---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 200

                             Headlines

1342 ST NICHOLAS: "Almanzar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Recalls Acorn 120 Straight Stairlifts
ACTIVE APPAREL: Recalls Boys Fission Zipper Hooded Sweatshirts
ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Chia & Flax Seed Powder
AEROPOSTALE INC: $15MM Accord in Providence Suit Has Final Okay

AEROPOSTALE INC: Has $2.9MM Remaining Liabilities Related to Deal
AIRTONE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Barrett" Suit Claims
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Gold-Price Manipulation
BENSON CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BEST BUY: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Pending

BIG LOTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Awaiting Court Decision
BJ's CARGO: Faces "Corniel" Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BOB EVANS: Court Approved Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
BURRITOS Y TACOS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHANTIQUE'S CORP: Recalls Boy's Zipper Hoodie Due to Strangulation

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT: "Puma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EL POLLO: Ex-Employee Filed Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
ENVIVIO INC: "Silverberg" Class Action Dismissed
EXPRESS CHECK: Order to Arbitrate Upheld in "Smith" Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action

FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Class Has Not Been Certified in "Smith" Case
FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Faces "White" Suit Over Health Care Plan
FONTERRA: Sri Lanka Halts Sale of Anchor Milk After Illness
FOOT LOCKER: Wage and Hour Litigation in Discovery Stages
FOOT LOCKER: Provides Update in "Osberg" Case Appeal

FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
FRANKLIN FUELING: Recalls Hardwall Fuel Curb Hose Due to Fire
FRUITS DE MER: Recalls Tomalley Spread Due to Possible Bacteria
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GRUPO AVAL: Porvenir, Corficolombiana Facing Collective Actions

GRUPO AVAL: Banco de Bogota & Banco de Occidente Face Actions
HEIDI DIAZ: Denial of Application for Writ of Execution Upheld
HILL BROTHERS: Sued in Miss. Over Inaccurate Financial Reports
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Chorman" in M.D. Florida Over Data Breach
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settlement Reached in Class Action

HUSQVARNA CONSUMER: Recalls Push Lawn Mowers Due to Injury Hazard
J. C. PENNEY: Faces "Marcus" Class Action in Texas
J. C. PENNEY: Faces "Johnson" Class Action in Texas
J. C. PENNEY: Faces ERISA Class Action Litigation in Texas
JNR RESTORATION: Faces "Guevara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

JPMORGAN CHASE: Retirement Fund Wins Class Certification
LACROSSE UNLIMITED: "Laurie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
LAURA SECORD: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Labeling
LCS FINANCIAL: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Approval of Webster Suit Settlement Affirmed

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Final Reply Briefs Due December 1
MD SINHALESE: Recalls Sinhalese Pickle Due to Undeclared Mustard
MERCURY NEW: "Sciabacucchi" and "Pryor" Actions Consolidated
MODEL N: Faces Securities Class Action in California Over IPO
NVIDIA CORP: 9th Cir. Dismissed "Cohen" Amended Fraud Suit

OCLARO INC: Court Grants Final Approval of "Wesley" Case Accord
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date in Securities Class Action
PALL CORP: Recorded Legal and Other Fees Related to Class Actions
PARTY CITY: Recalls Fear Frenzy Ghoulish Glow Spider Necklace
POLLO OPERATIONS: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, Action Claims

PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon Sup. Ct. Upheld PUC Order in Trojan Suit
ROOM SERVICE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
S & J GRANITE: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAM KANE: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to Metal Pieces
SHOE CARNIVAL: Oral Argument in 7th Cir. Appeal Held

SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Certification Bid Still Before Arbitrator
SIGNET JEWELERS: EEOC Class Action Appeal Pending
SIGNET JEWELERS: Settles Hodge & Roberts Cases for Immaterial Sum
SIGNET JEWELERS: Del. Plaintiffs Have Not Filed Amended Complaint
SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery in Merion Capital Action Has Commenced

SMARTHEAT INC: Lead Plaintiffs Re-Files Class Certification Bid
SWS GROUP: Plaintiffs Withdrew Preliminary Injunction Request
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Motion to Certify Filed in "Abdeljalil" Case
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Travaglio" Parties in Mediation Proceedings
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Seeks Stay & Dismissal of "Cowan" Suit

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Seeks Stay of "Fitzhenry" Action
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Named as Defendant in "Pittman" Action
TGD GROUP: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Parties Await Decision in Asbestos Appeal
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Reached $65 Million Class Action Settlement

UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit for Misstating Public Statements
VENTURA, CA: Denial of Bid to Dismiss "Kuklenski" Case Upheld
WAL-MART STORES: No Decision Yet in "Braun/Hummel" Appeal
WAL-MART STORES: ASDA a Defendant in 387 "Equal Value" Cases
WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Suits Over New York Times Story

WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Landlords' Cases
WASHINGTON, DC: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Tax Sales Suit
ZUMIEZ INC: Final Approval Hearing Held on Class Action Deal


                            *********


1342 ST NICHOLAS: "Almanzar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Almanzar, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 1342 St. Nicholas Avenue Restaurant Corp. (d/b/a Capri
Restaurant), Manuel Vidal, and Jacinto Diaz, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07850 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

1342 St. Nicholas Avenue Restaurant Corp. operates a Dominican
restaurant owned by Manuel Vidal and Jacinto Diaz located at 1342
St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, New York 10033.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200


ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Recalls Acorn 120 Straight Stairlifts
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Posting date:             September 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Specialized Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41513

Affected products: Acorn 120 Straight Stairlifts

Acorn 120 Superglide straight stairlift, installed on staircases
which are straight, manufactured between March 2007 and March
2011.  The units have serial numbers between 110101209781 and
110202352678.

Acorn is replacing the seat post on these stairlifts.

The seat post weld may be defective.  If the weld fails, the
product poses a fall hazard to consumers.

Acorn Stairlifts (Canada) Inc. has received two reports of
incidents in the UK. Health Canada has not received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 4,400 units were sold across Canada.

The units affected were manufactured in the United Kingdom and
were sold from 2007 to 2011.

Companies:

   Distributor     Acorn Stairlifts (Canada) Inc.
                   Mississauga
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should contact Acorn at 1-888-228-3335 or by email to
arrange to have the seat post replaced free of charge.  If you
have already been contacted by Acorn and your seat post has been
replaced you do not need to take any further action.


ACTIVE APPAREL: Recalls Boys Fission Zipper Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Active Apparel, Mira Loma, California., announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,800 Boys Zipper Hooded Sweatshirts.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The sweatshirts have drawstrings around the neck area which pose a
strangulation hazard to children.  Drawstrings can become
entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus
doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation
or an entanglement hazard to children.  In Feb. 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves boys Fission zipper hooded sweatshirts made of
100% cotton.  The sweatshirts come in black, green, royal blue,
true red and turquoise color.  There is a white drawstring tie
that is attached on each side of the neck area.  There are two
pockets and a white zipper on the front of the garment.  The
recalled sweatshirts were sold in boys sizes small (size 8-10) and
medium (size 12-14).  The size can be found on the label that is
sewn into the seam of the neck area.  There is also a white label
sewn into the lower left seam inside the garment.  On the label,
it states Karachi Pakistan, Active Apparel, has the manufacture
date MAY, 2014, and batch number 61271,159.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/EJBmt3

The recalled products were manufactured in Pakistan and sold at
Fred Myer and Kroger stores nationwide from June 2014 through
August 2014 for about $18.

Consumers should immediately take the sweatshirt away from
children.  Consumers can remove the drawstring from the sweatshirt
to eliminate the hazard or return it to the place of purchase for
a full refund and a $10 gift card.


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Chia & Flax Seed Powder
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Starting date:            September 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on Sept. 11, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand
Sprouted Flax Seed Powder and Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder
from the marketplace due to Salmonella.  Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described below.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections.  Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea.  Long-term complications
may include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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


AEROPOSTALE INC: $15MM Accord in Providence Suit Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 2, 2014, that the Company and senior executive
officers Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller in October 2011 were
named as defendants in an action amended in February 2012, City of
Providence v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on behalf of
purchasers of Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011 and
August 18, 2011.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was
experiencing declining demand for its women's fashion division and
increasing inventory.  A motion to dismiss was denied on March 25,
2013.  Aeropostale and the plaintiffs have entered into a
settlement agreement resolving the claims made in this action,
without any admission of liability, for the amount of $15 million,
all of which will be funded with insurance proceeds. The
settlement received final court approval on May 9, 2014.

Aeropostale, Inc. is a primarily mall-based, specialty retailer of
casual apparel and accessories, principally targeting 14 to 17
year-old young women and men through its Aeropostale stores and 4
to 12 year-old kids through its P.S. from Aeropostale stores.


AEROPOSTALE INC: Has $2.9MM Remaining Liabilities Related to Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 2, 2014, that during February 2014, the
Company settled litigations related to California wage and hour
matters.

"During the second quarter, we made a settlement payment of $1.5
million. In addition, we have remaining liabilities previously
recorded of $2.9 million as of August 2, 2014 related to these
settlements," the Company said.

Aeropostale, Inc. is a primarily mall-based, specialty retailer of
casual apparel and accessories, principally targeting 14 to 17
year-old young women and men through its Aeropostale stores and 4
to 12 year-old kids through its P.S. from Aeropostale stores.


AIRTONE CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Barrett" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Barrett, and Patrick Powell v. Airtone Corporation, and
Konstantinos Sonitis, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05677
(E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

Airtone Corporation provides HVAC and Cooling commercial
installation and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Gold-Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Settings LLC (a New York limited liability company), and
Modern Settings LLC (a Florida limited liability company), on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of
Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank PLC, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings
PLC, and Societe Generale, Case No. 1:14-cv-07842 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 29, 2014), alleges that the Defendants manipulate the
prices of gold or gold derivative contracts and was carried out
with the intent to artificially fix prices of gold and gold
derivatives.

The Defendants are public banking and financial services
companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BENSON CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Amador, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Benson Construction Services, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company and Walter Purser, individually, Case No. 6:14-
cv-01577 (M.D. Fla., September 29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Benson Construction Services, LLC is a grading, paving and site
utility contractor.

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


BEST BUY: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. has filed an interlocutory appeal of a Court
Order with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and a decision on that
appeal is pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Company
said, "This federal court action alleges, among other things, that
we and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b)
and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act
in connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public."

"Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and
certain of our executive officers in the same court.

"In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension
Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned,
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was
filed and served. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the
end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the
action with prejudice.

"In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012,
the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's
decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012. We filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in November 2012 and all responsive
pleadings were filed in December 2012. A hearing was held on April
26, 2013.

"On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion
to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying
the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the
statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking
statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor"
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA).

"Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. By Order filed
August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities
who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on
September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by
the alleged violations of law. We have filed an interlocutory
appeal of this Order with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and a
decision on that appeal is pending. We continue to believe that
these allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend our company in this matter."

Best Buy is a multi-national, multi-channel retailer of technology
products, including tablets and computers, televisions, mobile
phones, large and small appliances, entertainment products,
digital imaging, and related accessories.


BIG LOTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Awaiting Court Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 2, 2014, that defendants have filed a motion
to dismiss a putative class action complaint, and that motion is
fully briefed and awaiting a decision.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's common shares
between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012.  The Company said,
"This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed
and awaiting a decision."


BJ's CARGO: Faces "Corniel" Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Corniel v. BJ's Cargo Express, Corp., Benjamin Jimenez,
and Lusia Martinez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05693
(E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages.

BJ's Cargo Express, Corp. provides courier services in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOB EVANS: Court Approved Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, that on
January 22, 2014, a purported class action (the "Action")
captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v.
Steven A. Davis, et al., C.A. No. 9271-VCN, was filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"). Plaintiff in
the Action alleged violations of Delaware General Corporation Law
and breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with certain
amendments to the By-laws of Bob Evans Farms, Inc. ("Company") in
November 2011.

Defendants denied any and all allegations of Plaintiff that
Defendants engaged in wrongdoing in any way and denied that
Plaintiff's lawsuit had any causal effect with respect to the
January, 2014 amendment of the Company's By-laws. The Company
stated that it agreed to settle Plaintiff's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses due the costs of defense of
that application and litigation risk associated therewith.

On September 5, 2014, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order
of Dismissal entered into by the parties in connection with the
Action. The Stipulation and Order of Dismissal requires that
notice of such should be given to shareholders of the Company in
the form of the Report on Form 8-K.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joel Friedlander, Esq.
     FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
     222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 573-3500

Attorney for the Defendants:

     Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
     RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
     One Rodney Square
     920 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 651-7700


BURRITOS Y TACOS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Mendez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Burritos Y Tacos El Patron and Moises Gutierrez, Case
No. 3:14-cv-03524 (N.D. Tex., September 29, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Burritos Y Tacos El Patron owns and operates a Mexican restaurant
in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


CHANTIQUE'S CORP: Recalls Boy's Zipper Hoodie Due to Strangulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Chantique's Corp., Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 60 Boy's Zipper Hooded Hoodie.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The sweaters have a drawstring around the neck area which poses a
strangulation hazard to children.  Drawstrings can become
entangled or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus
doors or other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation
or an entanglement hazard to children.  In Feb. 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves a Pure Baby Organic boy's hoodie made of 100%
cotton.  It comes in solid gray with a red drawstring that is
inside the lining of the hood that surrounds the face.  They have
a zipper front closure.  The recalled hoodies were sold in toddler
boy's sizes 2t to boy's size 3.  There is a white label sewn into
the neck line that has the name Purebaby on it.  There is also a
label underneath it that has the size printed on it and states
Made in India.  A label with style number PB1613.B12 is sewn into
an inside side seam of the garment under the washing instruction
label.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/3vqd2s

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
children's boutiques nationwide and other stores such as Elephant
Ears, Pumpkin heads, Sprouts and on-line at Nordstromrack from
Jan. 2014 through Aug. 2014 for about $62.

Consumers should immediately take the hoodie away from children.
Consumers can remove the drawstring from the garment to eliminate
the hazard or return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.


DESIGN DEVELOPMENT: "Puma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Puma, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiff v.
Design Development NYC Inc., Probuild North America Corp, Michael
Daddio and Chip Brian, Case No. 1:14-cv-07864 (S.D.N.Y., September
29, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Design Development NYC Inc. and Probuild North America Corp are
owned and operated by Michael Daddio and Chip Brian and is engaged
in construction business.

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


EL POLLO: Ex-Employee Filed Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2014, that around February 24,
2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange, against EPL on
behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from
2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California
labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to
provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's
requested remedies included compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought
was specified in the complaint.

"We were served with the complaint on March 3, 2014," the Company
said.  "While we intend to vigorously defend against this action,
including its class certification, its ultimate outcome is
presently not determinable, as it is in a preliminary phase. Thus,
we cannot determine the likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a
likely range of damages, if any. A settlement or adverse judgment
could have a material adverse impact."

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken in
front of customers.


ENVIVIO INC: "Silverberg" Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Envivio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc.,
et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its
directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer, and certain underwriters of its IPO. The lawsuit purports
to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in
the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for
the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The
complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio,
Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court.

On November 2, 2012 defendants removed the cases to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
where they were assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-
05636-CW.

A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012
entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and
Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior
Court, where they are now pending, and the Thomas case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933-
PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2012 and
September 7, 2012. It names as defendants the Company and the
Company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company is, at this time, unable to assess whether any loss or
adverse effect on its financial condition is probable or remote or
to estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

Envivio is a provider of software-based IP video processing and
distribution solutions that enable the delivery of high-quality
video to consumers.


EXPRESS CHECK: Order to Arbitrate Upheld in "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In an Oct. 2, 2014 decision available at http://is.gd/2AJLQgfrom
Leagle.com, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial
court order compelling arbitration in the case LACIE CYLESS SMITH
v. EXPRESS CHECK ADVANCE OF MISSISSIPPI, LLC, Case No. 2013-CA-
00369-SCT.

Ms. Smith filed her lawsuit after Express Check terminated her,
claiming that she was fired for reporting her supervisor's illegal
acts.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that while U.S.
District Judge Phyllis Hamilton is not, she disclosed on Oct. 1, a
Facebook user, the Oakland judge, who is presiding over a privacy
suit against the ubiquitous social networking site, seemed less
reluctant about joining the legal debate over how modern
technology intersects with decades-old federal wiretapping laws.

After more than an hour-and-a-half of arguments, Judge Hamilton
hinted that at least a portion of a lawsuit claiming that Facebook
illegally scanned users' private messages could survive a motion
to dismiss.  To determine whether the company's alleged actions
qualify as an "interception" under wiretapping laws, Hamilton
indicated she needed more information about the way Facebook
processes private messages.

Plaintiffs lawyers sued Facebook in 2013 on behalf of a proposed
class of the social network's users.  Plaintiffs claimed that the
company illegally intercepted the content of private messages
whenever users include a link to an outside website.  The lawsuit
drew on research reported in October 2012 by The Wall Street
Journal that showed when users linked to other sites in Facebook
messages, those links added to the number of "Likes" counted on
third-party websites.

On Oct. 1 Facebook lawyer Joshua Jessen -- jjessen@gibsondunn.com
-- a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, argued the suit targets
"routine commercial conduct that was completely innocuous."  He
repeatedly referred to the "Like" count as an "anonymous,
aggregate" number, and insisted the practice of increasing the
count based on links ceased shortly after the newspaper's story.

Judge Hamilton asked Mr. Jessen if Facebook also stopped the
underlying scanning of URLs that caused the "Like" counts to go
up.

Mr. Jessen answered that anything that is shared on Facebook is by
definition analyzed by computers to prevent hacking, to keep users
from being bombarded with spam messages and to detect malware.

"So the answer to my question is no?" Judge Hamilton asked.
"There is analysis that's going on," Mr. Jessen said.  "We don't
think that analysis runs afoul of the Wiretap Act or any other
criminal statute," he said.

Mr. Jessen argued that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed
because users consent to Facebook's processing of the messages
through the site's data use policy.  He also argued that Facebook,
as an electronic communication service, is exempt from liability
under the federal Wiretap Act for activity that falls within the
"ordinary course of business."

Just what qualifies for that exemption has been the subject of
some back-and-forth among judges in the Northern District.  Judge
Hamilton's decision in the Facebook case could help clarify just
how far technology companies can go in screening user
communications without facing exposure under the Wiretap Act,
which carries statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation.

On Oct. 1, lead plaintiffs lawyer Michael Sobol of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein argued that Facebook's activity was not
disclosed to users and therefore must fall outside the "ordinary
course of business."

"Every court that has looked at an issue similar to this, which is
the secret acquisition of a private message, has found that it's
outside the ordinary course" of business, he said.

The case is distinguishable from one decided last year by U.S.
Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, Sobol argued, because that case
dealt with a publicly disclosed change in business practices.

Judge Grewal sided with Google Inc. and dismissed a lawsuit
targeting the way the company tracks users' personal data across a
wide array of its products.  He found that electronic
communication services have "broad immunity" under the exemption.
That decision followed a ruling from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
finding that Google's scanning of Gmail messages to sell targeted
ads didn't fit the exemption.

Judge Hamilton, who noted during oral arguments that she does not
use Facebook, pointed out that there were two well-reasoned takes
on the ordinary course of business in the Northern District and
said she'd likely land "somewhere in the middle of those two."

Arguing for Facebook, Mr. Jessen said, "We think ordinary course
of business means what it says, which is business activities that
are carried out routinely and as a matter of course."  He asked,
"Even if you accept their allegations as true, how is this not the
ordinary course of business?"


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Class Has Not Been Certified in "Smith" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class has not been certified in the action Smith v. The First
Marblehead Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.),
the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended ended June 30, 2014.

On August 28, 2013, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against FMD, Daniel Meyers, FMD's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the FMD Board of Directors, and Kenneth Klipper, FMD's
former Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director. The action
is entitled Smith v. The First Marblehead Corp. et al., Civ. A.
No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.). The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information in various SEC
filings, press releases and other public statements concerning our
corporate income tax filings. The complaint alleges various claims
under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

In December 2013, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On February 20, 2014, an amended complaint was filed by
the lead plaintiff and contained similar allegations as the
earlier complaint.

"On April 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to our motion to dismiss. On June 23, 2014, we filed a
reply brief in support of our motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On June 30, 2014, the court heard arguments on the
motion to dismiss. A class has not been certified in the action as
of September 10, 2014," the Company said.

First Marblehead is a specialty finance company focused on the
education financing marketplace in the United States.


FIRSTENERGY GENERATION: Faces "White" Suit Over Health Care Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elbert White, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. FirstEnergy Generation, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-
02158 (N.D. Ohio, September 29, 2014), arises out of the Company's
announcement that effective January 1, 2015, it would discontinue
company-subsidized health care for all retirees or their surviving
spouses and would no longer make contributions toward health
insurance premiums or health reimbursement accounts after December
21, 2014.

FirstEnergy Generation, LLC operates electric generation plants in
Several States in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tybe A. Brett, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC
      17th Floor, 429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      E-mail: tbrett@fdpklaw.com


FONTERRA: Sri Lanka Halts Sale of Anchor Milk After Illness
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shihar Aneez and Ranga Sirilal, writing for Reuters, report that
Sri Lanka has suspended the sale of some Anchor milk powder made
by Fonterra after some children consumed the product and fell ill,
government health officials said on Oct. 5.

