendants violated Item 303 by failing to
disclose the alleged problems at the Atwater well; (2) that the
proved oil and gas reserves as reported by ATP were false and
misleading; (3) that ATP's forecast of "a substantial increase in
production over the next year as development wells are brought to
production" was false or misleading because defendants failed to
disclose the alleged problems at Atwater; (4) that defendants
failed to disclose that ATP was in violation of its credit and
debt agreements due to "disguised financings" with various
entities; (5) that defendants failed to disclose that ATP was
operating in violation of U.S. environmental laws; and (6) that
the boilerplate "risk disclosures" utilized in the Registration
Statement were themselves misleading.

The Court dismissed plaintiff's Section 12 claim with prejudice.
These claims are dismissed without prejudice: (1) that the
defendants violated Item 303 by failing to disclose that ATP did
not have the liquidity and revenue to survive the moratoria; and
(2) that ATP's forecast of "a substantial increase in production
over the next year as development wells are brought to production"
was false or misleading because defendants knew that ATP lacked
the liquidity and revenues to survive the moratoria.

The Court also dismissed plaintiff's Section 15 claim without
prejudice saying although the plaintiff adequately pleaded control
person status, the claim is entirely derivative of plaintiff's
Section 11 claim. Accordingly, dismissal is required, but
plaintiff may revive the claim if it chooses to amend, ruled the
Court.

"To the extent the Court has granted leave to amend, the amended
complaint must be filed within 21 days of the entry of this
order," Judge Vance added.

Thomas J Mansfield, 13-6083, 13-6084, Consol Movant, represented
by Thomas J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey & McKenna.


B&G FOODS: Falsely Marketed Food Products, "Alduey" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Alduey, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. B&G Foods, Inc., B&G Foods North America, Inc., and
B&G Foods Snacks, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07839 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for the
deceptive practice of marketing their Polaner All Fruit with Fiber
spreadable fruit products as All Natural when they contain
non-natural, highly processed ingredients such as Maltodextrin.

The Defendants develop, market and sell food products throughout
the world under various brand names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Accord Ends Legal Action v. Storm Founders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Passmore, writing for Courier Mail, reports that many Storm
Financial victims feel a keen sense of injustice that key players
in the collapse will never have their day in court.

While a deal by the Bank of Queensland to pay almost AU$20 million
in compensation -- while denying any wrongdoing -- provides some
relief, Storm Investors Consumer Action Group co-chairman Mark
Weir said there was "a very sour taste" in people's mouths.

"The interpretation by investors is that there are certain people
getting a free ticket in not facing court," Mr. Weir said.

Storm collapsed when the global financial crisis hit in 2008, and
3000 investors lost a combined $800 million.  Six years on, the
only civil proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission against any individuals -- alleging Storm
founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis breached their directors'
duties -- has yet to come to trial.  They both deny any
wrongdoing.

And ASIC confirms that the settlement brings to an end any action
in relation to BOQ, its associated entities and any officer,
employee and agent.  That includes Matthew Buchanan and Declan
Carnes, who were, and continue to be, the owner-operators of the
bank's North Ward franchise in Townsville.

According to documents tendered in court and to Parliament, this
one small office approved hundreds of the loan applications
prepared by Storm for its clients.  The deal resulted from a class
action brought by Levitt Robinson Solicitors.  The agreement
prevents them and their clients from commenting but the legal firm
was critical of the corporate watchdog in a submission to a Senate
inquiry into ASIC.

"No ASIC civil prosecution has been initiated against Matthew
Buchanan or Declan Carnes, who, through Senrac Pty Limited, owned
the North Ward (Townsville) franchise and have been responsible
for 267 out of 319 of the Storm home loans," it said.

"Carnes and Buchanan continue to operate the North Ward franchise
of BOQ to this day with impunity -- thanks to ASIC."

Documents filed by Levitt Robinson in court as part of the class
action allege that Messrs. Buchanan and Carnes were familiar with
Storm's risky "double-geared" model of using equity and margin
loans to fund new indexed share investments.  They allege the bank
knew there was a risk that Storm would not give independent or
adequate advice.  As a result, the action alleged, BOQ had engaged
in unconscionable conduct and breached the Banking Code.

A BOQ spokesman said the settlement included acknowledgment by all
parties that BOQ denied any wrongdoing.

"The decision to settle was a commercial one that will help
provide certainty," he said.  He would not comment on what, if
any, action the bank had, or would, take against Messrs. Buchanan
and Carnes.


BBQ CHICKEN DON ALEX: Faces "Asfaw" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Asfaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BBQ Chicken Don Alex No. 1 Corp., Diavi Orores,
Osvaldo Yallico, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05665
(E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Don Alex Restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


BENSON & HEDGES: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Ban Cigarette Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Les Perreaux, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Canada's big tobacco companies are accusing the plaintiffs in a
landmark class-action lawsuit of attempting to use the courts to
do what Parliament doesn't dare: ban the sale of cigarettes.

In closing arguments that was set to be heard last week as a
Quebec court case spanning 16 years nears an end, plaintiffs in
the C$17.8-billion lawsuit will argue the damage caused by tobacco
vastly outweighs the utility of cigarettes.  "The mischievous,
useless product [is] designed to trap users in a toxic and often
deadly addiction" and companies should be held at fault and pay
for the consequences, the plaintiffs say in written arguments.

The big three tobacco companies counter that cigarettes have at
least one use -- to give smokers pleasure -- and Quebec Superior
Court cannot be asked to effectively ban a product Canadian
lawmakers have chosen to regulate instead.

The class-action lawsuit pitting tobacco companies against a
million Quebec plaintiffs, including addicts who cannot quit and
smokers who have suffered illness, is the first litigation of its
kind in Canada to approach judgment.

Every province is at some stage of passing laws to open the door
to litigation against tobacco companies or preparing lawsuits to
recover health-care costs.  The Quebec case is years ahead of any
other in the court process.  The plaintiffs in the Quebec case
want Justice Brian Riordan to find manufacturers are at fault for
their dangerous product and to award damages so prohibitive they
would ruin the business.  The companies say if they were forced
out of the tobacco business, illegal alternative sources would
simply fill the void.

Bruce Johnston, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs,
avoided using the word "ban," but conceded the consequences of a
full courtroom victory would probably end the legal sale of
cigarettes.

"If tobacco companies paid for the consequences of putting their
product on the market, if they sold cigarettes for $50 a pack,
they could compensate people who get addicted," Mr. Johnston said
in an interview.

"It's not a ban we seek, but undoubtedly our success would have
consequences.  Bad products get litigated out of the market.
That's one of the purposes civil litigation serves for society."

The tobacco companies, however, were in concert declaring the
plaintiffs want the courts to ban cigarettes when legislatures
have refused.

"Now, after more than two-and-a-half years of trial, tens of
thousands of exhibits, millions of pages of productions, 76
witnesses and 31 expert reports, the plaintiffs have finally
described what they are complaining about," lawyers for Imperial
Tobacco prepared in a written response to the plaintiffs.

"Their entire case is based on the concept that somehow the
product should be banned and should not have been put on the
market at all, at any point.  Indeed, their stated intention is to
put the industry out of business."

The other tobacco companies being sued, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
and JTI-Macdonald, offered similar interpretations of the stakes
of the lawsuit in their legal filings.  Rothmans pointed out the
courts have "repeatedly confirmed federal and provincial policy
that selling cigarettes, despite their known dangers, should be
lawful."

"Both the federal and Quebec governments, like governments
throughout the world, chose quite deliberately to let adult
consumers make their own choices about smoking," Rothmans says in
its legal response.

JTI-Macdonald says Quebec's Superior Court has no jurisdiction to
rescind government decisions "to regulate, rather than ban, the
sale of cigarettes."

A judgment in the lawsuit is expected some time next year.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Damages in Mesh Suit Slashed to $34.6 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a jury award of
$73.4 million to a woman who said she was injured by a Boston
Scientific Corp. transvaginal mesh device has been cut to $34.6
million, thanks to a Texas law that caps how much companies must
pay in punitive damages.

Last month, jurors in Dallas found Boston Scientific liable for
selling a defective Obtryx sling that was implanted in plaintiff
Martha Salazar to treat urinary leakage.  The jury awarded
Ms. Salazar approximately $23 million in compensatory damages for
actual suffering and $50 million in punitive damages after finding
that Boston Scientific had been grossly negligent.

On Oct. 2, Dallas County Judge Ken Molberg ordered the punitive
damages to be slashed to just over $11 million, citing a Texas law
that limits damages designed to punish companies to no more than
two times a plaintiff's economic losses, plus up to $750,000 in
non-economic losses.

A lawyer for Ms. Salazar, David Matthews, said he had anticipated
the reduction under state law.  "It's still a very significant
finding for a single case," he said.

Boston Scientific did not immediately return a request for
comment.  Following the jury verdict last month, the company had
said it planned to appeal.

The company has faced three trials so far over its transvaginal
mesh products, which are used to treat stress urinary incontinence
and pelvic organ prolapse.  The first two trials, which were heard
in Massachusetts, resulted in wins for Boston Scientific.

The third, Ms. Salazar's case, was the first loss for the medical
device manufacturer, which is facing more than 23,000 claims from
women in federal and state courts across the country over the
devices.  Women allege that Boston Scientific sold the device
knowing it was defective, causing a variety of injuries, including
pain, bleeding and infection.

Thousands of federal lawsuits have been consolidated before a
single judge in West Virginia, and additional trials in those
cases are scheduled to begin in November.

Boston Scientific is among seven device makers that have faced a
wave of claims over similar products.  Other defendants include
C.R. Bard Inc and Johnson & Johnson's Ethicon Inc unit.

Endo International's American Medical Systems subsidiary became
the first major company to largely bow out of mesh litigation.  It
announced this week that it has set aside $1.6 billion to settle
tens of thousands of cases, ending "substantially all" U.S. mesh
cases against it.