However Fonterra, a New Zealand dairy giant, said independent
investigations into the three batches concerned proved that they
were safe to consume.

The health ministry suspended the distribution and sale of the
three batches of Anchor following a complaint of food poisoning in
some children in the southern village of Girandurukotte, 224 km
(140 miles) from the capital Colombo.

Senerath Bandara, the secretary of Sri Lanka's public health
inspectors' association, said the Health Services had ordered
inspectors to confiscate all stocks of the three batches.

"We have been ordered to hold them until the investigations are
over following the reports that several kids had fallen ill after
consuming the milk powder," Mr. Bandara told Reuters.

The health ministry has sent the Anchor milk powder packets of the
relevant batches for laboratory testing, officials said.

Sanath Mahawithanage, Fonterra Brands Sri Lanka Associate Director
for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, said the quantity of the
batches is 76 metric tonnes.

"At the time of receiving the complaint most of the product had
already been sold right across the island without any issue,"
Mr. Mahawithanage told Reuters in an emailed statement.

"Our investigations conducted on samples from these three batches
by internationally accredited independent laboratories confirm
that there is no food safety or quality issue."

Mr. Mahawithanage said the company is waiting for health ministry
direction after its own local tests and the outcome of their
investigation.

The world's top dairy exporter suspended Sri Lanka operations in
August last year after the world's largest dairy exporter faced
product bans, court cases and angry demonstrators over its milk
products in the country.  It was banned by a Sri Lankan court from
selling or advertising its products after the country's food
safety authorities said they found high levels of the agricultural
chemical dicyandiamide (DCD) in two batches of milk powder.
Fonterra vigorously disputes the finding.

A court order later removed the ban, allowing the company to
continue its operations.

Fonterra has had a presence in Sri Lanka for around 50 years and
its Anchor brand commands over 60 percent market share of the
country's milk powder industry.  Sri Lanka's actions last year
were widely seen as a move to pressure Fonterra and promote local
dairy farmers as the government has been trying to promote local
fresh milk to stem capital flows out of the country and help
domestic farmers.

Sri Lanka is a top-10 importer of New Zealand dairy products, with
roughly $196 million of the country's total milk powder imports of
around $300 million coming from New Zealand in 2012.  The majority
is supplied by Fonterra.

Milk powder exports to Sri Lanka account for roughly 2 percent of
New Zealand's overall dairy exports.


FOOT LOCKER: Wage and Hour Litigation in Discovery Stages
---------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 2, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in
one such case in which plaintiff alleges that the Company
permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. The case, Pereira v.
Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In his complaint, in addition to
unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiff seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs. In 2009, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective action. During the course of 2010, notices were sent to
approximately 81,888 current and former employees of the Company
offering them the opportunity to participate in the class action,
and approximately 5,027 have opted in.

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies. With the exception of Hill v.
Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot
Locker filed in state court of California, Cortes v. Foot Locker
filed in federal court in New York, and McGlothin v. Foot Locker
filed in state court in California, all of these actions were
consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation with Pereira under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc.
Fair Labor Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation. The
consolidated cases are in the discovery stages of proceedings.

In Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain
Illinois employees only. The Company's motion for leave to appeal
was denied. The Company has had and continues to have discussions
with plaintiffs' counsel in an attempt to determine whether it
will be possible to resolve the consolidated cases and Hill.

Foot Locker, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates in two
reportable segments -- Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers.
The Athletic Stores segment is one of the largest athletic
footwear and apparel retailers in the world, with formats that
include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs
Sports, Footaction and SIX:02, as well as the retail stores of
Runners Point Group, including Runners Point, Sidestep, and Run2,
which was acquired during the second quarter of 2013. The Direct-
to-Customers segment is multi-branded and multi-channeled. This
segment sells, through its affiliates, directly to customers
through its Internet websites, mobile sites, and catalogs.
Eastbay, one of the affiliates, is among the largest direct
marketers in the United States. The Direct-to-Customers segment
operates the websites for eastbay.com, final-score.com,
eastbayteamsales.com, ccs.com, as well as websites aligned with
the brand names of its store banners (footlocker.com,
ladyfootlocker.com, kidsfootlocker.com, champssports.com,
footaction.com, and six02.com). Additionally, this segment
includes the direct-to-customer subsidiary of Runners Point Group,
which operates the websites for runnerspoint.com, sidestep-
shoes.com, and sp24.com.


FOOT LOCKER: Provides Update in "Osberg" Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 2, 2014, that the Company and the Company's
U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a purported class action
(Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York) in which the plaintiff alleges
that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of the retirement
plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance formula, the
Company and the retirement plan failed to properly advise plan
participants of the "wear-away" effect of the conversion.
Plaintiff asserted claims for: (a) breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); (b)
violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of the
Summary Plan Description; (c) violation of the notice provision of
Section 204(h) of ERISA; and (d) violation of ERISA's age
discrimination provisions.

In September 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Section 204(h) claim and the age discrimination claim.
In December 2012, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the remaining two claims, dismissing the
action.

Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which issued a Summary Order on February 13, 2014 that
affirmed the judgment of the District Court in part, and vacated
and remanded in part.

Foot Locker, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates in two
reportable segments - Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The
Athletic Stores segment is one of the largest athletic footwear
and apparel retailers in the world, with formats that include Foot
Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports,
Footaction and SIX:02, as well as the retail stores of Runners
Point Group, including Runners Point, Sidestep, and Run2, which
was acquired during the second quarter of 2013. The Direct-to-
Customers segment is multi-branded and multi-channeled. This
segment sells, through its affiliates, directly to customers
through its Internet websites, mobile sites, and catalogs.
Eastbay, one of the affiliates, is among the largest direct
marketers in the United States. The Direct-to-Customers segment
operates the websites for eastbay.com, final-score.com,
eastbayteamsales.com, ccs.com, as well as websites aligned with
the brand names of its store banners (footlocker.com,
ladyfootlocker.com, kidsfootlocker.com, champssports.com,
footaction.com, and six02.com). Additionally, this segment
includes the direct-to-customer subsidiary of Runners Point Group,
which operates the websites for runnerspoint.com, sidestep-
shoes.com, and sp24.com.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francesca's Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that defendants moved
to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint and that motion
was fully briefed as of August 13, 2014.

On September 27, 2013 and November 4, 2013, two purported class
action lawsuits entitled Ortuzar v. Francesca's Holdings Corp., et
al. and West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Francesca's
Holdings Corp., et al. were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising from
statements in certain public disclosures regarding the Company's
current and future business and financial condition.

On December 19, 2013, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff.

On March 14, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint purportedly on behalf of shareholders that
purchased or acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock
between July 22, 2011 and September 3, 2013 against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The
consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11,
12(a) (2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly
false and misleading statements in the Company's public
disclosures concerning, among other things, the Company's
relationship with certain vendors. The lawsuit seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

On May 13, 2014 defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. That motion was fully briefed as of August 13, 2014.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
consolidated complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss
cannot be made at this time and, as such, the Company has not
recorded an accrual for any possible loss.

Francesca's Holdings operates a national chain of retail boutiques
designed and merchandised to feel like independently owned,
upscale boutiques and provide its customers with an inviting,
intimate and fun shopping experience. The Company offers a diverse
and balanced mix of apparel, jewelry, accessories and gifts at
attractive prices.


FRANKLIN FUELING: Recalls Hardwall Fuel Curb Hose Due to Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Franklin Fueling Systems Inc., of Madison, Wisc., announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,700 Hardwall Fuel Curb Hose.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The crimp on the fuel hose can loosen causing fuel to leak, posing
a fire and explosion hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The FLEX-ING FLEX-ON hardwall curb hose is 1 inch in diameter
ranging in lengths from 9 inches to 100 feet, including various
made-to-order lengths, with fixed and swivel fittings.  The
product is used in conjunction with the gas station nozzle to
dispense or transfer refined fuels such as gasoline, diesel,
ethanol blends and biodiesel blends (up to E15).  The recalled
hoses come in black, green, blue, yellow or red.  A date code of
M1014 through M3014 in WWYY format, is on the fitting with model
numbers starting with FLHFR3XX XXX or FLXHW3XX XXX.  On the
products with a fixed fitting, the model number is on a label on
the crimp ferrule. On products with a swivel fitting, the model
number can be found on the label of the box in which it was
shipped. "FLEX-ING FLEX-ON" or "FLEXSTEEL FUTURA" are printed on
the hoses.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/iJ9kOu

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at distributors, contractors and gasoline stations nationwide from
March 2014 through July 2014 for between $20 and $560 depending on
length.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hardwall curb
hose and contact the firm to receive a full refund or a
replacement hose.


FRUITS DE MER: Recalls Tomalley Spread Due to Possible Bacteria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fruits de Mer Madeleine Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9184

Fruits de Mer Madeleine Inc. is recalling Madeleine brand Tomalley
Spread from the marketplace because it may permit the growth of
Clostridium botulinum.  Consumers should not consume the recalled
product described.

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

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis.  In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: 80 g. Madeleine Tomalley Spread with 6 87090
30020 5 UPC


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Williams and Novack Lazare, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and
General Nutrition Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-01429 (D. Conn.,
September 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages.

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and General Nutrition Corp. are
engaged in the business of selling health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals, and herbal supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
      Robert A. Richardson, Esq.
      GARRISON LEVIN-EPSTEIN RICHARDSON FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI PC
      405 Orange St.
      New Haven, CT 06511
      Telephone: (203) 777-4425
      Facsimile: (203) 776-3965
      E-mail: jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com
              rrichardson@garrisonlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


GRUPO AVAL: Porvenir, Corficolombiana Facing Collective Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A. said in its Amendment No. 1 to
Form F-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 8, 2014, that the Company, its banking subsidiaries,
Porvenir, Corficolombiana and its other subsidiaries are party to
collective or class actions ("acciones populares" or "acciones de
grupo," respectively).  Collective actions are court actions where
an individual seeks to protect collective rights and prevent
contingent damages, obtain injunctions and damages caused by an
infringement of collective rights of which the following are the
most significant.

All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia,
including Porvenir, are subject to at least two class actions in
which certain individuals are alleging that the pension and
severance funds administrators have caused damages to their
customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its
customers -- under the scheduled retirement system -- below the
established standards.

Additionally, Porvenir and certain other pension and severance
funds are subject to a constitutional action relating to charging
commissions above the legally established limits for contributions
to mandatory pension funds. These constitutional actions are
seeking the payment of the alleged damages caused to fund
managers' customers.

"No provisions have been established in connection with these
three constitutional actions because the amount is unquantifiable,
and we consider the probability of loss to be remote," the Company
said.