The case is Salazar v. Lopez, District Court for Dallas County,
No. DC-12-14349.


CAFE LALO: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Soto, et al., v. Cafe Lalo, Inc., Haim Lalo, and Daniel
Reyes, Case No. 1:14-cv-07833 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation.

Cafe Lalo, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at 201
West83rdStreet New York, New York 10024.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Strauss, Esq.
      KURZON STRAUSS LLP
      305 Broadway 9th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 822-1496
      Facsimile: (917) 332-1407
      E-mail: jesse@strausslawpllc.com

         - and -

      Maurice Samuel Pianko, Esq.
      PIANKO LAW GROUP PLLC
      55 Broad Street, Suite #13F
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (646) 801-9675
      Facsimile: (973) 689-8874
      E-mail: aycrigglda@gmail.com


CANADA: Soldier Files Class Action Over Home Sale Losses
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cuthbertson, writing for CBC News, reports that a Canadian
soldier who lost more than C$72,000 selling his home has launched
a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the federal government of
denying full compensation to dozens of military personnel who
suffered large financial hits when ordered to move.

Master Warrant Officer Neil Dodsworth has spent 33 years in the
Canadian Forces and has served in Somalia, Afghanistan and
earthquake-ravaged Haiti.  He's currently stationed at CFB
Gagetown in New Brunswick.

In 2007, Mr. Dodsworth was posted to CFB Edmonton.  Unable to find
a spot in military housing or afford Edmonton's soaring home
prices, he and his family bought a condo row house in Morinville,
a town about 35 kilometers outside the city.

A year later he was moved again, but by that time the housing
market had crashed in Morinville.  Mr. Dodsworth finally sold the
home at a large loss, but thought he'd be fully compensated under
a federal program called Home Equity Assistance.

He learned otherwise -- on the day the family was moving.

"The movers were taking my furniture out the front door.  I was on
a cellphone in the back of the house and told, 'Your compensation
is denied,'" Mr. Dodsworth told CBC News.

"If there's one time I wanted to curl up and cry, [it] was then."

The Home Equity Assistance program is supposed to protect Canadian
Forces members against large financial losses when they are forced
to sell their homes in so-called "depressed markets."  The
Treasury Board has defined those markets as communities where real
estate values drop by 20 per cent or more.

Mr. Dodsworth said he battled for four years for compensation
beyond an initial C$15,000 offered by the military, submitting
documentation showing the Morinville housing market had collapsed
by up to 30 per cent.

He went through adjudication, the military grievance board, an
ombudsman and appealed directly to the minister of defense.  Many
were sympathetic, Mr. Dodsworth said, but the Treasury Board
remained unmoved.

"It was a kick every time.  Just turning around and getting that
denial stuffed in your face," he said.

"But you have to stay within the military process.  That's why you
wear the uniform.  If you don't like something, take it up your
chain of command.  It's always been the way we deal with things."

Earlier this month, Mr. Dodsworth's lawyer quietly filed a class
action lawsuit at the Halifax office of the Federal Court of
Canada.  The statement of claim alleges that between July 2008 and
January 2013 there were 118 applications to the Home Equity
Assistance program for losses greater than C$15,000.  Just two
were successful in getting full compensation.

Dan Wallace, a Halifax-based lawyer, said he suspects there are
roughly 150 members of the Canadian Forces who may have been
unfairly denied compensation by the Treasury Board.

Unlike most Canadians, members of the military have little choice
but to accept postings ordered by superiors, he said, and the Home
Equity Assistance program is supposed to protect them financially.

Defense not yet filed

"This protection that was there for them and that they thought
they had with them their entire career, really wasn't worth
anything," Mr. Wallace said in an interview with CBC News.

"That's one of the most unfair things about this -- is they're
told in recruitment documents that 'Your expenses are covered,
don't worry about moving, we know it can be tough on your family,
but the financial aspects are covered.'

"Unfortunately, that was not the case when Neil did suffer loss,
through no fault of his own, simply by following orders."

None of the allegations have been tested in court. The federal
government has not yet filed a defence and the class action has
not yet been certified.  The statement of claim said the Treasury
Board has denied there are any depressed markets in Canada.

Mr. Dodsworth said his family not only lost all equity in the
home, the sale price didn't even cover the mortgage and he was
forced to take out an emergency C$21,000 bank loan.  The situation
created so many financial headaches that even though he was
approaching retirement, Mr. Dodsworth said he volunteered in 2011
for a tour of Afghanistan so he could earn extra pay.

"At the end of the tunnel you want to see that retirement," he
said.  "I'm still here in uniform because of this issue.  I could
have retired last year at age 55."

Similar case

Mr. Dodsworth's case is similar to that of Maj. Marcus Brauer, a
soldier at CFB Halifax.  He lost C$88,000 when he moved from Bon
Accord, Alta., and was compensated just C$15,000 even though the
real estate market in the town had sunk by 23 per cent.

In his case the federal government claimed that Bon Accord, a
community with its own mayor and council, should nonetheless be
considered part of Edmonton where housing prices had not slumped
by nearly as much.

In May, a federal court judge ruled in favor of Mr. Brauer, saying
the denial of compensation had been "devastating" for the soldier
and his family and the Treasury Board was being "unreasonable."
The judge ordered the Treasury Board to re-examine its decision
and said it must consider Bon Accord a standalone community.

The federal government has now paid Mr. Brauer's legal fees, but
four months after the ruling he's still not seen a penny of
compensation from the Treasury Board.

Treasury Board president Tony Clement told the House of Commons
the federal government would obey the court ruling in the Brauer
case.  "The review is underway, I am informed, and will be
completed soon," he said.  "Then, of course, government will
consider the review and act accordingly."


COMPUTER EXPRESS: "Jimemez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Jimenez, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Computer Express International Ltd., Icomp.Com
Inc., Nathan Kraiem and Rebecca Kraiem, Case No. 1:14-cv-05657
(E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a computer repair and reseller
business under the trade names Computer Express International and
iComp NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Faces "Sifonte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Sifonte, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., a Foreign For Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01558 (M.D. Fla., September 25,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation.

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is an independent specialty
finance company that provides indirect automobile financing to
individuals with credit problems, low incomes, or limited credit
histories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600
      PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


CRITTENDEN HOSPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Valid Health Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Michelle Goodfellow, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated v. Eugene K. Cashman, Jr., Jamie R. Carter, Jr., David G.
Baytos, David Raines, Jr, W. Brad Mccormick, Jason W. Collard,
Herschel F. Owens, Andrew Luttrell, Donna B. Lanier,  Carol C.
McCormack, Keith M. Ingram, Randall Catt, David Ford,  Thomas F.
Donaldson, Jr., William Johnson, Lannie L. Lancaste & Julio P.
Ruiz, Sherry L. London, Ness S. Sechrest, Randy R. Sullivan, Leven
Williams, Simplifi Health Benefit Management, LLC, and Cigna
Health and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00226 (E.D.
Ark., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to fund the Crittenden Hospital Association Plan while
simultaneously deducting premiums from CHA's employees and,
consequently, failure to pay valid health claims on the Plan
participants' behalves.

Crittenden Hospital Association owns and operates Crittenden
Regional Hospital and Crittenden Memorial Hospital, located in
West Memphis as well as operated various outpatient clinics in
Marion and West Memphis.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Crittenden
Regional Hospital and Crittenden Memorial Hospital.

The Corporate Defendants are insurance companies doing business
within the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Timothy Edwards, Esq.
      BALLIN BALLIN& FISHMAN, PC
      Suite 1250, 200 Jefferson Ave.
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 525-6278
      Facsimile: (901) 525-6294
      Email: tedwards@bbfpc.com

        - and -

      Frank L. Watson III, Esq.
      William F. Burns, Esq.
      WATSON BURNS PLLC
      253 Adams Avenue
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 529-7996
      Facsimile: (901) 529-7998
      Email: fivatson@watsonburns.com
             bburns@watsonburns.com


CROWLEY PAINTING: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Castellanos" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Castellanos, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Crowley Painting, Inc., and John Crowley,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07537 (N.D. Ill., September 27,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Crowley Painting, Inc. is a painting and paper hanging company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (877) 509-6422
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: consumerlawgroupllc@gmail.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Franchisees Sued for Withholding Service Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Mooney and Kevin Bartlett, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's
Pizza, LLC, G.D.S. Enterprises, Inc., Geoffrey D. Schembechler,
and Amy Schembechler, Case No. 1:14-cv-13723 (D. Mass., September
28, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for unlawfully taking
a tip credit against the wages of the delivery drivers while
withholding service charges that properly belonged to the delivery
drivers.

The Defendants are Domino's franchisees that operate multiple
Domino's-franchised restaurants in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan D. Meyerson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
      9th Floor, 100 State Street
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 444-9525
      Facsimile: (617) 934-7715
      E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com


DON PEPI: "Dorantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Dorantes, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Don Pepi Deli, Inc., d/b/a Don Pepi's, Nicholas Fazio,
and Thomas Michos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07813 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Don Pepi Deli, Inc. owns and operates a deli and pizzeria in
Pennsylvania Station, New York City, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EL NUEVO VALLE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Castillo v. El Nuevo Valle Restaurant, Corp., and Delvy
Castio, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05666 (E.D.N.Y., September
26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages.

El Nuevo Valle Restaurant, Corp. owns and operates a restaurant
located at 1846 Jerome Avenue, Bronx, NY 10453.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park, Building 2, Suite 220,
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


ELI LILLY: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Testosterone Replacement Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a suit filed in federal court in Newark claims Eli Lilly put users
at risk by aggressively marketing testosterone replacement drug
Axiron while failing to adequately warn about the risk of heart
attack and stroke.

Lilly markets Axiron to men by describing "symptoms" of "Low T,"
such as decreased sexual desire, erectile dysfunction, fatigue and
loss of energy, depressed mood, decreased need to shave, decreased
strength and osteoporosis, that are caused by a "non-existent and
unrecognized medical condition called Low T," the suit claims.
Those symptoms are often merely the result of increasing age or
weight gain, the suit said.

The plaintiff, Patrick Miller of Hopatcong, N.J., began taking
Axiron at age 54 in September 2012, and suffered a heart attack on
Oct. 3, 2012.  The suit says Miller's doctor would not have
prescribed Axiron if he had been warned of the increased risks of
heart problems caused by using the drug.

While Axiron was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for
treatment of an endocrine disorder called hypogonadism, a study
showed that only 6 percent of men prescribed testosterone have
that condition, the suit says.

Lilly engaged in an aggressive "disease awareness campaign" to
alert men that they might be suffering from "Low T" but the FDA
has not approved any drug for the treatment of such a condition,
the suit said.  Furthermore, "low testosterone is not a disease
recognized by the medical community.  Instead, it is a normal
result of the aging process," the suit says.

Lilly promoted Axiron for "off-label" uses, but a manufacturer may
not introduce a drug into interstate commerce with an intent that
it be used for such a purpose, according to the suit.

Lilly "manufactured, sold and promoted these drugs to treat a non-
existent medical condition that the company calls 'Low T,' a name
created for the constellation of symptoms experienced by men as a
result of the normal aging process, the suit alleges.

"In essence, the defendant marketed and sold testosterone as a
lifestyle drug meant to make men feel younger and increase
libido," the suit says.

The company "successfully created a robust and previously
nonexistent market for their drugs," the suit alleges.

Miller's suit brings counts for failure to warn, defective design,
defective manufacturing, negligence, breach of implied warranty,
breach of express warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

Sales of Axiron were $178 million in 2013, and Lilly spent $122
million promoting the drug that year, with 70 percent of that
spent on direct-to-consumer advertising, the suit says.

In January, the FDA announced it is investigating the risk of
stroke, heart attack and death for men who take testosterone
products.  In June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the industry-wide consolidation of all federal
litigation over testosterone replacement therapies in the Northern
District of Illinois.

Lilly is a defendant in the multidistrict litigation over
testosterone, along with AbbVie, Abbott Laboratories, Actavis and
Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer.
Michael London of Douglas & London in New York, who filed the New
Jersey suit on behalf of Miller, did not return a call.  Lilly did
not respond to requests for comment about the suit.


EXPRESS MEE: "Yang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qi Bin Yang, on behalf of himself others similarly situated v.
Harry Sim, Mee Noodle Shop and Express Mee Noodle, INC. d/b/a Mee
Noodle Shop, Case No. 1:14-cv-07837 (S.D.N.Y., September 26,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate Mee Noodle Shop restaurant located
at 795 9 Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11E
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 888-7788
      Facsimile: (718) 888-0870
      E-mail: davidyanlawfirm@yahoo.com


FAIR ISAAC: Faces "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Springer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fair Isaac Corporation, Case No. 2:14-at-
01200 (E.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on the cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fair Isaac Corporation provides automated contact services to
several companies throughout the United States including auto-
resolution services such as two-way voice and alerting solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, California 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: Ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

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


FAIR ISAAC: Faces 2nd "Springer" Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Springer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fair Isaac Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02238 (E.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on the cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Fair Isaac Corporation provides automated contact services to
several companies throughout the United States including auto-
resolution services such as two-way voice and alerting solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, California 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: Ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

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


FANNIE MAE: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Whalen, on her behalf and all others similarly situated v.
Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae, a
federally chartered corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00650 (W.D.
Wis., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Federal National Mortgage Association engaged in the business of
providing information to and getting information from credit
reporting agencies concerning consumer's credit history often in
the form of a credit report.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: 651-770-9707
      E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Lyons, Sr., Esq.
      LYONS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      367 Commerce Court
      Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
      Telephone: 651-770-9707
      E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Crandall, Esq.
      CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
      1237 Knowles Avenue North
      PO Box 27, New Richmond, WI 54017
      Telephone: (715) 246-1010
      E-mail: consumerlaw@frontiernet.net


FAST WATER: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Slavkov" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mihail Slavkov, Nikola Vlaovic and Martin Arnaudov, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Fast Water Heater
Partners I, LP d/b/a Fast Water Heater Company, a Delaware Limited
Partnership, FWH Acquisition Company, LLC d/b/a Fast Water Heater
Company, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Jeffrey David
Jordan, An Individual, and Jason Sparks Hanleybrown, an
Individual, Case No. 3:14-cv-04324 (N.D. Cal., September 25,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants perform installation and repair of water heaters in
various states including, but not limited to, California, Oregon
and Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Douglas, Esq.
      DOUGLAS LAW OFFICES
      580 California Street, 12th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 635-3640
      Facsimile: (415) 635-3641
      E-mail: jdouglas@douglaslegal.com

         - and -

      Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq.
      WOODALL LAW OFFICES
      580 California Street, 16th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 413-4629
      E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


FEDERAL RESERVE: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Artis" Race Bias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action CYNTHIA ARTIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JANET L. YELLEN, Defendant, Civil Action No. 01-400 (D.D.C.),
District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and denied the plaintiffs' motion to
supplement the record.

The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class
of African-American and Native-American secretaries and clerical
employees currently or formerly employed by the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) who allege
that they have suffered racial discrimination.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 29, 2014 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/g7nuedfrom Leagle.com.

Defendants Ben S. Bernanke, as chairman of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System is represented by John L. Kuray,
Esq.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is
represented by Joshua P. Chadwick, Esq., as well as Kenneth M.
Willner, Esq. -- kenwillner@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings
LLP.


FERELLGAS LP: Faces Route 49 Suit Over Propane Gas Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Route 49 Gas & Go, Inc. and Surinder Kaur, Inc., individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Amerigas Propane,
L.P. a/k/a Amerigas Cylinder Exchange, Amerigas Partners, L.P.,
Amerigas Propane, Inc., Ferellgas, L.P. a/k/a Blue Rhino,
Ferellgas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
04265 (W.D. Mo., September 26, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
entered in a conspiracy to restraint the trade of exchangeable
portable steel tanks containing propane gas, commonly referred to
as propane exchange tanks.

The Defendants sell propane, stored in propane exchange tanks,
directly to retailers across the United States, including grocery
stores, convenience stores, and gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHN, P.C.
      2500 City Square, 1100 Main
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 274-9728
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      Email: tbender@wbvslaw.com

        - and -

      Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19081
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      Email: reisler@gelaw.com

        - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      Email: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
             pbarile@gelaw.com

        - and -

      Michael D. Shaffer, Esq.
      SHAFFER & GAIER LLC
      8 Penn Center, Suite 400, 1628 JFK Boulevard
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 751-0100
      Email: mshaffer@shaffergaier.com


FIFTH GENERATION: Falsely Marketed Vodka Products, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shalinus Pye and Raisha Licht individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fifth Generation, Inc., a Texas
Corporation, Mockingbird Distillery Corp., a Texas Corporation,
and Bert Butler Beveridge II, an individual, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00493 (N.D. Fla., September 25, 2014), unlawful, deceptive and
unfair trade practices, and false advertising and marketing of its
home made vodka.

Fifth Generation, Inc. and Mockingbird Distillery Corp. produce
vodka sold under the brand name Tito's Handmade Vodka.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Timothy Howard
      2120 Killarney Way, Ste 125
      Tallahassee, FL 32309
      Telephone: (850) 298-4455
      Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
      E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal Pending on Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 27, 2014, that several securities
class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011
earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased
stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011. The
named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

To date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The
cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs
leave to amend the consolidated complaint.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.
Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the
case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
of the District Court's dismissal ruling, and the appeal is
pending.

The Company is a provider of optical subsystems and components
that are used in data communication and telecommunication
applications.


FORGE GROUP: Shareholder Class Action Over Collapse Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Williams, writing for The West Australian, reports that a
class action against Forge Group potentially involving thousands
of shareholders has been broadened to include those who bought
stock nearly two years before the engineering company's AU$800
million collapse.

Litigation firm Bentham IMF has written to parties interested in
joining the class action over alleged failure to meet disclosure
obligations that the claim period has been revised to between
March 2012 and November 2013.

The change takes the case back to a time before Forge's founding
executives handed over the reins to David Simpson, managing
director during the company's final 18 months.  When the legal
move was first announced, the claim period fell between January
2013 and Forge's collapse on Feb. 11.

The litigation firm said the change followed recent advice from
law firm Slater & Gordon.

The November 1, 2013 cut-off date means those who bought Forge
stock after the company resumed trading on Nov. 28 after a near
four-week suspension are no longer eligible.  The amendment is
understood to strengthen the prospects of success for eligible
Forge shareholders, who were told by liquidators in March to
expect a zero return on their investment.

The new March 7, 2012 start date for the legal action is when
Forge published an investor presentation on the acquisition of
power station builder CTEC.

CTEC, later known as Forge Group Power, became instrumental in the
parent company's collapse because of massive budget blowouts on
two projects.

Forge bought CTEC in January 2012.  The presentation two months
later said CTEC was a contractor which lowered risk where possible
by sub-contracting work and procuring items guaranteed by renowned
international supplier such as Siemens and GE.

"In acquiring the shares in CTEC and being able to subcontract
some or all of the engineering and construction services we
believe we have structured the transaction to better mitigate
financial risk for the Forge Group," the document said.

Blowouts which ultimately topped AU$150 million on the Diamantina
and West Angelas power station projects led Forge to suspend
trading on Nov. 4 when the share price was AU$4.18.

Shareholders have been given until October 24 to join the class
action.  The litigators are targeting Forge's liability insurance
for directors and company officers for a possible payout.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Suits First Trial Likely in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co. could face its first trial next year over
injuries or deaths blamed on an ignition-switch defect that
prompted recalls of 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide.