GRUPO AVAL: Banco de Bogota & Banco de Occidente Face Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A. said in its Amendment No. 1 to
Form F-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 8, 2014, that Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente and
Banco Popular are subject to two relevant constitutional actions:

     1. A constitutional action filed by certain individuals on
behalf of the taxpayers of Cali, claiming that Banco de Bogota,
Banco de Occidente and Banco Popular, among other financial
institutions, unduly capitalized interest of certain obligations
as creditors of the municipality of Cali in connection with credit
facilities granted by such institutions, and therefore, are
seeking the reimbursement of interest paid by the municipality in
excess of the amounts due at June 30, 2009.

"We believe that the probability of loss in connection with this
constitutional action is low (eventual) and, as such, have not
recorded any provisions in connection with this constitutional
action," the Company said.

     2. A constitutional action filed by certain individuals on
behalf of the Department of Valle del Cauca (Departamento del
Valle del Cauca) against several financial institutions, including
Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente, Banco Popular and
Corficolombiana claims that the Department has paid interest in a
manner prohibited by law, in connection with a credit facility
granted to the Department. In addition, the plaintiffs are
claiming that the defendants did not pay the alleged real value of
the shares of Sociedad Portuaria de Buenaventura and Empresa de
Energ¡a del Pac¡fico, on a sale transaction of said shares.

"We consider the probability of loss in connection with this
constitutional action to be low (eventual) and, therefore, have
not recorded any provision," the Company said.


HEIDI DIAZ: Denial of Application for Writ of Execution Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against Heidi Diaz as the
operator of the "Kimkins" Internet Web site, alleging fraud in
connection with a membership diet plan. After a bench trial, the
court awarded the plaintiffs' class approximately $2,300,000 in
damages, including $500,000 in punitive damages. Thereafter,
plaintiffs attempted to force the sale of Diaz's dwelling. The
trial court denied the application, concluding plaintiffs failed
to show the funds used to buy the residence were the fruit of the
fraud that resulted in plaintiffs' judgment, and failed to show
the fair market value of the property and any equity in the
property that could satisfy some part of the judgment.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division
Three, affirmed the order of the Superior Court denying
plaintiffs' application for a writ of execution.  A copy of the
Appeal Court's October 1, 2014 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/d8QyXJfrom Leagle.com.

The case is TRISTA ESSEX et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
HEIDI DIAZ, Defendant and Respondent, NO. G050064.

For Defendant and Respondent:

   Timothy P. Peabody, Esq.
   PEABODY LAW FIRM
   620 Newport Center Dr.
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Telephone: 949-200-4610


HILL BROTHERS: Sued in Miss. Over Inaccurate Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K. Hill, Donald Byther, Sandy Byther, et al., v. Hill
Brothers Construction Company, Inc., HBC Board of Directors,
Kenneth W. Hill, Gerald C. Hill, Jimmy Hill, Sterling Aker, Clyde
R. Robertson, The Hill Brothers Construction Company Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership and 401(K) Plan and Trust Plan Administrative
Committee, and People's Bank, Case No. 3:14-cv-00213 (N.D. Miss.,
September 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to prudently and loyally manage the Employee Retirement Plan's
investment in HBC's securities, and by failing to provide complete
and accurate information to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition and the prudence of investing in
Company Stocks.

Hill Brothers Construction Company, Inc. is engaged in the
business of major construction project, including federal and
state highways throughout the Southeastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Yarbrough Harris, Esq.
      RUTLEDGE, DAVIS AND HARRIS, PLLC
      P. O. Drawer 29
      New Albany, MS
      Telephone: (662) 534-6421
      Facsimile: (662) 534-0053
      E-mail: mharris@rdhlaw.net

         - and -

      Diandra Debrosse, Esq.
      GENTLE, TURNER, SEXTON, DEBROSSE AND HARBISON
      Suite 100-501 Riverchase Parkway East
      Hoover, AL 35244
      Telephone: (205) 716-300
      Facsimile: (205) 716-3010
      E-mail: ddenrosse@gtandslaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Chorman" in M.D. Florida Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Chorman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01180 (M.D. Fla., September 29,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to secure and
safeguard its customers' credit and debit card numbers and other
payment card data, personally identifiable information such as the
cardholder's names, mailing addresses, and other personal
information.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates retail stores throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      7th Floor, 201 N Franklin Street
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settlement Reached in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that Hovnanian Enterprises,
Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. (collectively, the
"Company Defendants") have been named as defendants in a class
action suit. The action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy
D'Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County.
The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the
HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company's homes are in
violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a
potential safety issue.

On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class
certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. The Company
Defendants filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal
regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division
denied the request, and the Company Defendants filed a request for
interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which
remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on
the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012.

The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on
December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court's original finding
of class certification.

On June 18, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed class
certification. On July 3, 2013, the Company Defendants appealed
the June 2013 Appellate Division's decision to the New Jersey
Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the appeal on October 22,
2013.  The plaintiff class was seeking unspecified damages as well
as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act.

The Company Defendants' motion to consolidate an indemnity action
they filed against various manufacturer and sub-contractor
defendants to require these parties to participate directly in the
class action was denied by the Superior Court; however, the
Company Defendants' separate action seeking indemnification
against the various manufacturers and subcontractors implicated by
the class action is ongoing.

The Company Defendants, the Company Defendants' insurance carriers
and the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May
15, 2014 in which the plaintiff class will receive a payment of
$21 million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the
settlement being funded by the Company Defendants' insurance
carriers, which settlement is subject to Court approval. The
Company has fully reserved for its share of the settlement.


HUSQVARNA CONSUMER: Recalls Push Lawn Mowers Due to Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A. Inc., of Charlotte, N.C.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 700 push lawn mowers.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The engine control/bail lever on the handle can fail, allowing the
engine to run and the blades to rotate, posing an injury hazard to
consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Craftsman 3-in-1 high-wheel, gas-powered, push
mowers equipped with Honda GCV160 engines and a 21-inch deck.  The
mowers have a black engine control/bail lever, engine shroud and
deck with 12-inch rear wheels and a gray cloth clipping bag.  The
Craftsman logo and "GCV 160" are on the top front of the engine
shroud. "Honda" is on the top of the pull cord housing cover.  The
Craftsman logo is also stamped into the rear discharge chute cover
and printed on the sides of the clipping bag.  "Dust Blocker" and
"EZ Empty Bag" are printed on the top of the clipping bag.  The
first six numerals of the serial number are the manufacture date
in the MMDDYY format.  The recalled mowers were manufactured
between April 2014 (04xx14) and June 2014 (06xx14).  The serial
number and model number 384531 are on the data plate on the rear
of the mowing deck.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/oJvJm5

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively at Orchard Supply Hardware stores from June 2014 to
July 2014 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the mower and contact the
Husqvarna for a free repair.  The company is directly contacting
consumers.


J. C. PENNEY: Faces "Marcus" Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2014, that the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus
consolidated purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

"The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on
behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the period
from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused our common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.  The consolidated
complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and
other relief as the court may deem just and proper," the Company
said.

Defendants' responsive pleading was due on September 10, 2014.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP
was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding
company structure was implemented. The holding company has no
independent assets or operations, and no direct subsidiaries other
than JCP.


J. C. PENNEY: Faces "Johnson" Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2014, that plaintiff Nathan
Johnson filed on August 26, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit
against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division.

"The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired
our securities other than common stock during the period from
August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff's
lawsuit generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus
lawsuit, and seeks similar relief," the Company said.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP
was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding
company structure was implemented. The holding company has no
independent assets or operations, and no direct subsidiaries other
than JCP.


J. C. PENNEY: Faces ERISA Class Action Litigation in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 25, 2014, that the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., and certain
present and former members of Corporation's Board of Directors
have been sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs
Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division.  The suit alleges that the
defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the
J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock
Ownership Plan (the "Plan").  The class period is alleged to be
between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013.  Plaintiffs
allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock
in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants
allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects
that caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices.  The complaint seeks class certification,
declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged
losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal
operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP
was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,
Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding
company structure was implemented. The holding company has no
independent assets or operations, and no direct subsidiaries other
than JCP.


JNR RESTORATION: Faces "Guevara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Guevara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JNR Restoration Services LLC, et al., Case No. 7:14-
cv-07871 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess
of 40 hours per work week.

JNR Restoration Services LLC is a general contracting and
restoration company located in Dutchess County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Retirement Fund Wins Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
New York District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted in part, and
denied, in part, the plantiffs' motion for class certification in
the case, FORT WORTH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.P.
MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, No. 09-CV-3701
(JPO)(S.D.N.Y.).

The Court also denied the Defendants' motion in limine.

The putative class-action lawsuit arises from the sale of $10
billion of mortgage pass-through certificates, a type of mortgage-
backed security, by entities related to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
pursuant to a registration statement dated April 27, 2007 and
incorporated prospectus supplements.

Judge Oetken ruled that a class composed of "all persons or
entities who, prior to March 23, 2009, purchased or otherwise
acquired any Certificates in any of the Offerings" is certified
for purposes of liability only. Laborers Pension Trust Fund for
Northern California and Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California are appointed class representatives, and
Robbins Geller is appointed class counsel.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C), this class certification order "may
be altered or amended before final judgment." In that regard, the
denial of Plaintiffs' motion as to damages is without prejudice to
a renewed certification motion providing additional evidence
regarding whether damages can be proven on a classwide basis, the
judge said.

The operative Second Amended Complaint set forth causes of action
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o, on behalf of
purchasers of the Certificates, alleging that the Defendants made
misleading statements in the Offering Documents underlying the
Certificates.

Lead Plaintiffs Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern
California ("NorCal") and Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California ("SoCal") brought this action against J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. ("JPMC"), J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp. ("JPM
Acquisition"); J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I ("JPM
Acceptance"), and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.1 ("JPMS")
(collectively, the "JPM Defendants"), and also against six
individuals who were officers or directors of JPM Acceptance
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"; together with the JPM
Defendants, "Defendants").

The Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the reports,
opinions, and testimony of Plaintiffs' proffered expert, Dr.
Joseph R. Mason.

A copy of Judge Oetken's Sept. 30 Opinion and Order is available
at http://is.gd/l7Um9pfrom Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
federal judge in Manhattan handed a welcome victory to lawyers at
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd last week, certifying a securities
class action against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and rejecting the bank's
claims that Robbins Geller isn't cut out to lead the 5-year-old
case.

In a 44-page decision, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken on
Sept. 30 certified a class of roughly 1,800 investors who say
JPMorgan duped them into investing in mortgage-backed securities
with a face value of about $10 billion.  Judge Oetken also granted
Robbins Geller's bid to serve as class counsel, calling the firm
well qualified for the role.  JPMorgan had accused Robbins Geller
attorneys of misrepresenting confidential witness testimony,
"raising grave questions about their candor and diligence," but
Judge Oetken didn't seem particularly concerned.