In letters filed on Sept. 29, lead plaintiffs attorneys put forth
the first proposed bellwether trial plan in preparation for a
hearing on Sept. 25 before U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in the
Southern District of New York.  The hearing would focus on
discovery in more than 115 cases against GM.  In the letters, the
plaintiffs attorneys suggested that discovery begin in a pool of
injury or death complaints, possibly 15, from which both sides
would select bellwether cases.  GM's attorneys have resisted the
plan.

Robert Hilliard, a partner at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus
Christi, Texas, who is lead counsel in the injury and death cases,
in an interview expressed optimism that a jury could be selected
by November 2015.

"I'm going to just be sure the court understands we believe there
is no impediment to doing that, and we can proceed on a fair and
aggressive pace and get it done," he said.  "The value of a
bellwether case is to determine the value of the entire
[multidistrict litigation] docket."

GM spokesman James Cain did not respond to a request for comment.

GM has acknowledged that 13 people died because of the defect, and
that there could be more.  On Sept. 29, attorney Kenneth Feinberg,
administering GM's victim-compensation fund, increased the number
of death claims eligible for payment to 23.

In court, plaintiffs lawyers are pushing for discovery relating to
additional recalls over other ignition issues.

"We're hearing reports that may not be accurate that people are
still having stalls or issues with ignition switches after they've
had the so-called repair, and so we want to find out if that's
happening," said Steve Berman of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, co-lead counsel for economic class actions against GM.
"We also want to find out why it's taking so long."

GM has opposed that demand, citing in part the U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's oversight of automotive
recalls.

Mr. Berman has said the consolidated class complaint, which is due
by Oct. 14, would address dozens of additional defects for which
GM has recalled nearly 30 million cars and trucks worldwide this
year.  In an interview, he said there actually would be two
complaints under the laws of all 50 states -- one involving
vehicles that consumers purchased before GM's Chapter 11
reorganization, which are subject to a motion GM has brought in
U.S. bankruptcy court, and one for those bought afterward.

"We can argue there's not a single claim that involves an old GM
vehicle in here that was sold while old GM was in existence,"
Mr. Berman said of the latter case.

In court, Judge Furman has approved a "reasonable, but aggressive
schedule" of limited discovery of documents in cases that fall
outside of GM's motion.  But he held off allowing depositions to
go forward.  Judge Furman also rejected GM's attempt to halt
depositions of up to 15 people, including a former senior
attorney, in a case in Georgia's state court.


GULF COAST COLLECTION: 11th Cir. Reversed Ruling on "Mais" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action MARK S. MAIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GULF COAST
COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 13-14008,
the Plaintiff filed a claim in federal district court against a
hospital-based radiology provider and its debt collection agent
for making autodialed or prerecorded calls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The Defendant argued that the calls fell within a statutory
exception for "prior express consent," as interpreted in a 2008
declaratory ruling from the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC).  The district court granted Mais partial summary judgment
against Gulf Coast for alternative reasons: the FCC's
interpretation was inconsistent with the language of the TCPA and,
regardless, the 2008 FCC Ruling did not apply on the facts of the
case.

Accordingly, in a Sept. 29, 2014 order available at
http://is.gd/o5VhNqfrom Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeal for
the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of
partial summary judgment to Mr. Mais and remanded with
instructions to enter final summary judgment for Gulf Coast.


H&R BLOCK: Court Stays RAL and RAC Litigation Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-district litigation court granted H&R Block, Inc.'s motion
to compel arbitration of the claims of the named plaintiffs in the
RAL and RAC Litigation and stayed the cases pending arbitration,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2014.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts beginning on November
17, 2011 concerning the refund anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products. The plaintiffs generally allege
we engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts in violation of
various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that
were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate TILA disclosures, and by
offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs
also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state
statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the
District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the
present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of
profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs."

"These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund
Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373/No: 1:12-CV-02973-JBG).

"On July 23, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration of the claims of the named plaintiffs and stayed the
cases pending arbitration. We have not concluded that a loss
related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss
contingency related to this matter."

H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking
services and other services.


H&R BLOCK: Missouri Appeals Court Remanded "Lopez" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the
ruling of the trial court and remanded the "Lopez" case, H&R
Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal. On May 6,
2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed
the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further
consideration of the motion. We have not concluded that a loss
related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss
contingency related to this matter."

H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking
services and other services.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Case Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the "Perras" case filed an appeal of the denial of
class certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
remains pending, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons
nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. In
November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims
and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. On June
20, 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining
2012 claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the denial of class
certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
remains pending. We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter."

H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking
services and other services.


H&R BLOCK: Court Granted Arbitration Bid in Form 8863 Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-district litigation court granted the motion to compel
arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate and
denied the motion to strike as premature prior to the filing of a
consolidated complaint in the Form 8863 Litigation, H&R Block,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2014.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts and one state court
beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in
these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who
filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office
or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or tax
preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence
and violation of state consumer laws in connection with
transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2013, the
plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case
without prejudice. On October 10, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granted our petition to consolidate the
remaining federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863
LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG)."

"We filed a motion to compel arbitration and to strike class
allegations relating to clients who agreed to arbitrate their
claims. On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted the motion to
compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to
arbitrate and denied the motion to strike as premature prior to
the filing of a consolidated complaint. We have not concluded that
a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a
liability related to this matter."

H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking
services and other services.


H&R BLOCK: Awaits Final Order in McGladrey Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing of a class action settlement occurred on
June 26, 2014, and the parties are awaiting entry of a final order
and judgment, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC (MCM) and others in the Court of Common Pleas,
Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346)
styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety
Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC
(f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re
International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative
class action claim.

The plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil
conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against
MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the
Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI)
in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group,
Inc. and SCI. The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages,
pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8,
2012, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim
against all defendants.

A class was certified on the remaining claims on November 20,
2012. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MCM on June
3, 2013 on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.

To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation,
the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to resolve the
case, which is subject to approval by the court. The court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on February 19, 2014. A
final approval hearing occurred on June 26, 2014; the parties are
awaiting entry of a final order and judgment.

"A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this
lawsuit for the amount of loss that we consider probable and
reasonably estimable," the Company said.

H&R Block's subsidiaries provide tax preparation, retail banking
services and other services.


HASBRO INC: Denial of "O'Brien" Class Certification Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
In re O'BRIEN, Plaintiff and Appellant v. HASBRO, INC., Defendant
and Respondent, Case No. B247434, sought to represent a class of
purchasers of a particular Tinkertoy construction set (the Set)
manufactured by Hasbro.  Christine O'Brien alleged that the Set's
packaging falsely indicated that the Set contained certain items
(a particular connector piece and a "design guide"), and she
sought to hold Hasbro liable for unfair competition and false
advertising. The superior court denied her motion for class
certification, and Ms. O'Brien timely appealed.

The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District
affirmed the lower court's denial order in a Sept. 20, 2014 ruling
available at http://is.gd/Kt7nIzfrom Leagle.com.

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton's Emil W. Herich, Esq. --
EHerich@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Dennis L. Wilson, Esq. --
DWilson@kilpatricktownsend.com -- serve as counsel to Hasbro Inc.


IMO INDUSTRIES: Insurance Firms Must Pay $1.85MM Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that long-running litigation between a company that sued more than
50 of its insurance carriers over $1.85 billion in coverage for
asbestos claims culminated Sept. 30 in a precedential decision by
a New Jersey appeals court.

At issue in IMO Industries v. Transamerica was not only the amount
of coverage available to plaintiff IMO Industries Corp., but also
how that coverage was to be allocated between its primary and
excess carriers.

Calling it a matter of first impression, the court addressed how
long primary policies that provide for the payment of defense
costs outside the policy limits must keep paying those costs
before the policies are deemed exhausted.  It upheld a lower court
decision that the primary had kept paying beyond when it should
have stopped and should thus be reimbursed.

But insureds got good news, too: The court ruled that they need
not prove each and every claim on which they seek coverage under
an excess policy.

It was already established under New Jersey law that insureds need
not do so regarding primary coverage, a principle that has now
been extended to excess insurance.  The panel also found that
where underlying asbestos claims are dismissed, carriers are still
on the hook for the cost of defending them.

IMO Industries, based in Lawrenceville, N.J., originated in 1901
as Delaval Steam Turbine Co., which manufactured turbines, pumps,
gears and other machinery for industrial and military use,
according to the opinion. Some products made from the 1940s to the
1980s contained asbestos, and the company was hit with tens of
thousands of personal injury claims as a result.

IMO had a combined $1.85 billion in coverage from the insurers it
sued, a sum the appeals court said was sufficient to pay for its
anticipated liabilities and defense costs.

By the time IMO sued its primary carriers in 2003, they had paid
out tens of millions of dollars, according to the opinion.  IMO
added the excess carriers later as asbestos claims continued to
mount.

Originally filed in Mercer County Superior Court, the suit was
moved to Morris County, N.J., where it was handled by two retired
judges on recall, first by Judge Robert Muir Jr. and then by Judge
Donald Coburn.

Primary carriers New Jersey Manufacturers and Aetna settled
prelitigation, leaving TIG Insurance Co. as the sole primary in
the case.

Many excess insurers also settled, leaving fewer than 20 by the
time of the appeal, including ACE Property & Casualty Insurance
Co., Century Indemnity Co., Pacific Employers Insurance Co. and
several Lloyd's of London syndicates.

The exhaustion issue arose because IMO was settling many cases for
small amounts.  As a result, it would take years to reach the
primary policy limits, during which time the insurer's obligation
to pay defense costs would continue, the opinion said.

Judge Muir rejected what he referred to as IMO's "limitless
defense costs" or "running spigot" theory.

Based on Judge Muir's ruling, Mr. Coburn determined that TIG had
no further obligation under certain primary policies and had in
fact overpaid by $15.2 million.

Mr. Coburn entered a judgment in that amount plus $1.4 million in
interest, of which the excess carriers were required to pay $8.5
million and IMO the rest.

IMO challenged that ruling on appeal, joined by some of the excess
carriers and an amicus, the Independent Energy Producers of New
Jersey.  They argued that many insureds bargain for limitless
coverage of defense costs and that courts have uniformly
recognized the enforceability of policies that pay litigation or
defense costs far beyond the indemnification limits.

In affirming, the appeals court said TIG made the payments in good
faith against the backdrop of changes in the law regarding
allocation among insurers: the New Jersey Supreme Court decisions
in Owens-Illinois v. United Insurance from 1994 and Carter-Wallace
v. Admiral Insurance from 1998.

If the court were to decrease the liability of IMO and the excess
carriers at TIG's expense, it would distort the relative share of
liability assumed under the policies, the appeals court said.  In
addition, IMO's running-spigot theory would result in double
recovery of defense costs already borne by its primary carriers.

The court noted that its decision was closely tied to the facts of
the case.  "We reach no general conclusion that an insurer's
obligations to cover defense costs and other litigation expenses
through an 'outside the limits' policy is limited by the maximum
amount of indemnification coverage provided in that policy," wrote
Judge Victor Ashrafi, joined by Judges Joseph Yannotti and Jerome
St. John.

The appeals court agreed with Muir that IMO did not have to prove
or relitigate each underlying asbestos claim in order to be paid
under the excess policies.

IMO had put the excess carriers on notice of the asbestos claims
against it, and Owens-Illinois made it clear the carriers needed
to participate in defending those claims in order to preserve the
right to challenge the coverage determinations, the judges
reasoned.

The excess carriers also lost on their attempt to get out from
under paying defense costs on asbestos claims that were dismissed
or on which IMO had otherwise prevailed on the ground that those
claims were not covered within the meaning of the policies.

"The excess insurers' obligation to cover IMO's ultimate net
losses, which include defense costs, was triggered when IMO
manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products and claimants
became injured by those products," wrote Judge Ashrafi.  He
pointed out that it would be impractical to have to separate out
the defense cost for each individual claim, and that it would
contravene the objectives -- reducing litigation costs and
judicial inefficiencies -- of the pro rata methodology required by
Owens-Illinois.

The appeals court further ruled that the coverage limits set forth
in multiyear policies applied separately to each year of the
policy rather than to the entire term.  Thus, for example, a
three-year TIG policy with a $2.5 million aggregate limit for
bodily injury liability provided $7.5 million in coverage.

The panel also affirmed Judge Muir's denial of IMO's request for a
jury trial on its bad-faith claims.  It found no right to a jury
trial because of "the predominance of equitable issues combined
with the complexity of the subject matter."

TIG lawyer Shawn Kelly -- skelly@riker.com -- of Riker Danzig
Scherer Hyland & Perretti in Morristown, N.J., called the opinion
significant regarding the jury issue and the question of how you
exhaust policies and referred to it as "the next step" after
Owens-Illinois and
Carter-Wallace in how courts are going to decide allocation
issues.

IMO's attorney, Robin Cohen -- rcohen@kasowitz.com -- of Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman in New York, declined comment.

Other attorneys in the case who were contacted about the decision
declined comment or did not return calls.


INDIA: Prime Minister Modi Sued in NY Over Human Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"American Justice Center" (AJC), Inc., Asif; "Jane Doe" a female
individual and "John Does" for themselves and their injured and
deceased relatives, left presently unnamed v. Narendra Modi, a
national and citizen of India Prime Minister of India and Former
Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat, Case No. 1:14-cv-07780
(S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2014) is brought against the Defendant
for violations of customary international law and treaty law
prohibiting the commission of human rights violations and war
crimes in connection with the 2002 Gujarat Massacre of Muslims
that attacks, injuries, and brutal deaths of thousands of minority
Muslim men, women, and children in the state of Gujarat.

American Justice Center is a non-profit organization registered
with the State of New York with the objective of seeking justice
for human rights violations committed against the religious
minorities of India by pursing legal actions against perpetrators
found or present in the United States and by running advocacy and
public awareness campaign.

Narendra Modi served as the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat
from 2001 to 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BABAK POURTAVOOSI, P.C.
      320 E Shore Road
      Great Neck, NY 11023
      Telephone: (917) 597-4766
      Facsimile: (718) 732-4514
      E-mail: bpesq2@yahoo.com


INDIAN CREEK: Faces "Piner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Piner on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Indian Creek Logistics, Inc., Bridget
Wardlaw, individually, and Mack Wardlaw, individually, Case No.
5:14-cv-00847 (W.D. Tex., September 25, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

Indian Creek Logistics, Inc. transports freight throughout the
State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beatriz A. Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 West Alabama Street, Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com
              gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


J.CREW GROUP: Oct 15 Final Hearing on Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for final approval of a class action settlement
agreement has been scheduled for October 15, 2014, J.Crew Group,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
August 2, 2014.

On June 20, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by an individual claiming that the Company collected her ZIP code
unlawfully in connection with a retail purchase she made at a
Massachusetts store. That action, captioned Miller v. J.Crew
Group, Inc., 13-cv-11487 (the "Miller Action"), purports to be
brought on behalf of a class of customers whose ZIP codes were
collected and recorded at Company stores in Massachusetts in
connection with credit card purchases, and claims that the Company
used the collected ZIP code data to obtain customers' addresses
for purposes of mailing them unwanted advertising material. The
Miller Action seeks money damages pursuant to a claim under
Chapter 93A of the General Laws of Massachusetts and a claim for
unjust enrichment.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim,
and on April 22, 2014, the Court denied that motion without
prejudice to the Company's ability to re-file it later in the
litigation. On May 15, 2014, the Company answered the plaintiff's
complaint.

On June 1, 2014, the parties to the Miller Action entered into a
settlement agreement and release (the "Settlement Agreement"). The
Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement on
June 27, 2014. Notice of the settlement was sent to class members
on July 25, 2014.

A hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement has been
scheduled for October 15, 2014. The Company does not believe the
resolution of the Miller Action will have a significant impact on
the Company's consolidated financial statements.

J.Crew is an internationally recognized multi-brand apparel and
accessories retailer that differentiates itself through high
standards of quality, style, design and fabrics.


KARPATHOES INC: "Ports" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith D. Ports, Mara A. Rouse, Lauren Losiewski, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Karpathoes, Inc.,
George Sakellis, and Roula Rigopoula Sakellis, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03044 (D. Md., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Fratelli's Italian Restaurant in
Hampstead, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
      BRADFORD WARBASSE ATTORNEY AT LAW
      401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
      Towson, MD 21204
      Telephone: (410) 337-5411
      Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
      E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq.
      HOWARD B HOFFMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW
      600 Jefferson Plz Ste 304
      Rockville, MD 20852
      Telephone: (301) 251-3752
      Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
      E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com


LA BELLA MARKETPLACE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Razzano, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by La Bella Marketplace,
Bella Mia Foods Inc., and Paul Pesce, Leonard Pesce, and Frank
Pesce, individually v. La Bella Marketplace, Bella Mia Foods Inc.,
and Paul Pesce, Leonard Pesce, Frank Pesce, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-05639 (E.D.N.Y., September 25, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours per week.

La Bella Marketplace owns and operates a supermarket at 99 Ellis
Street, Staten Island, New York, 10307.

Bella Mia Foods Inc. is engaged in food distribution business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison Lee Genova, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: agenova@vandallp.com


LA DULCE: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Peralta, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v.
La Dulce Bakery Inc., and Edwin Flores, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-07535 (N.D. Ill., September 27, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

La Dulce Bakery Inc. owns and operates a bakery 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
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


LEIDOS INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit in E.D. Cal. Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Leidos, Inc. and Science Applications International,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-at-01208 (E.D. Cal., September 26, 2014),is
brought against the Defendants for failure to properly safeguard
and protect customers' personally identifiable information and
medical records and private health information, and publicly
disclosing them without authorization.

The Defendants are American defense companies that provide
scientific, engineering, systems integration, and technical
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com

         - and -

      Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
      THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM RICHARD L. COFFMAN
      First City Building, 505 Orleans St., Suite 505
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 833-7700
      Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
      E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com


LLOYD'S LONDON: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Ann Wunderman Cooper, and Marc Sobel, as assignees, and on
behalf of the Members Of The Class Of Investor/Member Investors of
QHL Holdings Fund Ten, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, and Golden State TD investments, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London Subscribing to Syndicate Nos. 623 and 2623 Under Contract
No. W15HUJ07PNDM; and Beazley USA Services, Inc., a Connecticut
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07475 (W.D. Cal., September 24,
2014), is brought for a determination as to the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants rights and obligations as to the Excess Policy as it
pertains to the Settlement Agreement reached between the
Plaintiffs and the Insureds for the claims presented against the
Insureds as set forth in Plaintiff's Revised Fourth Amended Class
Action Complaint, ECF Docket No. 465, filed in Adversary Case
1:08-ap-01026-GM (Bankruptcy Court, Central District of
California-San Fernando Valley Division).

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing are authorized
to issue certificates of insurance coverage pursuant to the laws
of the United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Gabriel, Esq.
      Joesph G. Balice, Esq.
      EZRA BRUTZKUS GUBNER, LLP
      21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 827-9000
      Facsimile: (818) 827-9099
      Email: lgabriel@ebg-law.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Limited Discovery in Voss Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Court has permitted only limited discovery in the Voss
Litigation and Consolidated Cases, Marvell Technology Group Ltd.
said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2014.

On April 7, 2014, Lee Voss ("Voss") filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders and derivative claims ostensibly on behalf of the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division. The complaint alleges
that certain officers and directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties by causing or allowing the Company to engage in
the purported willful infringement of certain patents asserted
against it in litigation by CMU and by failing to institute
adequate internal controls, resulting in an adverse verdict.
Additionally, the complaint alleges unjust enrichment and a breach
of the duty of honest services by three of the officers. The
Company is named as a nominal defendant. Voss requests damages and
restitution in unspecified amounts, equitable and/or injunctive
relief, and the costs and fees of bringing the action.