Plaintiffs firm Scott & Scott initially sued JPMorgan and a group
of its executives on behalf of MBS investors in 2009, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  A year later, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl, who handled
the case before Judge Oetken, appointed Robbins Geller's client as
the lead plaintiff.

In a January 2014 motion opposing class certification, JPMorgan
relitigated the issue of Robbins Geller's fitness for the lead
counsel role.  The Sidley Austin team defending JPMorgan, A.
Robert Pietrzak and Andrew Stern, asserted that a mortgage
originator cited as confidential witness had disavowed the
testimony Robbins Geller attributed to him. Sidley argued that the
plaintiffs firm had shown a pattern of misconduct, pointing to
similar allegations in a case against Boeing Co. that led to
sanctions against the firm.

JPMorgan and its lawyers also argued that Robbins Geller is unfit
because it has brought securities claims against entities that
would be class members.  According to JPMorgan, this scenario
created a clear conflict of interest.  And the bank took aim at
the pension fund plaintiffs, arguing that they were uninformed
about the claims being asserted in their name and hadn't even
bothered to investigate their own losses.

Judge Oetken rejected those arguments in the Sept. 30 ruling, and
he refused to dig into the latest allegations concerning
confidential witnesses.

"The court is disinclined at this time to develop the factual
record as would be necessary to determine whether Robbins Geller
in fact engaged in 'misconduct,' as defendants allege, or if the
apparent change in position by the confidential witness reflects
his reaction to outside pressures to change his testimony,"
Judge Oetken wrote.  He also dismissed defense lawyers' arguments
about past Robbins Geller cases creating conflicts of interest,
writing that it is undisputed that the other litigation is
unrelated to JPMorgan's MBS practices.  And he ruled that the lead
plaintiffs had adequate knowledge of the litigation to represent
the class.

The ruling wasn't a total win for the plaintiffs, however.
Judge Oetken certified the class for liability purposes only, not
for ascertaining classwide damages.  The judge wrote that he may
revisit the question of whether to certify a damages class at a
later time.

Lead plaintiffs counsel Daniel Drosman -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller wasn't immediately available for comment.


LACROSSE UNLIMITED: "Laurie" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Laurie, Eric Stein, and Jason Vergara, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lacrosse
Unlimited, Inc., Joseph Desimone, Samuel Desimone, and Paul
Desimone, Case No. 2:14-cv-05689 (E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc. owns and operates more than 40 Lacrosse
Unlimited retail stores in New York, Texas, New Jersey, Maryland,
Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Colorado, and Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: mm@shulmankessler.com


LAURA SECORD: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 25, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Labelling
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Laura Secord
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9283

Affected products: Milk Chocolate Eyeballs, Milk Chocolate Crispy
Pumpkins and Milk Chocolate Christmas Balls with all codes where
the display case bears a "Peanut Free" logo.


LCS FINANCIAL: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Roseann Ferrara, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LCS Financial Services Representation Corporation, a
foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-02450 (M.D. Fla.,
September 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

LCS Financial Services Representation Corporation is a debt
collection and a telemarketing agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
      Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
      Gordon Tyler Bannon, Esq.
      Gregory Harrison Lercher, Esq.
      LEAVENGOOD, NASH, DAUVAL & BOYLE, PA
      Suite 100, 3900 First St N
      St. Petersburg, FL 33703
      Telephone: (727) 327-3328
      Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
      E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
              aswift@leavenlaw.com
              tbannon@leavenlaw.com
              glercher@leavenlaw.com


LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Approval of Webster Suit Settlement Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal captioned KATHERINE WEBSTER, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., Defendant and Respondent, RANDALL WHITING
et al., Objectors and Appellants, NO. B240129 stands at the
confluence of two Los Angeles class actions against LegalZoom.com,
Inc. One class action is Drozdyk v. LegalZoom, which later became
Whiting v. LegalZoom. The other is Webster v. LegalZoom.
LegalZoom is a nationwide internet company that sold self-help
legal documents to the public.

In May 2011, Katherine Webster settled with LegalZoom, but
plaintiff Randall Whiting did not. LegalZoom demanded the
settlement cover all theories in the Webster case. This meant the
Webster settlement would resolve the Whiting case too.  On June 3,
2011, Judge West stayed the Whiting case, pending rulings about
the Webster settlement.

Consequently, the trial court granted preliminary and then final
approval of the Webster/LegalZoom settlement.  The settlement
established a consent decree governing LegalZoom's future conduct,
and it created other class benefits as well. The court valued the
settlement at over $6.8 million. Webster attorneys requested legal
fees of $2.2 million. This $2.2 million sum was less than
Webster's lodestar (calculated by multiplying hours of work times
hourly rate) of $3.4 million, including costs. But Webster's
counsel waived some of the lodestar and requested the reduced sum
of $2.2 million, which the court awarded.

Whiting appealed, as did objectors Abigail Mings, David Johnson,
and Trent Manbeck. They challenge the settlement as unfair, saying
Webster's lawyers got too much and the class got too little.
Whiting did not challenge Webster's attorney fee request in the
trial court.

On October 1, 2014, the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's approval of the
class action settlement.  A copy of the Appeals Court's opinion is
available at http://is.gd/isuIDlfrom Leagle.com.

Sidley Austin, Alycia A. Degen -- adegen@sidley.com -- Robert A.
Holland -- rholland@sidley.com -- Patrick E. Kennell III --
pkennell@sidley.com -- and Stuart C. Edmiston --
sedmiston@sidley.com -- for Defendant and Respondent LegalZoom,
com, Inc.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Final Reply Briefs Due December 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment
#1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September
5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
parties in a class action lawsuit agreed to, and the Court
adopted, a briefing schedule for summary judgment with final reply
briefs to be filed December 1, 2014.

The Company said, "On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott
employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action
complaint against us and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"),
alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock
granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees
for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more
rapid than those set forth in the awards. The plaintiffs seek
damages, attorneys' fees and interest, with no amounts specified.
The action is proceeding in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and Dennis Walter
Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman are the remaining named
plaintiffs. The parties completed limited discovery concerning
Marriott's defense of statute of limitations with respect to Mr.
Bond and Mr. Steigman and concerning class certification. We
opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification and sought
summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations in 2012."

"On August 9, 2013, the court denied our motion for summary
judgment on the issue of statute of limitations and deferred its
ruling on class certification. We moved to amend the court's
judgment on our motion for summary judgment in order to certify an
interlocutory appeal, which was denied.

"On January 7, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and issued a Scheduling Order for full discovery of
the remaining issues in this case. The parties filed a joint
motion to modify the Scheduling Order on March 26, 2014, and are
currently in full discovery scheduled to end on August 15, 2014.
The parties also agreed to, and the Court adopted, a briefing
schedule for summary judgment with final reply briefs to be filed
December 1, 2014.

"We and the Stock Plan have denied all liability, and while we
intend to vigorously defend against the claims being made by the
plaintiffs, we can give you no assurance about the outcome of this
lawsuit. We currently cannot estimate the range of any possible
loss to the Company because an amount of damages is not claimed,
there is uncertainty as to the full impact of an adverse judgment
and the possibility of our prevailing on our statute of
limitations defense on appeal may significantly limit any claims
for damages."

Marriott International is a worldwide operator, franchisor, and
licensor of hotels and timeshare properties in 79 countries and
territories under numerous brand names.


MD SINHALESE: Recalls Sinhalese Pickle Due to Undeclared Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard, Microbiological -
                          Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly
                          National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Consumer

Industry is recalling MD brand Sinhalese Pickle from the
marketplace because it contains mustard which is not declared on
the label.  People with an allergy to mustard should not consume
the recalled product described.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 375 g. MD Sinhalese Pickle with all codes where
mustard is not declared on the label


MERCURY NEW: "Sciabacucchi" and "Pryor" Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury New Holdco, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that following the
announcement on March 21, 2014, of the execution of the merger
agreement, three complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of LIN: Sciabacucchi
v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530-CB), International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et
al. (C.A. No.9538-CB), and Pryor v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A.
No. 9577-CB).

The litigations are putative class actions filed on behalf of the
public stockholders of LIN and name as defendants LIN, its
directors, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub
2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and several of its alleged
affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3
Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.;
Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4-EQ
Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse Family
Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim Investors, L.P. (together with
HM Capital Partners LLC and individual director defendant John R.
Muse, which are collectively referred to as "HMC")).

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

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

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

On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor
actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which
was approved by the Court on May 1, 2014.

On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a
letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite.

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


MODEL N: Faces Securities Class Action in California Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, that on
September 5, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current
and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit was
brought by a purported stockholder of the Company seeking to
represent a class consisting of all those who purchased Company
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
IPO. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and
other relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


NVIDIA CORP: 9th Cir. Dismissed "Cohen" Amended Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a
district court order dismissing the amended complaint of Roberto
Cohen, et al., against NVIDIA Corporation without further leave to
amend.

IN RE NVIDIA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 11-17708,
involves allegations of securities fraud.  In the spring of 2008,
NVIDIA, a semiconductor company, disclosed to investors
information about defects in two of its products.  It further
disclosed a month later that it would be taking a $150-$200
million charge to cover costs arising from those product defects.
As a result, NVIDIA's share price dropped 31% and its market
capitalization contracted by $3 billion.  Plaintiffs, who had
purchased NVIDIA's stock in the preceding eight months, allege
that the company knew it would be liable for the defective
products long before its 2008 disclosures. They claim that NVIDIA
should have informed investors about the defects as early as
November 2007. They further contend that, absent a disclosure
about the product defects, NVIDIA's intervening statements
regarding its financial condition were misleading to investors,
and consequently in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and corresponding Securities Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5.

The appeals case is N RE: NVIDIA CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, ROBERTO COHEN; NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS PENSION AND
ANNUITY FUNDS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NVIDIA CORP.; JEN-HSUN HUNAG;
MARVIN D. BURKETT, Defendants-Appellees.

The appellate panel is composed of Circuit Judges Richard C.
Tallman and Sandra S. Ikuta, and District Judge Beverly Reid
O'Connell.

A copy of the Oct. 2, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/JPXo3Qfrom Leagle.com.

James Kramer, Esq. -- jkramer@orrick.com , and Michael Torpey,
Esq. -- mtorpey@orrick.com of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
in San Francisco, California, represented the Defendants-
Appellees.


OCLARO INC: Court Grants Final Approval of "Wesley" Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended June 28, 2014, that by Order dated August 13, 2014, the
Court in the Westley class action gave its final approval to the
settlement.

The Company said, "On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against us
and certain of our officers and directors. The Court subsequently
appointed the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund ("Pension Fund")
as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On April 26, 2012, the
Pension Fund filed a second amended complaint, captioned as
Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf
of persons who purchased our common stock between May 6 and
October 28, 2010, alleging that we and certain of our officers and
directors issued materially false and misleading statements during
this time period regarding our current business and financial
condition, including projections for demand for our products, as
well as our revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year. The
complaint alleged violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as
well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified amount."

"On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with leave to amend. After the Pension Fund moved for
reconsideration, on January 10, 2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs
to take discovery regarding statements made in May and June 2010.
On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund filed a third amended complaint,
attempting to cure pleading deficiencies with regard to statements
allegedly made in July and August 2010. On April 1, 2013,
defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint with
respect to the statements made in July and August 2010. On May 30,
2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint's claims based on statements made in July and August
2010. Although discovery had commenced, no trial was ever
scheduled in this action.

"On June 10, 2011, a purported shareholder, Stanley Moskal, filed
a purported derivative action in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, against us, as nominal
defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and
directors, as defendants. The case is styled Moskal v. Couder, No.
1:11 CV 202880 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct., filed June 10,
2011). Four other purported shareholders, Matteo Guindani,
Jermaine Coney, Jefferson Braman and Toby Aguilar, separately
filed substantially similar lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 27, June 28,
July 7 and July 26, 2011, respectively.

"By Order dated September 14, 2011, the Guindani, Coney, and
Braman actions were consolidated under In re Oclaro, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 11 Civ. 3176 EMC. On October
5, 2011, the Aguilar action was voluntarily dismissed. Each
remaining purported derivative complaint alleged that Oclaro has
been, or will be, damaged by the actions alleged in the Westley
complaint, and the litigation of the Westley action, and any
damages or settlement paid in the Westley action. Each purported
derivative complaint alleged counts for breaches of fiduciary
duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. Each purported derivative
complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified amount, as
well as injunctive relief.

"By Order dated March 6, 2012, the parties in the Moskal action
agreed that defendants shall not be required to respond to the
original complaint. By Order dated February 27, 2013, the parties
in the Moskal action agreed that plaintiff would serve an amended
complaint no later than 30 days after the Court in the Westley
action rules on defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in the Westley action and the stay of discovery would
remain in effect until further order of the Court or agreement by
the parties, provided, however, that they obtain discovery
produced in the Westley Action.

"By Order dated March 12, 2013, the parties to In re Oclaro, Inc.
Derivative Litigation agreed to stay all proceedings until such
time as (a) the defendants file an answer to any complaint in the
Westley action; or (b) the Westley action is dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice, provided, however, that they obtain
discovery produced in the Westley Action. No trial was ever
scheduled in any of these actions.

"On September 3, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the Westley,
Moskal, and In re Oclaro Derivative matters for a total of $3.95
million, plus certain corporate governance changes. The money is
being paid entirely by our directors and officers liability
insurance carriers. Any fees awarded to the plaintiffs in these
actions, or their respective counsel, are included in this amount.
By Order dated August 13, 2014, the Court in the Westley matter
gave its final approval to the settlement. Motions for final
approval of the other settlements are pending."

During the fiscal year 2014, Oclaro was one of the leading
providers of optical components, modules and subsystems for the
core optical transport, service provider, wireless backhaul,
enterprise and data center markets.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in the securities class action against
Omnivision Technologies, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014.

On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding
the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These
actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities
Case").

On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6, 2011, seeking
unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss. No trial date has been set.

The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this
action and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor
estimate the loss or a range of possible loss.

Omnivision designs, develops and markets high-performance, highly
integrated and cost-efficient semiconductor image-sensor devices.


PALL CORP: Recorded Legal and Other Fees Related to Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pall Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2014, that in fiscal years 2013 and 2012, the
Company recorded legal and other professional fees related to the
Federal Securities Class Actions, Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits
and Other Proceedings which pertain to matters that had been under
audit committee inquiry.

Furthermore, in fiscal years 2013 and 2012, the Company recorded
costs and reserve adjustments related to the settlement of the
Federal Securities Class Actions and Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuits and Other Proceedings.

The receipt of insurance claim payments partly offset such costs
in fiscal years 2013 and 2012.

Pall Corporation is a supplier of filtration, separation and
purification technologies.


PARTY CITY: Recalls Fear Frenzy Ghoulish Glow Spider Necklace
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 29, 2014
Posting date:             September 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Chemical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41589

Affected products: Fear Frenzy Ghoulish Glow Spider Beaded
Necklace and Bracelet

The recall involves the Fear Frenzy Ghoulish Glow Spider Beaded
Necklaces and the Fear Frenzy Ghoulish Glow Spider Beaded
Bracelets.  The Ghoulish Glow bracelet and necklace have elongated
glow in the dark beads with a black spider cord attaching the
beads together.  The products can be identified by Model #HGLO-124
and UPC Code 72295019229, which can be located on the back panel
of the packaging.

The Ghoulish Glow Beaded necklace and bracelet contain a
phthalate, di(2-thylhexyl) (DEHP), that exceeds the allowable
limit.  Studies suggest that certain phthalates, including DEHP,
may cause reproductive and developmental abnormalities in young
children when soft vinyl products containing phthalates are sucked
or chewed for extended periods.

Neither Health Canada nor Party City has received any reports of
consumer incidents or illnesses related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 52 units of the necklace and 31 of the bracelet were
sold at Party City locations across Canada.

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from
Aug. 1, 2014 to Sept. 3, 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     DM Merchandising
                   Elmhurst
                   Illinois
                   United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled product and return it to
their nearest Party City location for a full refund or store
credit.


POLLO OPERATIONS: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy, Inc., a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Pollo
Operations, Inc., Edward Priore and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00564 (M.D. Fla., September 29, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants own and operate the Pollo Tropical restaurant in
Cape Coral, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon Sup. Ct. Upheld PUC Order in Trojan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Oregon, en banc, entered a ruling on Oct. 2,
2014, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals and the order
of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) in the case Frank Gearhart;
Patricia Morgan; Kafoury Brothers, Inc., Petitioners on Review,
and Utility Reform Project, Petitioner, v. Public Utility
Commission of Oregon and Portland General Electric Company,
Respondents on Review. Frank GEARHART; Patricia Morgan; Kafoury
Brothers, Inc., Petitioners, and Utility Reform Project,
Petitioner on Review, v. Public Utility Commission of Oregon and
Portland General Electric Company, Respondents on Review.

The case dates back to 1976, when PGE began commercial operation
of the Trojan nuclear generating facility.  Problems with the
facility and other considerations led PGE to retire Trojan in
1993. Since that time, PGE, the Utility Reform Project (URP), and
plaintiffs (the Class Action Plaintiffs, or CAPs) in two class
action cases against PGE have argued about PGE's recovery of the
remaining balance of its capital investment in Trojan and about
whether and to what extent ratepayers can recover their payments
of certain amounts associated with the retired Trojan facility.

At issue in the case is the PUC order, which among other things,
determined that (1) PGE had been required to recover its capital
investment over time, and that the rates therefore should have
included interest to account for the time value of money; and (2)
despite the legal error, the rates that it had authorized for the
1995 to 2000 time period were just and reasonable, but that to
make the post-2000 rates just and reasonable, it was required to
order a refund to the post-2000 ratepayers.  The Court of Appeals
earlier affirmed the PUC order.

A copy of the Oct. 2, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/1CWzVhfrom Leagle.com.

G. Catriona McCracken -- catriona@oregoncub.org -- of Portland,
filed a brief for amicus curiae on behalf of Citizens' Utility
Board of Oregon. With her on the brief were Sommer Templet --
sommer@oregoncub.org -- and Ray Myers.


ROOM SERVICE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Morales, Osven Quispe Montenegro, Ausencio Juarez, Jose
Hernandez and Walter Morales, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Room Service II Inc. (d/b/a Room Service),
Auanthai Inc. (d/b/a Klong), Chai Huadwattana, Juttana
Rimreartwate, Ace Watanasuparp, Bopit Mokthong, Yanyong
Limleartvate, Chatchai Huadwattana, Suphakit Sae UE, and Suraschai
Plaibua, Case No. 1:14-cv-07851 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate two Thai restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200


S & J GRANITE: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Cordoba-Juarez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. S & J Granite & Stone, Inc. d/b/a Galaxy Granite
& Stone, and Khalid Alkhatib, Case No. 3:14-cv-03513 (N.D. Tex.,
September 29, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week.

S & J Granite & Stone, Inc. provides, exclusively, natural stone
alternatives for countertops, table tops, hearths, fireplace
surrounds, bath and shower walls, and other applications regarding
natural stone slab material.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
      URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (214) 420-3366
      Facsimile: (214) 206-9802
      E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com


SAM KANE: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to Metal Pieces
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Murphy, writing for Reuters, reports that Texas groceries
had likely removed by Oct. 5 all ground beef from store shelves
that was subject to a recall due to possible contamination from
tiny pieces of metal, an executive at the company which recalled
the product said.

Sam Kane Beef Processors, based in Corpus Christi, Texas, recalled
nearly 91,000 pounds of ground beef shipped between Sept. 9 and
Sept. 18 to Texas retail outlets, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture said in a news release on Oct. 4.

Consumers in four separate incidents reported finding pieces of
metal about 3 mm in size in beef products, and one of them
reported getting a chipped tooth, the USDA said.  The USDA
classified the health risk from the metals as low.

The stores began removing the meat from shelves immediately and it
is likely none remained on Oct. 5, said Herb Meischen, senior vice
president of sales and marketing for Sam Kane.

The products subject to recall were 3-pound packages of HEB ground
chuck, 5 and 10-pound packages of HEB ground beef and 10-pound
formed patties made from Sam Kane Beef Processors ground chuck,
according to the USDA.


SHOE CARNIVAL: Oral Argument in 7th Cir. Appeal Held
----------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a class action was scheduled for oral argument on
September 8, 2014 before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
Shoe Carnival, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

The Company said, "On October 31, 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court")
captioned Nicaj v. Shoe Carnival, Inc. The complaint alleged that
we violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which amended the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, by printing the month of the expiration date of our
customers' credit cards on transaction receipts. The plaintiff
sought, among other things, the designation of this action as a
class action, an award of monetary damages of between $100 and
$1,000 per violation, counsel fees and costs, and such other
relief as the court deemed appropriate."

"On January 16, 2014, the District Court granted our motion and
dismissed the plaintiff's action with prejudice and denied his
motion to certify a class as moot, finding that our actions did
not violate FACTA and that our conduct, even if it did violate
FACTA, was not willful. On February 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal of the District Court's order with the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is scheduled for oral
argument on September 8, 2014 before the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"At this time, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this claim. There can be no
assurance that the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit will not have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."

Shoe Carnival, Inc. is one of the nation's largest family footwear
retailers, providing the convenience of shopping at any of its
more than 390 store locations or online at shoecarnival.com.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Class Certification Bid Still Before Arbitrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that in March 2008, a group
of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action
lawsuit for an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc.
("Sterling"), a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the
District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where
the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. Discovery
has been completed. The Claimants filed a motion for class
certification and Sterling opposed the motion. A hearing on the
class certification motion was held in late February 2014. The
motion is now pending before the Arbitrator.

Signet Jewelers is a holding company, incorporated in Bermuda,
that operates through its subsidiaries. Signet is a retailer whose
results are principally derived from one business segment - the
retailing of jewelry, watches and associated services.


SIGNET JEWELERS: EEOC Class Action Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------------
An appeal by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") is pending, Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the US
District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's
lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in intentional and disparate
impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of
female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present.
The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, Sterling made
a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which
was referred to a Magistrate Judge.  The Magistrate Judge heard
oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013.

On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report,
Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant
Sterling's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the
EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to
the Magistrate Judge's ruling and Sterling filed its response
thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the
EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7,
2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action
with prejudice.

On May 12, 2014 the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the
District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is pending.

Signet Jewelers is a holding company, incorporated in Bermuda,
that operates through its subsidiaries. Signet is a retailer whose
results are principally derived from one business segment - the
retailing of jewelry, watches and associated services.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Settles Hodge & Roberts Cases for Immaterial Sum
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that prior to the Company's
acquisition of Zale Corporation, Zale was a defendant in three
purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware,
Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include
allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour
labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former
Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits
seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result
of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any
liability, the Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle
the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount.

Signet Jewelers is a holding company, incorporated in Bermuda,
that operates through its subsidiaries. Signet is a retailer whose
results are principally derived from one business segment - the
retailing of jewelry, watches and associated services.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Del. Plaintiffs Have Not Filed Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that five putative
stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company's
acquisition of Zale Corporation have been filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v.
Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions is brought by
a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale
Corporation stockholders. The Court of Chancery consolidated the
Actions on March 25, 2014 (the "Consolidated Action"), and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23,
2014.

The Consolidated Action names as defendants Zale Corporation, the
members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the
Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company. The
Consolidated Action alleges that the Zale Corporation directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders
in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger
agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to
an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher
bids. The Consolidated Action also alleges that the Zale
Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and
incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger. Further, the
Consolidated Action alleges that Zale Corporation and the Company
aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On May 23, 2014, the Chancery Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of
the merger. The Consolidated Action seeks, among other things,
rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys' and
experts' fees.

At this point, plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint or
quantified their claim for damages or fees. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

Signet Jewelers is a holding company, incorporated in Bermuda,
that operates through its subsidiaries. Signet is a retailer whose
results are principally derived from one business segment - the
retailing of jewelry, watches and associated services.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery in Merion Capital Action Has Commenced
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that following the
consummation of the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation, on
June 4, 2014, two former Zale Corporation stockholders, who,
combined, allege ownership of approximately 3.904 million shares
of Zale Corporation's common stock, filed a petition for appraisal
pursuant to 8 Del. C. Sec. 262 in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Merion Capital L.P. et al. v. Zale
Corp., C.A. No. 9731-VCP (the "Merion Action"). On August 26,
2014, another former Zale Corporation stockholder, who alleges
ownership of approximately 2.450 million shares of Zale
Corporation's common stock, filed a second petition for appraisal,
captioned TIG Arbitrage Opportunity Fund I, L.P. v. Zale Corp.,
C.A. No. 10070-VCP (the "TIG Action" and, together with the Merion
Action, the "Appraisal Actions").

Petitioners in the Appraisal Actions seek a judgment awarding
them, among other things, the fair value of their Zale Corporation
shares plus interest.

On June 30, 2014, Zale Corporation filed its answer to the Merion
Action petition and a verified list pursuant to 8 Del. C. Sec.
262(f) naming, as of that filing, the persons that purported to
demand appraisal of shares of Zale Corporation common stock. Since
that filing, Zale Corporation has received a number of dissent
withdrawals from stockholders who had previously demanded
appraisal.

At this point, the total number of shares of Zale Corporation's
common stock for which appraisal has been demanded and not
requested to be withdrawn is approximately 9.0 million, inclusive
of the shares allegedly held by petitioners in the Appraisal
Actions. The parties in the Merion Action are currently engaged in
discovery. The court has not yet set a hearing date for either of
the petitions in the Appraisal Actions.

At this point, discovery in the Merion Action has just commenced,
and none of the petitioners in the Appraisal Actions has claimed
an amount of fair value.  As a result, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.

Signet Jewelers is a holding company, incorporated in Bermuda,
that operates through its subsidiaries. Signet is a retailer whose
results are principally derived from one business segment - the
retailing of jewelry, watches and associated services.


SMARTHEAT INC: Lead Plaintiffs Re-Files Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs in a class action against SmartHeat Inc. once
again filed on August 6, 2014, a motion for class certification,
which the Company will be opposing, the Company said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014,
that

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed and
an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen
Law Firm.

The Company said, "The amended complaint included Oliver
Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they
were not officers of the Company during the alleged class period.
A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the
caption  Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
Smartheat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales."

"On May 8, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court, denied,
the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, without
prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiffs once again filed
a motion for class certification, which we will be opposing.
Discovery is also proceeding. The pleadings and court orders are
publicly available.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action, as we believe the
allegations against us are without merit."

Through its subsidiaries, SmartHeat designs, manufactures and
sells clean technology plate heat exchangers ("PHE"), heat pumps
("HPs") and related systems marketed principally in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC").


SWS GROUP: Plaintiffs Withdrew Preliminary Injunction Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
SWS Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2014, that two putative class actions on behalf of
purported stockholders of SWS challenging the proposed merger of
SWS Group and Peruna are pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  Both lawsuits name as defendants SWS, the
individual members of the BOD, Hilltop, and Peruna, (Joseph Arceri
v. SWS Group, Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc.
et al filed April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively),  On
May 13, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes.  On June 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the BOD
breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take
steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale
process before approving the merger, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the BOD labored under conflicts
of interest, and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement
unduly restrict the Company's ability to negotiate with other
potential bidders, and that the Form S-4 filed by Hilltop on May
29, 2014 omits or misstates certain material information.  The
complaint seeks relief that includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the merger, rescission
to the extent the merger terms have already been implemented,
damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the
payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the merger, and for expedited
proceedings in connection therewith.  Pursuant to negotiations
between the parties to the lawsuit, plaintiffs subsequently
withdrew those motions.

"We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously.  There can be no assurance, however, with
regard to the outcome of this lawsuit.  Currently, a loss
resulting from these claims is not considered probable or
reasonably estimable in amount," the Company said.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Motion to Certify Filed in "Abdeljalil" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Synchrony Bank is a
defendant in the class action Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital
Retail Bank filed on August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, originally naming GECC as
the defendant.

The action alleges claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints allege that
the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation.
The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

In August 2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion
to dismiss the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed
and the plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the
defendant.

On April 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
alleged class.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Travaglio" Parties in Mediation Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Synchrony Bank is a
defendant in the class action Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital
Retail Bank and Allied Interstate LLC filed on January 17, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The action alleges claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints allege that
the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation.
The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

On April 16, 2014, the Court stayed the action pending the
disposition of the Bank's motion to compel arbitration, which was
filed on April 25, 2014, along with a motion to dismiss and strike
the class allegations.  Since May 9, 2014, the case has been
stayed in its entirety while the parties participate in mediation
proceedings.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Seeks Stay & Dismissal of "Cowan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Synchrony Bank is a
defendant in the class action Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank
filed on May 14, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut.

The action alleges claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints allege that
the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation.
The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

On August 4, 2014, the Bank filed motions to stay and dismiss the
action.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Seeks Stay of "Fitzhenry" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Synchrony Bank is a
defendant in the class action Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc.
and GE Capital Retail Bank filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The action alleges claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints allege that
the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation.
The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

On August 4, 2014, the Bank filed an answer and a motion to stay
the action.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Named as Defendant in "Pittman" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Synchrony Bank is a
defendant in the class action Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a
GE Capital Retail Bank filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The action alleges claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints allege that
the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation.
The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.


TGD GROUP: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Eugenio Vasquez, Jose A. Pena, Gustavo Romero Valle, and
Franklin Samora, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly
situated v. TGD Group, Inc. d/b/a Bottega Restaurant, and Driton
Mila, Case No. 1:14-cv-07862 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as Bottega in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      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: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com
              pcooper@jcpclaw.com


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Parties Await Decision in Asbestos Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the
Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014, that oral argument in
asbestos class actions before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
took place on January 10, 2013, and the parties await the court's
decision.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state
court in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed
in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-
Manville bankruptcy (the "1986 Orders").  The bankruptcy court
issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to
mediation.  In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.  Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the "Clarifying
Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.  Although the
District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds.  The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010 and its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met.

On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs'
motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the settlements.
The court entered judgment against TPC on January 20, 2011 in
accordance with this ruling and ordered TPC to pay the settlement
amounts plus prejudgment interest.  The bankruptcy court's
judgment was reversed by the district court on March 1, 2012, the
district court having found that the conditions to the settlements
had not been met in view of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010
ruling permitting the filing of contribution claims against TPC.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012
decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Oral argument
before the Second Circuit took place on January 10, 2013, and the
parties await the court's decision.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Reached $65 Million Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014,
that in connection with the previously disclosed litigation of
Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc., Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner and Jack E. Polson, on
September 5, 2014, the Company reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the matter for a total amount of $65 million,
subject to execution of definitive settlement documentation and
approval of the court.

This matter was a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2009
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee against Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI") and certain
of its former officers alleging their violations of federal
securities laws.

"Although this matter arose prior to our acquisition of PSI in
November, 2010, we assumed the defense and liability of this case
as a result of the acquisition," the Company said.

"In connection with this settlement, and subject to a review of
related legal expenses, we believe we are entitled to
approximately $16 million of commercial insurance recoveries, net
of $34 million of estimated aggregate legal fees incurred. Giving
effect to the expected commercial insurance recoveries and
previously recorded estimated reserve, we expect our results of
operations for the three-month period ended September 30, 2014 to
include a pre-tax charge of approximately $44 million in
connection with this matter."


UTI WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit for Misstating Public Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2014, that a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed on March 17, 2014, against the Company,
Eric W. Kirchner and Richard G. Rodick in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Michael J. Angley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UTi Worldwide Inc., Eric W. Kirchner and Richard G.
Rodick, No. 5:14-cv-00508, purportedly on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the Company's common stock on the open
market during the period from December 5, 2013 through February
25, 2014.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misstating or failing to
disclose, in certain public statements made and in filings with
the SEC prior to February 26, 2014, material facts relating to the
Company's liquidity position, financial condition, financial
covenants and freight forwarding operating system. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company and the
individual defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

UTi Worldwide is an international, non-asset-based supply chain
services and solutions company that provides airfreight and ocean
freight forwarding, contract logistics, customs brokerage,
distribution, inbound logistics, truckload brokerage and other
supply chain management services.


VENTURA, CA: Denial of Bid to Dismiss "Kuklenski" Case Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six,
affirmed a trial court judgment entered in MATTHEW KUKLENSKI,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF VENTURA et al., Defendants
and Respondents, 2D CIVIL NO. B251956.

Matthew Kuklenski, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, appealed the judgment granting County of Ventura's
motion to dismiss the case as moot, denying his request for leave
to amend his complaint to name a substitute class representative,
denying his motion to compel precertification discovery to find a
class representative, and denying two motions for attorney fees
under a private attorney general theory.

A copy of the Appeals Court's October 1, 2014 decision is
available at http://is.gd/LRDlwdfrom Leagle.com.

Leroy Smith, County Counsel, Thomas W. Temple, Assistant County
Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents County of Ventura, Santa
Paula Hospital, Ventura County Medical Center.


WAL-MART STORES: No Decision Yet in "Braun/Hummel" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a class-action
lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Company
failed to pay class members for all hours worked and prevented
class members from taking their full meal and rest breaks.

On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor of
the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims. On November 14,
2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the approximate
amount of $188 million, which included the jury's back-pay award
plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and attorneys'
fees.  By operation of law, post-judgment interest accrues on the
judgment amount at the rate of six percent per annum from the date
of entry of the judgment, which was November 14, 2007, until the
judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set aside on appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. The
Company filed its opening appellate brief on February 17, 2009,
plaintiffs filed their response brief on April 20, 2009, and the
Company filed its reply brief on June 5, 2009. Oral argument was
held before the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals on August
19, 2009.

On June 10, 2011, the court issued an opinion upholding the trial
court's certification of the class, the jury's back pay award, and
the awards of statutory penalties and prejudgment interest, but
reversing the award of attorneys' fees. On September 9, 2011, the
Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

On July 2, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the
Company's Petition. The Company served its opening brief in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court on October 22, 2012, plaintiffs served
their response brief on January 22, 2013, and the Company served
its reply on February 28, 2013. Oral argument was held in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 8, 2013. No decision has been
issued. The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing
appellate review.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is engaged in the operation of retail,
wholesale and other units in various formats around the world.


WAL-MART STORES: ASDA a Defendant in 387 "Equal Value" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that ASDA Stores, Ltd., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant in 387
"equal value" proceedings that have been filed with various
regional Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom ("UK") on
behalf of current and former ASDA store employees, who allege that
the work performed by female employees in ASDA's retail stores is
of equal value in terms of, among other things, the demands of
their jobs to that of male employees working in ASDA's warehouse
and distribution facilities, and that the disparity in pay between
these different job positions is not objectively justified.

ASDA believes that further claims may be asserted in the near
future, a possibility that has been reported in the UK media. At
present, the Company cannot predict the number of such claims that
may be filed, and cannot reasonably estimate any loss or range of
loss that may arise from these proceedings. A significant majority
of the claims have been filed and served on ASDA within the last
ninety (90) days, with the claimants requesting differential back
pay based on higher wage rates in the warehouse and distribution
facilities and those higher wage rates on a prospective basis as
part of these equal value proceedings. The Company believes it has
substantial factual and legal defenses to these claims, and
intends to defend the claims vigorously.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is engaged in the operation of retail,
wholesale and other units in various formats around the world.


WAL-MART STORES: Still Faces Suits Over New York Times Story
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in several lawsuits in which the complaints closely
track the allegations set forth in a news story that appeared in
The New York Times (the "Times") on April 21, 2012. One of these
is a securities lawsuit that was filed on May 7, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
and subsequently transferred to the Western District of Arkansas,
in which the plaintiff alleges various violations of the U.S.
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") beginning in 2005, and
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to certain prior
disclosures of the Company. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock of the
Company between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012, and seeks
damages and other relief based on allegations that the defendants'
conduct affected the value of such stock.

In addition, a number of derivative complaints have been filed in
Delaware and Arkansas, also tracking the allegations of the Times
story, and naming various current and former officers and
directors as additional defendants. The plaintiffs in the
derivative suits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant)
allege, among other things, that the defendants who are or were
directors or officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with oversight of FCPA compliance. Most, but
not all, of the derivative suits have been combined into two
consolidated proceedings, one of which is currently pending in the
Western District of Arkansas and the other in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.

Management does not believe any possible loss or the range of any
possible loss that may be incurred in connection with these
proceedings will be material to the Company's financial condition
or results of operations.

City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., USDC, Western Dist. of AR, 5/7/12.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is engaged in the operation of retail,
wholesale and other units in various formats around the world.


WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Landlords' Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fedway Marketplace West, LLC, and Garland & Market Investors, LLC,
landlords of former state liquor store locations (Landlords),
appeal the superior court's entry of a CR 12(c) judgment on the
pleadings and dismissal of Landlords' complaints against the State
of Washington for terminating its leases of Landlords' properties
the State had used for selling liquor. After Initiative 1183 (I-
1183) privatized the sale of liquor in Washington, the State's
Liquor Control Board terminated its leases with the landlords of
state-owned liquor store locations and auctioned the right to sell
liquor at these locations to private retailers. Landlords argue
that (1) the State deliberately misinterpreted I-1183, wrongfully
terminated their leases, and illegally gave auction buyers the
right to sell liquor within a one-mile radius of the Landlords'
locations; (2) the superior court erred in striking Landlords'
extrinsic evidence that the State acted in bad faith in
deliberately misinterpreting I-1183 and terminating their leases;
(3) the State breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing in
terminating their leases; and (4) the State's termination of their
leases violated the contract clauses and takings clauses of the
federal and state constitutions.

The State responds that (1) its decision to permit auction buyers
to sell liquor within a one-mile radius was irrelevant to the
lease terminations, which I-1183 required; (2) Landlords failed to
state a claim for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing; (3) Landlords' extrinsic evidence was not admissible to
interpret an unambiguous contract; and (4) the superior court
properly dismissed Landlords' constitutional claims because, once
the leases terminated, there could be no contract and no taking.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, on September 30,
2014, held that, because I-1183 triggered the termination
provision in the State's leases with Landlords, Landlords cannot
state a claim against the State under their former leases.
Accordingly, the Washington Appeals Court affirmed the superior
court's dismissal of Landlords' complaints.

A copy of the Appeals Court's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/EDlMmOfrom Leagle.com.

The case is FEDWAY MARKETPLACE WEST, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, and GARLAND & MARKET INVESTORS, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent, NO. 44509-3-II.

Brian Faller, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Po Box
40108, Olympia, WA, 98504-0108, Counsel for Respondent(s).


WASHINGTON, DC: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Tax Sales Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a
constitutional challenge over how the District of Columbia handles
the sale of homes with delinquent tax bills has survived the
city's bid to dismiss the case.

The case doesn't contest the city's ability to auction off a tax
certificate if a property owner fails to pay taxes.  Instead, the
lawsuit claims that if the home goes into foreclosure and is sold,
the city's failure to compensate the original property owner for
any surplus equity violates the Fifth Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan on Sept. 30 rejected the city's
arguments that he lacked jurisdiction to consider the case and
that previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions had already decided the
issue.

The city's tax-sale system has faced scrutiny in recent years from
homeowner advocates and lawyers who said D.C. officials weren't
doing enough to protect residents -- especially the elderly and
other vulnerable groups -- from losing their homes.  If a tax lien
isn't resolved, the tax certificate's purchaser can foreclose on
the home.  The D.C. Council and the mayor adopted reforms in
response to an investigation by The Washington Post.

The plaintiff, Benjamin Coleman, is an elderly veteran who failed
to pay a $133.88 property tax bill.  The amount of money Coleman
owed grew over time to several thousand dollars, including legal
fees and costs sought by the company that bought his tax
certificate.  Mr. Coleman was ultimately evicted and went to live
in a group home, according to court papers.  His home, which had a
market value of approximately $200,000 in 2010, was sold the
following year for $71,000.

Boies, Schiller & Flexner partner William Isaacson --
wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- filed the case in September 2013
challenging Mr. Coleman and other homeowners' loss of equity.  In
the lawsuit, Mr. Isaacson argued that property owners whose homes
were sold through tax sales were entitled to compensation for any
equity left over after the unpaid taxes, interest, penalties,
expenses and legal fees were paid.

In an email on Oct. 1, Mr. Isaacson, who is handling the case pro
bono, said Judge Sullivan's ruling "explains that the District has
no explanation whatsoever as to why this taking of private
property can be squared with the Constitution.  Instead, the
District has only offered various procedural defenses and other
legal technicalities, all of which the court has rejected."
A spokesman for the city's Office of the Attorney General declined
to comment.

Judge Sullivan has yet to rule on a pending motion to certify a
class in the case.  The judge will hear arguments on that issue on
Dec. 16.


ZUMIEZ INC: Final Approval Hearing Held on Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 2, 2014, that a hearing was to be held for
final approval of a class action settlement on September 10, 2014.

On February 15, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Robert
Steele v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of a class
of all persons who are employed, or who have worked as, assistant
store managers for the Company in the State of California from
February 15, 2009 through the date of certification of the class
in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges causes of action for failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay wages for work done off-the-
clock, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks (and to pay
meal and rest period premiums), failure to pay terminated
employees all wages due at the time of termination, failure to
provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements, failure
to reimburse employees for business expenses and unfair business
practices and declaratory relief. The Court has not set a date for
a hearing on class certification and has not set a trial date.

A second putative class action lawsuit, Ruben Hernandez v. Zumiez
Inc., was filed on September 3, 2013, alleging overlapping causes
of action. On or about October 22, 2013, the class action
allegations for the Hernandez case were dismissed without
prejudice.

On November 12, 2013, the parties in the Steele case agreed to a
conditional settlement in the amount of $1.3 million which is
contingent upon the preliminary and final approval of the Court
(the "Conditional Settlement"). The parties have negotiated and
executed a formal settlement agreement that is subject to the
Court's approval. A motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was held on May 22, 2014 and was granted by the Court.
On September 10, 2014, a hearing will be held for final approval
of the settlement.

Zumiez Inc., including its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a multi-
channel specialty retailer of action sports related apparel,
footwear, accessories and hardgoods, focusing on skateboarding,
snowboarding, surfing, motocross and bicycle motocross for young
men and women.


                              *********

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  * * *