On June 2, 2014, Sebastiano D'Arrigo filed a second, nearly
identical complaint in the same court, which was consolidated with
the Voss action. On June 13, 2014, James and Marie DiBiase filed a
third, nearly identical complaint in the Superior Court for the
County of Santa Clara Superior Court, which was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division and consolidated with the Voss
action.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on August
15, 2014. The action is in the preliminary stages and the Court
has permitted only limited discovery.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd., a Bermuda company (the "Company"),
is a global semiconductor provider of high-performance
application-specific standard products.


MENDOTA INSURANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pro Rata Share
----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Soliz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mendota Insurance Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-01555
(C.D. Cal., September 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay pro rata share of litigation costs and fees as
it pertains to medical payment coverage reimbursements as to
indicate a general business practice.

Mendota Insurance Company is an insurance provider and one of the
premier providers of specialty insurance in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Robert Hyde, Esq.
      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com
              josh@westcoastlitigation.com


MODEL SERVICE: Faces "Agerbrink" Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Agerbrink, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Model Service LLC d/b/a MSA Models and Susan Levine,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07841 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

The Defendants own and operate a modeling agency in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq.
      OUTTEN GOLDEN
      3 Park Ave.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-2109
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2094
      E-mail: cdugger@outtengolden.com


NAVISTAR CANADA: Harrison Pensa Files MaxxForce Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Pensa LLP on Sept. 29 disclosed that on September 8,
2014, the law firm commenced an action under the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992 against Navistar Canada Inc., Navistar Inc., and
Navistar International Corporation ("Navistar").  The class action
is on behalf of all persons and companies in Canada who purchased
or leased Navistar International brand vehicles model years 2008
through 2013, which have been outfitted with MaxxForce EGR
Engines.

Navistar International brand vehicles include long haul tractor
trailers, regional haul trucks and heavy and severe duty trucks
designed for a variety of commercial applications.

The action alleges that the emissions control system embedded into
the MaxxForce EGR Engine is defective.  It is alleged that the
MaxxForce EGR Engine generates more heat within the engine than it
can withstand, and the excess heat and pressure generated leads to
broken valves and exhaust leaks that melt and destroy certain
engine components.  As a result, the engine's computer systems are
routinely forced to shut the engine down.

The alleged defect leads to sudden and frequent breakdowns which
cause owners to incur expenses and to lose productive time while
the vehicles are undergoing repairs.  The defective engine can
also cause coolant and exhaust fumes to enter the passenger
compartment of the Navistar trucks, causing a risk of poisoning to
the driver and other occupants of the vehicle.

"These are expensive and heavy duty vehicles.  Class members have
a right to expect that they will perform as required -- for the
good of their businesses which rely on them.  Harrison Pensa is
committed to creating results through this litigation for the
owners of these vehicles. We encourage any person or company who
owns or leases these vehicles to contact our office to share their
experiences with us", said Jonathan Foreman of Harrison Pensa LLP.

The action seeks to recover the losses and damages that class
members have suffered as a result of the defective MaxxForce EGR
Engines.

If you purchased or leased a Navistar International brand vehicle
with the MaxxForce EGR engine, model years 2008 through 2013,
please contact Jonathan Foreman at jforeman@harrisonpensa.com

Harrison Pensa LLP, based in London Ontario, is one of Canada's
foremost class action law firms and has expertise in a full range
of class action matters.


NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Sued in Cal. Over Unlawful Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tejwant S. Bal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Penn Financial, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage
Servicing, Case No. 8:14-cv-01558 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2014),
for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
equitable estoppels, including breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code.

New Penn Financial, LLC is a diversified mortgage servicing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent A. Gorski, Esq.
      THE GORSKI FIRM, APC
      1430 Truxtun Avenue Fifth Floor
      Bakersfield, CA 93301-5246
      Telephone: (661) 952-9740
      Facsimile: (661) 952-9741
      E-mail: vgorski@TheGorskiFirm.com


NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers File Class Suit Over Psa Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bay of Plenty Times reports that Kiwifruit growers on Sept. 29
launched a class action against the Government following the wake
of 2010's Psa outbreak.

Foundation claimants representing more than 10 per cent of the
kiwifruit industry announced this afternoon they would file "The
Kiwifruit Claim" at the High Court in Wellington to hold
Biosecurity NZ accountable for the devastation that followed Psa's
arrival in Te Puke.  The claim seeks compensation for the effects
of the disease that cost the country at least $885 million and
climbing, according to an independent report commissioned by the
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).

The foundation growers are represented by a committee consisting
of prominent Te Puke grower Bob Burt, dairy farmer and kiwifruit
and avocado grower John Cameron (chairman), Aongatete managing
director Allan Dawson and Te Puke accountant Murray Gibson.  The
claim's legal team includes Alan Galbraith QC, Matthew Dunning QC
and Parker & Associates.

All kiwifruit growers and post-harvest operators have been invited
to join the class action, which is supported by litigation
funders, LPF Group Ltd.

A website with more information has been launched at
www.thekiwifruitclaim.org and advertising in newspapers was set
to begin on Sept. 30.

A first round of grower meetings will begin this week.

Growers and post-harvest operators have until 5:00 p.m. Friday,
Oct. 24, to sign up to the claim.

"All New Zealanders have an interest in the success of The
Kiwifruit Claim because everyone has an interest in government
officials being found to owe a duty of care when carrying out
their official roles," The Kiwifruit Claim chairman John Cameron
said on Sept. 29.

"In particular, all New Zealanders have an interest in government
officials properly protecting our borders from pests and diseases
that could devastate not just our agriculture and horticulture
industries, but the native flora and fauna that we all cherish.

"There is no doubt in our minds that Biosecurity NZ was negligent
in how it was protecting New Zealand from Psa and other risks from
as far back as 2004.

"Negligence by Biosecurity NZ is a key finding of an independent
report into the outbreak by international consultants Sapere,
commissioned by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI)."

Mr. Cameron said the growers initiating The Kiwifruit Claim were
grateful to the current government for addressing many of the
issues identified by Sapere in its report when establishing the
new integrated Ministry for Primary Industries, which includes the
old Biosecurity NZ.

He said the growers had earlier notified the caretaker Minister of
Primary Industries, the caretaker Attorney-General, local MPs, the
Solicitor-General, Zespri, New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers
Incorporated (KGI) and Kiwifruit Vine Health (KVH) of their claim.

"We hope to work constructively with the Attorney-General and
Solicitor-General to find a way to manage the matter in a timely
and non-confrontational way," Mr. Cameron said.


NUTELLA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Settlement Order in Deceptive Mktg Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE NUTELLA MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case
Nos. 12-3456, 12-3457 AND 12-4629, Appellants Janis Johnson,
Agatha Bochenek, Brandon Goodman, and Edward Hagele appealed the
District Court's approval of a class action settlement and related
attorneys' fees award regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of
Nutella chocolate-hazelnut spread.  Ms. Johnson also disputes the
propriety of the appeal bond imposed by the District Court.

In a Sept. 29, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/6XDPRkfrom
Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the District Court's ruling.

JANIS JOHNSON is Appellant in Case Nos. 12-3456 and 12-4629; while
BRANDON GOODMAN and EDWARD HAGELE are Appellants in Case No. 12-
3457.


NVIDIA CORP: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, Esq., in an article for FindLaw, reports that the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit filed by NVIDIA
shareholders over the company's computer chips.

NVIDIA Corporation makes a bunch of computer chips, including
graphics processing units (GPUs) for all your sweet gaming
machines.  In 2006, NVIDIA began experiencing problems with some
of its chips.  NVIDIA initially wasn't sure what the problem was,
and issued software updates to run the fans of its graphics cards
faster to cool down the cards. But that didn't work.

Finally, HP concluded that the problem was the chips themselves.
NVIDIA determined that the problem lay in the composition of a new
kind of solder used on its chips.  In 2008, NVIDIA told its
manufacturers to go back to the old solder.

However, in 2008, NVIDIA, as a publicly traded company, filed
several forms with the SEC.  Included in these forms were
statements acknowledging the solder problem, and that it was
unable to estimate the total cost of the problem to the company at
the time it filed the documents.  Two months after making these
statements, NVIDIA filed another disclosure in which it estimated
the cost of repair and replacement to be $150-200 million.  The
stock market didn't like this news one bit, and NVIDIA's share
price declined by 31%.

As a result, the plaintiffs in this case, representing all NVIDIA
shareholders, filed a lawsuit claiming that NVIDIA knew about the
defects and failed to disclose its knowledge, meaning it made
materially misleading statements to the SEC.  Yes, we're in
Securities Exchange Act Sec. 10(b) territory.

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims because they
didn't adequately allege scienter, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Scienter in securities lawsuits requires the defendant had to have
"a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or
defraud."  But in the Ninth Circuit, recklessness qualifies, too.

Plaintiffs' claims rested partially on an SEC regulation requiring
disclosure of anything the company knows might negatively impact
sales revenues.  It's true that the regulation is there, but the
Ninth Circuit said failing to make this disclosure, by itself,
isn't evidence that NVIDIA acted with the requisite mental state
because the regulation involves future predictions, which can't
themselves be material or misleading because they don't exist yet.

Because plaintiffs are alleging fraud, they're in Twombly country,
and the district court found that NVIDIA's discrete actions didn't
create scienter.  Plaintiffs tried to suggest that adding up all
the little actions could amount to scienter -- but the Ninth
Circuit didn't like that, either.  Not because it can't be done,
but because, looking at the allegations as a whole, NVIDIA didn't
do anything wrong: "once it determined that its liability would
exceed its normal reserves, NVIDIA disclosed the problem to
investors.  Any inference of scienter requires more than this."

Plaintiffs also couldn't muster a narrative in which NVIDIA
intentionally withheld information from shareholders.  In fact,
for most of the time the problem occurred, NVIDIA wasn't sure what
was going on, and plaintiffs didn't present sufficient information
to suggest that NVIDIA was hiding the true cause of the problem
from investors.  A set of disgruntled investors lost money due to
a manufacturing problem and then tried to invent a fraud where
none apparently existed.


OIL STATES ENERGY: "Frost" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Frost, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-02663 (D.
Colo., September 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C. is an oilfield services
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Class Action in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. is currently in the discovery
phase of the case Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company under California's private attorney general
act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other
things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case.

Pacific Sunwear is a specialty retailer rooted in the action
sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 4 Hearing on Cert. Bid in "Beeney" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the plaintiff's motion will be held on November 24,
2014, in the case Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case
No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to
such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply
to such opposition must be filed on or before November 4, 2014. A
hearing on the plaintiff's motion will be held on November 24,
2014.

Pacific Sunwear is a specialty retailer rooted in the action
sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle.


PELLA CORP: Clifford Named New Class Counsel in Windows Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Clifford -- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- founder and
senior partner at Clifford Law Offices, was named the new class
counsel in a federal class action lawsuit regarding allegedly
defective Pella windows.

U.S. District Court Judge James B. Zagel appointed Robert Clifford
as lead class counsel on September 15th, 2014 citing his
"demonstrated skills in the field."  George K. Lang of Rolling
Meadows was appointed to serve as co-counsel.

In his order regarding Pella, Judge Zagel wrote that "Messrs.
Clifford and Lang will best serve the interests of the class." In
2013, Judge Zagel approved a supposed $90 million settlement
involving defective Pella aluminum-clad windows that leaked,
resulting in premature wood rot and other damage to buildings. The
Seventh Circuit rejected that figure in rejecting the settlement.

"The homes of millions of Pella consumers are affected by the
windows at issue, and we are privileged to advocate on behalf of
those consumers," said Shannon McNulty -- SMM@CliffordLaw.com --
partner at Clifford Law Offices also handling the matter.  "The
litigation team leading this case will vigorously protect the
consumers' rights."  McNulty further clarified that the Seventh
Circuit did not dismiss the case but did reject the settlement
terms for which approval had been sought prior to the appointment
of Clifford and Lang.

The case, Saltzman et al. v. Pella Corp, et al., 1:06-cv-04481, is
now being led by Clifford and Lang in the Northern District of
Illinois.

                     About Robert A. Clifford

Robert A. Clifford was named by Chicago Magazine as one of the top
100 Most Powerful Chicagoans in 2013 and Crain's Chicago Business
named Clifford once again as one of the "most influential people
in Chicago" in 2013.  Clifford remains committed to raising the
quality of the practice of law in the state of Illinois and
promoting civility.  He was named the 2012 Chicago Lawyer Person
of the Year.  Based upon his trial accomplishments, and his
contributions to the legal community and the Chicago area, his
colleagues nominated him for the prestigious honor given to one
person each year.  He is the founder of Clifford Law Offices, a
nationally recognized personal injury law firm in Chicago
concentrating in aviation, transportation, personal injury,
medical negligence, and product liability law.


PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: US Ruling Limits Price-Fixing Suit Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chrisee Jalyssa v. Dela Paz, writing for Business World, reports
that Philippine Airlines, Inc. said a US District Court decision
on a price-fixing class-action lawsuit "enhances" the airline's
position because the court reaffirmed a previous judgment
declaring as "exempt" certain fares from the US to the
Philippines, thus limiting the airline's potential exposure.

"[This] has raised hopes at PAL in a . . . lawsuit filed by
several passengers who accused PAL and other international
carriers of fixing the ticket prices on trans-Pacific flights; The
ruling substantially limited the coverage of the complaint thus
enhancing PAL's position in the case," PAL said in an e-mail
response to a query after the court decision was reported.

The flag carrier, however, clarified news reports that the
Sept. 24 ruling of US District Judge Charles Breyer in San
Francisco "did not confirm the alleged price-fixing activities,
but instead agreed with PAL and other defendant airlines that
fares filed by international carriers with the US Department of
Transportation should not be included in the case."

A Reuters report on Sept. 25 said that five international
airlines, including PAL, must face a class-action lawsuit from
passengers accusing them of fixing ticket prices, but also noted
that Judge Breyer narrowed the scope of the suit as "certain fares
to the Philippines and Japan are exempt from price-fixing claims
under federal law."

The class-action suits over alleged price-fixing in trans-Pacific
ticket fares were filed in 2007, and multiple cases were
consolidated in San Francisco in 2008.

PAL, in its e-mailed reply, noted that "in 2011, the court
partially granted the motion to dismiss filed by PAL and other
airlines, barring damage claims arising from flights originating
from Manila."


RICHEY SHIPLEY: "Uscanga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruperto Uscanga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Richey Shipley Donut Corporation, Spencer
Do-Nut, Inc., La Porte Shipley Donuts, Inc, Beltway 8 Shipleys
Donuts Corp., Baytown Do-Nut, Inc., Noy Heng, Chea E. Hok, and
Ryna Hok, Case No. 4:14-cv-02756 (S.D. Tex., September 25, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retail bakery in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane A. McClelland, Esq.
      SIMON HERBERT & MCCLELLAND, LLP
      3411 Richmond Ave, Suite 400
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 987-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 987-7120
      E-mail: smcclelland@shmsfirm.com


RITE OF PASSAGE: "Keele" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanos Keele, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Rite of Passage, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02135 (D.
Ariz., September 25, 2014), seeks to recover payment for
uncompensated overtime hours for time worked each week in excess
of 40 hours.

Rite of Passage, Inc. offers community-based and residential
services for at-risk youth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua William Carden, Esq.
      DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER PLLC
      80 E Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 401
      Tempe, AZ 85281
      Telephone: (480) 733-6800
      Facsimile: (480) 733-3748
      E-mail: jcarden@davismiles.com


RODRIGUEZ PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eladio Aviles-Tinoco, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Luis Rodriguez d/b/a Rodriguez Produce, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00560 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs in  violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Rodriguez Produce is an enterprise engaged in the production of
goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 300, 1003 Del Prado Blvd
      Cape Coral, FL 33990
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


ROSEBUD RESTAURANTS: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Aguilar and Genaro Aguirre, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Rosebud
Restaurants, Inc., and Alex Dana, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07532 (N.D. Ill., September 26, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

Rosebud Restaurants, Inc. and Alex Dana own and operate a
restaurant called Carmine's, located at 1043 North Rush Street,
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEARS CANADA: Hometown Store Dealers' Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit against Sears Canada
Inc. and its U.S. parent by 250 Hometown Store dealers across
Canada has been given the go-ahead by an Ontario court.  In a
court filing, franchisees of Sears Hometown Stores allege Sears
Canada and Sears Roebuck and Co. made it "virtually impossible"
for them to operate their businesses profitably.

Antony Karabus, CEO of retail consultancy HRC Advisory, said Sears
Canada lost the trust of both consumers and franchisees in Canada.

"The complaint is that these 250-odd hometown dealers are saying
that they are franchisees and that Sears Canada has unilaterally
changed their working conditions and their ability to make
profit," he said in an interview with CBC's The Exchange with
Amanda Lang.

The Hometown stores are small retail outlets that show a selection
of Sears products and provided catalogue ordering in smaller towns
and cities that could not support a full-scale store.

Mr. Karabus said Sears missed an opportunity to create a digital
ordering business by leveraging the loyalty these stores had
created in their markets.

In their suit, the dealers allege that Sears lowered commissions,
reduced advertising for local stores and bypassed the franchises
by selling directly to their customers.  They also claim that
Sears set their compensation and work conditions, without abiding
by labor laws or franchise protection laws.

Sears Canada said it has reviewed the claims and believes they are
without merit.  It denied changes to the dealer compensation
structure and advertising subsidies could hurt dealers.

Sears Canada has been losing market share in Canada for several
years.

Mr. Karabus said Sears used to be a powerful brand associated with
value in Canada.  "What went wrong was, when they became owned by
financial players, they became much more about squeeze the costs
and focus on driving value for the shareholder, which obviously is
the objective, but when you do that at the expense of service as a
retailer and you sell off all your best locations and you don't
create a good working environment, there is a natural effect," he
said.

Sears has sold off its highest-profile locations, including the
Eaton Centre and Yorkdale, to offset its losses.  It has laid off
thousands of people and sold off its interest in retail centers.
The consumer was bound to notice the low employee morale and lack
of attention to the retail experience, Mr. Karabus said.
"Consumers lose trust," he said.  "They say, 'why would I go there
when the same time down the street, there are prices just as
good.'"


SKO BRENNER: Faces "Casagnap" Suit in Over Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eppe Casagnap, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sko Brenner American, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:14-cv-06000 (D.N.J., September 25, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Sko Brenner American, Inc. is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01316 (W.D.
Pa., September 25, 2014), alleges that Defendant's facilities are
not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals
who use wheelchairs in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Starbucks Corporation owns, operates, controls and leases a place
of public accommodation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


STATE FARM: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Legal Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Francisco Alfaro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, Case No. 5:14-cv-01998 (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay pro rata share
of litigation costs and fees as it pertains to medical payment
recoveries.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance
company with its corporate headquarters located in Bloomington,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Assal Assassi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              assal@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Robert Hyde, Esq.
      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com
              josh@westcoastlitigation.com


SUPERFRESH GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ever Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Superfresh Group Incorporated d/b/a Litm
Bar, Restaurant and Art Gallery, Jelynne Jardiniano, in her
individual capacity, and Andrea Morin, in her individual capacity,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06002 (D.N.J., September 26, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant at 140 Newark Avenue,
Jersey City, New Jersey, 07302.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
      CHARNY & ASSOCIATES
      9 West Market Street
      Rhinebeck, NY 12572
      Telephone: (845) 876-7500
      E-mail: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com


THOMAS MANUFACTURING: Sued in D.N.J. Over Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fortuna Espaizzat v. Thomas Manufacturing, Inc., and Jeffrey A.
Lukowiak, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-06030 (D.N.J., September
26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Thomas Manufacturing, Inc. is a producer of custom aluminum
products featuring heavy commercial projected casement, throughout
the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


TRS RECOVERY: Sued in Wis. Over Violation of Debt Collection Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gjulsen Halimi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01190
(E.D. Wis., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

TRS Recovery Services, Inc. is engaged in the business of a
collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect
consumer debts originally owed to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com


UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss in a
consolidated class action, and no trial date has been set, United
Online Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

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., Classmates, 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., Classmates, 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 in December 2012. Those motions were argued before the
district court in September 2013, and taken under submission. The
court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial
date has been set.

United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, provides
consumer services and products over the Internet under a number of
brands, including Classmates, StayFriends, Trombi, MyPoints,
NetZero, and Juno.


UNITED ONLINE: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Consolidation Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has not yet ruled upon the request for consolidation or
the order to show cause in the "Frank" class action, United Online
Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

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.,
Classmates, 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.

In January 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 in February 2013.  The court has not yet ruled upon
the request for consolidation or the order to show cause.

United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, provides
consumer services and products over the Internet under a number of
brands, including Classmates, StayFriends, Trombi, MyPoints,
NetZero, and Juno.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. Drops Holdings Securities Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order
and mandate, dismissing the appeal in VeriFone Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation with prejudice, VeriFone Systems, Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2014.

The Company said, "On or after December 4, 2007, several
securities class action complaints were filed against us and
certain of our officers, former officers, and a former director.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California and are currently captioned as
In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140
EMC. The original actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6140 EMC; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C
08-0118 CW."

"On August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff National
Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel. Lead
plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint on
October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability against us and
certain of our current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that we and the individual defendants made false or
misleading public statements regarding our business and operations
during the putative class periods, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

"We filed our motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008. The court
granted our motion on May 26, 2009 and dismissed the consolidated
amended class action complaint with leave to amend within 30 days
of the ruling. The proceedings were stayed pending a mediation
held in October 2009 at which time the parties failed to reach a
mutually agreeable settlement.

"Lead plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on December 3,
2009 followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19,
2010. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on our motion was held on May 17, 2010. In July
2010, prior to any court ruling on our motion, lead plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on the
basis that it had newly obtained evidence.

"Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court we submitted
our motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and lead
plaintiff filed its opposition, following which the court took the
matter under submission without further hearing. On March 8, 2011,
the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the consolidated
securities class action without leave to amend. On April 5, 2011,
lead plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the district court's
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead plaintiff dismissed its appeal
as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig
Bondy. Lead plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal on July
28, 2011.  We filed our answering brief on September 28, 2011 and
lead plaintiff filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011. A
hearing on oral arguments for this appeal was held before a
judicial panel of the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012. On December
21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion reversing the
district court's dismissal of the consolidated shareholder
securities class action against us and certain of our officers and
directors, with the exception of the dismissal of lead plaintiff's
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which
the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

"On January 4, 2013, we filed a petition for en banc rehearing
with the Ninth Circuit. On January 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit
denied the petition for rehearing. On February 8, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit issued a mandate returning this case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for further
proceeding on lead plaintiff's claims, except for the dismissed
Section 20(a) claim.

"On August 9, 2013, we entered into a stipulation of settlement in
this consolidated shareholder securities class action with and
among the other defendants and the lead plaintiff therein. The
settlement was subject to various customary conditions, including
preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, notice to class members, class member opt-
out thresholds and final approval by the court. Upon the
settlement becoming final, the total settlement consideration paid
for the benefit of the settlement class would be $95.0 million,
plus a potential contingent adjustment if we had been acquired on
or before April 15, 2014.

"We have coverage from our insurance carriers for this settlement
consideration in the amount of approximately $33.8 million. The
net amount of approximately $61.2 million (excluding the
contingent adjustment) would be paid by us.

"On October 15, 2013, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On November 5, 2013, we deposited
approximately $61.2 million, and our insurance carriers have
deposited the remaining portion, of the $95.0 million settlement
consideration into an escrow account for the settlement.

"The hearing on final approval of the settlement was held on
February 14, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the court issued an order
granting the parties' motion for settlement, and indicated that it
intended to issue a final approval of the settlement, subject to
the lead plaintiff's submission of a notice plan regarding Israeli
investors that includes (i) a longer time period for Israeli class
members to file their claims and (ii) the dissemination to Israeli
investors of a Hebrew language version of the notice of the
proposed settlement, proof of claim and release form (the "Hebrew-
Language Notice").

"On February 20, 2014, in response to the court's order, the lead
plaintiff filed a proposed notice plan that included (i) an
extension of the time period for Israeli class members to file
claims to April 30, 2014, (ii) a plan to mail the Hebrew-Language
Notice to Israeli investors, (iii) a plan to publish the Hebrew-
Language Notice in a leading newspaper in Israel, and (iv) a
revision to the claims website to post the Hebrew-Language Notice
and make clear that the claims deadline for Israeli class members
has been extended to April 30, 2014.

"On February 25, 2014, the court issued a final order approving
the settlement, dismissing the case with prejudice and entering
judgment in the action. One of the objectors to the settlement
filed a notice of appeal to the court's February 25, 2014 judgment
and orders, but subsequently filed a motion for voluntary
dismissal of the appeal with prejudice. On June 2, 2014, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order and
mandate, dismissing the appeal with prejudice.

"We have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims
alleged in the consolidated shareholder securities class action.
Nonetheless, we have agreed to the settlement to eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation. This settlement also applies to members of the
putative class of plaintiffs in the Israel class action under U.S.
law."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Hearing Held on Israel Class Suit Continuation
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that a hearing was held on
June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel class action should
proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S. class action. On
June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental pleading at the
court's request.  The Company filed its reply pleading on August
19, 2014.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint
was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action,
in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on
March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.
Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court
ruled in our favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining our liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to
the Israeli Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal
motion was filed on January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court
has stayed its proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules
on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.

On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Israeli Supreme
Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli District Court.
The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court to
rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under the
assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the
Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable
law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12,
2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's
decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme
Court. On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli
Supreme Court.

"In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli
Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130
S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently
pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be
added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to
reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to
the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay
the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

"On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.

"On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We
filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the
application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status
of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status
notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S.
securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further
hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and
confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the
federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the
Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to
the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February
4, 2013.

"The plaintiff and putative class members in this action are
included in the stipulated settlement of the federal securities
class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., unless an individual
plaintiff opts out. Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and
orders by the U.S. court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel
class action filed a joint motion requesting that the Israeli
Supreme Court renew the proceedings on appeal concerning the
determination of the applicable law.

"A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel
class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S.
class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental
pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on
August 19, 2014."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: April 2015 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
The court has set a hearing on April 3, 2015 for any forthcoming
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the VeriFone
Securities Litigation, VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-
Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September
4, 2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Two additional class actions related to the same
matter (Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc.
et al., Case No. CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV 13-1853) were filed in April 2013."

"On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law
firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class
actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235
Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v.
VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their
respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July
17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014
and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court
took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument.
On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend.

"Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, lead plaintiff's second
amended complaint is to be filed by October 7, 2014 and we shall
answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by
December 8, 2014. The court has set a hearing on April 3, 2015 for
any forthcoming motion to dismiss the second amended complaint."


VERINT SYSTEMS: Says Class Suit Mediation Process "Unsuccessful"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The mediation process in a class action had been unsuccessful,
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms.
Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the
grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees
and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during our previous extended filing delay period."

In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages.  On
February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack
of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In
the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages.

On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the
Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the
parties requesting such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended
consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.

Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150 million in assets to secure any future judgment.
The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion
until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was
heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling
in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.

The Company said, "Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share
distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of
its business operations and assets (other than its equity
ownership interests in us and Comverse) to Comverse or
unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the
Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's
shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution,
Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a
wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any
material assets other than its equity interest in us."

"On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of
the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under
the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse
relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to
CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses
we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in
connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an attempt to mediate the dispute, on July 1, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court informing it
that the mediation process had been unsuccessful. As a result, the
District Court has ordered the parties to file summations for its
consideration."

Verint is a global leader in Actionable Intelligence solutions.
Actionable Intelligence is a necessity in a dynamic world of
massive information growth because it empowers organizations with
crucial insights and enables decision makers to anticipate,
respond, and take action. With Verint solutions and value-added
services, organizations of all sizes and across many industries
can make more timely and effective decisions. Today, more than
10,000 organizations in over 180 countries, including over 80
percent of the Fortune 100, use Verint solutions to improve
enterprise performance and make the world a safer place.


WORLD JOURNAL: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Chia Hao Lin, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
Class members v. World Journal, LLC, and John Doe Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05655 (E.D.N.Y., September 26, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages and
statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

World Journal, LLC operate and distribute a widely read Chinese-
language newspaper World Journal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XYZ CORPORATION: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yunsheng Li, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Shanyou Chen, Wai Zhong Huang, Wild Ginger, and XYZ Corporation
d/b/a Wild Ginger, Case No. 1:14-cv-07838 (S.D.N.Y., September 26,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

XYZ Corporation owns and operates Wild Ginger restaurant located
at 226 East 51st Street, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID YAN
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11E
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 888-7788
      Facsimile: (718) 888-0870
      E-mail: davidyanlawfirm@yahoo.com


ZURICH NA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Frederking, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zurich North America Insurance, and Zurich
American Insurance, Company and Norfolk Southern Railway Company
d/b/a Triple Crown Services Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-01041 (S.D.
Ill., September 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Zurich North America Insurance, and Zurich American Insurance,
Company are multi-line insurance providers.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company operates and maintains a terminal
in Edwardsville, Madison County, Illinois

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee W. Barron, Esq.
      LEE W. BARRON, P.C.
      112 Front Street
      Alton, IL 62002
      Telephone: (618) 462-9160
      Facsimile: (618) 462-9167
      E-mail: lee@leebarronlaw.com


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *