CAR_Public/141015.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 205

                             Headlines

ADOBE SYSTEMS: $10MM Loss Contingency Related to Antitrust Suit
ALIMENTS PROLIMER: Recalls Aliments Prolimer Seafood Stuffing
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Washington Included in Traffic Camera Accord
APPLE INC: Judge Won't Seal Docs in iTunes Class Action
ARUBA NETWORKS: Court Dismissed "Mazzafero" Case

BAXTER CORPORATION: Recalls Infusor & Intermate Products
BAYER: Faces Civil Contempt Case Over Colon Health Marketing
BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls UniCel DxC 600I Access Clinical Analyzer
BERNARD L MADOFF: Judge Approves $2.45-Mil. Fraud Settlement
BETTER BRANDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties

BHP BILLITON: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of Tutela Action
BHP BILLITON: "Choles" Class Action Remains in Discovery Phase
BIANCA AMOR: Recalls Various Styles of Children Sleepwear
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Recalls Buscopan Tablets
BP PLC: Colombian Farmers Sue Over Damage Caused by Oil Pipeline

CABRINHA: Recalls Kiteboarding 1X & Overdrive 1X Control Systems
CANADIAN TIRE: Expands Recall to Cuisinart Electric Smoker
CHAMPION TELECOM: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Stuffed Salmon
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls About 18,000 Chair & Table Sets

COUCHE-TARD: Recalls Circle K Squares Due to Undeclared Peanut
COUCHE-TARD: Recalls Circle K Chocolate Chip Cookies
CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Hill and Hernandez" & "Perzan et al" Cases
DIRECTV LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Oliver" Suit Claims
DOLE PACKAGED: Falsely Marketed Fruit Products, "Mahan" Suit Says

EBAY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
ELEKTA INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion
EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to Answer Suit Indefinitely Extended
FAIR TRADING: Recalls Pei Tien Konjac Brown Rice Rolls
FEDEX GROUND: Disagrees With Kansas Supreme Court Ruling

FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Fiskars 32-inch Bypass Lopper Shears
FOODFEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Next by Nature Chocolate Cherries
FRUITS DE MER: Recalls Madeleine Tomalley Spread
HAR MASPETH: Recalls Jinga "Pan Fried Anchovies"
HOFFMANN-LAROCHE: Judge Dismisses 4 Bellwether Accutane Cases

HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Data Breach
HORIBA ABX: Recalls ABX PENTRA Magnesium RTU
HOSPIRA: Recalls 1 Lot of Vancomycin Hydrochloride for Injection
IKEA: Recalls Pastaalgar FullkorN and Pastaalgar Over Soy
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Formally Resolved Securities Class Action

INDIANA: BMV Commissioner Fails to Provide Class Action Documents
INFOBLOX INC: Calif. Securities Class Action Consoldated
INTEGRITY STAFFING: Court to Weigh on Suit Over Security Checks
J&B EUROPEAN: Recalls Kupiec Rice Cakes With Dark Chocolate
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Sued in Pennsylvania Over Violation of ADA

KRAFT CANADA: Recalls Double Cheddar Shredded Natural Cheese
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Disgruntled Investors File Lawsuit
M & A INTERIOR: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Accord to Serve as Template
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Won't Be Extended

NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeals in "Pinela" and "Monjazeb" Cases Pending
NEIMAN MARCUS: No Date Set for Oral Argument in Tanguilig Appeals
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement in "Monjazeb" Case Has Final Approval
NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Approves Settlement in "Newton" Case
NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Rubenstein" Case Over Pricing Strategy

NEIMAN MARCUS: 3 Cyber-Attack Class Actions Voluntarily Dismissed
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Remijas" Cyber-Attack Class Action Dismissed
NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Final Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 14
NEW ZEALAND: Seeka Supports Kiwifruit Growers' Class Action
ONE FIFTY: "Zamora" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

OVERLAND STORAGE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Complaint
PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "McLean" Suit Says
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Court Dismisses "Edelman" Class Action
PROTECTIVE LIFE: MOU Reached in Delaware Class Action
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Files Answer in "Barahona" Class Action

RADIOSHACK CORP: Class Action Threatens Fluctuating Workweek
S & K VEGETABLES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
SALLIE MAE: Faces "Schultz" Suit for Making Unsolicited Calls
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Judge Tosses Disk Drive Price-Fixing Suits
SUPERIOR AIRCRAFT: "Mobley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

SWS GROUP: Plaintiffs Drop Bids for Preliminary Injunction
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Dangers Caused by Viptera Corn
TEXAS HEALTH: Potential Ebola Suits May Face Legal Challenges
TOTAL TENNIS: Faces "Poblete" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Affirms $15.6-Mil. Verdict in Dealership Suit

TRUNKBOW INT'L: No Hearing Date Yet on Settlement Approval
TRUNKBOW INT'L: Federal Action Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
VAN LOC: Faces "Valdez" Suit in Texas for Payment of OT Work
VENDINI INC: $3 Mil. Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

* Courts Leave Privacy Breach Victims Largely Powerless
* Disgraced Class Action Lawyer Sells Home, Art Collections


                            *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: $10MM Loss Contingency Related to Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended August 29, 2014, that the Company
accrued a loss contingency of $10.0 million associated with In Re
High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation during the first quarter
of fiscal 2014.

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda
Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases
were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the
consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, agreed not to
recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed
employee compensation and deprived employees of career
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants
deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of
any kind.

On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all persons
who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and
development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for
one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through
December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c)
Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March
2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through
December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December
2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009,
excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2014, the parties reached a
settlement to resolve this lawsuit, subject to the Court's
approval. On August 8, 2014, the Court rejected the settlement
agreement jointly submitted by the parties. Trial in this matter
is currently scheduled for January 2015. We accrued a loss
contingency of $10.0 million associated with this matter during
the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Founded in 1982, Adobe Systems Incorporated is one of the largest
and most diversified software companies in the world.  Adobe
Systems offers a line of products and services used by creative
professionals, marketers, knowledge workers, application
developers, enterprises and consumers for creating, managing,
delivering, measuring, optimizing and engaging with compelling
content and experiences across multiple operating systems, devices
and media.


ALIMENTS PROLIMER: Recalls Aliments Prolimer Seafood Stuffing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aliments Prolimer Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    9285

Affected products: 11.2 kg. Aliments Prolimer Inc. Seafood
Stuffing with Lot#:14119 and best before date of Meilleur Avant
10-27-2014


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Washington Included in Traffic Camera Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Missourian reports that Washington is one of 27 Missouri
communities included in a settlement agreement reached in a class
action lawsuit over the use of red light traffic cameras.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit and American Traffic Solutions (ATS)
have agreed, subject to court approval, to resolve all pending
class action lawsuits on behalf of its Missouri municipal
customers, according to a press release from ATS.

The terms of the settlement were reached following an extensive
mediation before former Missouri Court of Appeals Judge Booker T.
Shaw and additional discussions following the mediation.
The settlement extends to and releases claims against all 27
Missouri municipalities currently or formerly under contract with
ATS.

"This settlement will allow us and our customers to put these
issues in the rear-view mirror," said George Hittner, ATS general
counsel.  "Assuming the court approves the settlement, this
resolves all class action claims against ATS and any similar
claims against the Missouri cities we serve, including those not
previously included in the current class action lawsuits."

Washington was not a defendant in any of the class action
lawsuits.

The city implemented red light traffic cameras in early 2008 and
terminated its contract with ATM in January 2011 following a
three-year "experiment" with the automated cameras.

The cameras were stationed on Highway 100 at Highway A/Jefferson
Street and Highway 47.

"After many years of litigation, notable appellate court
decisions, and the uncertainty of continued litigation, this
settlement puts these civil class action claims to rest statewide
and we believe offers the class members a partial refund that is
fair, adequate and reasonable under the circumstances.  This is
especially true in light of the court rulings that significantly
limit the class members' ability to recover a refund for fines
that have been paid," said the plaintiffs' attorneys Ryan Keane
and Russ Watters.

Under the terms of the agreement, ATS and its municipal customers
have not admitted to any of the allegations made by plaintiffs.
Once the class is certified, participants in the class will be
eligible for a partial refund of their paid violation.  This
settlement applies to paid violations going back to 2005.

Other communities included in the settlement are:

Arnold, Bellerive, Bel-Nor, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Bridgeton,
Calverton Park, Clayton, Country Club Hills, Creve Coeur,
Dellwood, Ellisville, Excelsior Springs; Ferguson, Florissant,
Grandview, Hazelwood, Kansas City, Moline Acres, Northwoods,
Richmond Heights, St. Ann, St. John, St. Joseph, St. Louis and
Sugar Creek.


APPLE INC: Judge Won't Seal Docs in iTunes Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Kat Greene, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge scolded Apple Inc. for its "wholly
unjustified" request to seal information in the run-up to a class
action trial accusing the tech titan of monopolizing the digital-
music market, saying she wouldn't redact public information such
as iPod prices and the names of retail sellers.

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding
over the November trial, told Apple's attorneys they would need to
refile all its requests to seal and redact documents, saying she
wasn't going to seal Best Buy's name or any damages amounts.  In
an order late last month, she called Apple's request to seal
damages or iPod prices "wholly unjustified" and accused Apple of
overreaching.

The judge also grilled Apple for seeking to redact expert
analysis.

"How that can be considered an Apple trade secret is beyond me,"
she said.

"Sealing is the court's job . . . We think seriously about the
fact that this is a public forum," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said.

Apple, in motions to seal filed over the past year, has asked the
court to seal portions of reports from the plaintiffs' damages
expert, Roger Noll, as well as iPod pricing information, Apple's
reseller and direct sales policies, and Apple transaction
information.  Many of those documents contained information marked
confidential, Apple argued in its filings.

David C. Kiernan of Jones Day, representing Apple, told Judge
Gonzalez Rogers on Oct. 3 that the company would refile its
sealing requests and would only seek to keep a few items
confidential, including source code and the contact information
for customers who may be part of the case.

Much of the Oct. 3 hearing was devoted to planning the trial,
which is slated to begin Nov. 17 and scheduled to run through late
November.  The judge proposed separating issues of liability and
damages into separate trial phases, but neither side favored the
idea, leading her to drop it.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers said, however, that the parties would not be
allowed to exclude potential jurors during jury selection on the
grounds that they own an Apple product -- or even an iPod.

"If we did that, we'd never be able to find a jury," she said.
"Maybe if they hate everything about every Apple product ever
produced, that might be a disqualifying factor."

The consolidated antitrust case dates back to 2007 and accuses
Apple of violating federal and California antitrust laws.  The
suit seeks unspecified damages for iPods sold from late 2006
through early 2009 based on claims that Apple's software update
for the music players was designed to stop the iPods from playing
music bought from Apple's competitors so Apple could raise its own
prices.

Apple, however, claims the updates instead were a way to improve
the user experience by "ensuring an improved and seamless customer
experience in using Apple products, stopping corruption of iPods
caused by the use of third-party applications and encouraging
product innovation," according to the joint statement.

The company also claims the software updates didn't affect the
price of its iPods.

Late last month, Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected Apple's bid for
summary judgment in the case and refused to exclude testimony from
Noll.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alexandra Senya Bernay, Bonny E.
Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com -- Carmen A. Medici --
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- and others at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Apple is represented by Robert A. Mittelstaedt --
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- Craig E. Stewart --
cestewart@jonesday.com -- David C. Kiernan --
dkiernan@jonesday.com -- and others at Jones Day; and William A.
Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- Karen L. Dunn --
kdunn@bsfllp.com -- Martha L. Goodman -- mgoodman@bsfllp.com --
and Meredith R. Dearborn -- mdearborn@bsfllp.com -- of Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP.

The case is The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, case
number 4:05-cv-00037, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Court Dismissed "Mazzafero" Case
------------------------------------------------
The Court dismissed the case Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et
al., but granted leave to amend, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 24, 2014, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2014.

On May 23, 2013, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Mazzafero v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers. The
purported class action alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously. On August 1, 2014, the Court dismissed the
case but granted leave to amend. Based on information currently
available, the Company has determined that the amount of any
possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably
estimable.

Aruba Networks, Inc. is a global provider of enterprise mobility
solutions.


BAXTER CORPORATION: Recalls Infusor & Intermate Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Posting date:             October 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41699

Recalled Products: Infusor, Intermate

Baxter corporation is initiating a lot-specific recall due to
complaints for particulate matter in the fluid path.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Baxter Healthcare SA
                    Zurich
                    8010
                    Switzerland


BAYER: Faces Civil Contempt Case Over Colon Health Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
Bayer is being held to a "novel and erroneous" legal standard in
civil contempt proceedings by the federal government over the
marketing of its Phillips' Colon Health product, the company said
in court papers.

The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Federal Trade
Commission, has accused Bayer of violating a 2007 consent order
barring unsubstantiated claims about its dietary supplements.  But
Bayer said in court documents filed Oct. 3 that the government is
wrongly penalizing it for failure to conduct randomized, placebo-
controlled and double-blind human clinical trials of Phillips'
Colon Health.

The consent order requires only that marketing claims for Bayer
supplements be supported by "competent and reliable scientific
evidence," which may include animal testing, in vitro testing or
extrapolation from other research, the company said.

Bayer made the assertions in response to an order to show cause
filed by the Justice Department on Sept. 12 in federal court in
Newark.  The government said Bayer's promotion of Phillips' Colon
Health made claims about the product's purported benefits without
having evidence to support those claims.  The government said
Bayer should be found in contempt because its claims that
Phillips' Colon Health can "defend against" occasional
constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating implies that the product
can treat those conditions, even though the company lacks
competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up those
claims.

The government claimed the marketing of Phillips' Colon Health
violated a 2007 agreement in a dispute over Bayer's One-A-Day
WeightSmart.  In that case, the government filed a civil complaint
accusing Bayer of making unsubstantiated claims that One-A-Day
WeightSmart helped prevent weight gain associated with declining
metabolism in persons over the age of 30.  Bayer also paid a $3.2
million civil penalty in connection with that case.

The government's 2007 complaint against Bayer, in turn, alleged
that the company's unsubstantiated claims about One-A-Day
WeightSmart violated a 1991 order issued by the FTC against
Bayer's predecessor, Miles Inc., requiring all claims about the
benefits of One-A-Day vitamins to be substantiated by competent
and reliable scientific evidence.

In its answer to the government's motion concerning Phillips'
Colon Health, the company said other FTC consent decrees with
supplement makers have specifically required randomized,
controlled clinical trials but no such requirement was made in the
2007 Bayer consent decree.

Bayer also asserted that the government's contempt action violates
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which
says that dietary supplements are not drugs.  Under that act,
dietary supplements are not subject to the stringent clinical-
trial standard applicable to drugs, and manufacturers' statements
about them need only be "truthful and not misleading," Bayer said.
The government's contempt action also violates the First Amendment
by subjecting Bayer to heightened scrutiny even though the
manufacturer's statements about the product are not false or
misleading, the company said.

What's more, Bayer cannot be held in contempt of the consent
decree because it "substantially complies" with the order and any
violation was "inadvertent," the company said.  And principles of
equity prohibit a finding of contempt because the action targets
only Bayer even though "no one in the industry meets the
government's novel standard," the company said.

Bayer said in a statement that the company "strongly disagrees
with the FTC's motion against the company for claims made in
support of Phillips' Colon Health.  The government's motion is
based on an erroneous standard -- one that the government advances
in this litigation but has never articulated previously to Bayer
or anyone else in the dietary supplement industry. The government
asserts that Bayer lacks scientific substantiation for PCH because
the company has not conducted 'randomized, placebo-controlled, and
double-blind' 'human clinical trials' on the 'specific product,'
using the precise 'population[s]' and 'methods' chosen by the
government.  This is not and has never been the standard for
dietary supplement claims such as those at issue.

"Claims about Phillips' Colon Health are fully substantiated by
numerous clinical, animal and genetic studies, among other things,
and satisfy all applicable legal standards," the statement said.
Bayer is represented in the case by lawyers from Sidley Austin in
Washington, D.C., and Coughlin Duffy in Morristown, N.J.  A
spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Nicole Navas, said the
department would file a response to Bayer's filing but did not
have any comment.


BECKMAN COULTER: Recalls UniCel DxC 600I Access Clinical Analyzer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 28, 2014
Posting date:             October 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41711

Recalled Products:

A) UniCel DxC 600I Synchron Access Clinical Analyzer
B) Access 2 Immunoassay Systems- Analyzer Class III
C) Access 2 Immunoassay Systems- Analyzer Class II
D) Access 2 Immunoassay Systems

Beckman coulter has determined that the Access 2 console PC
(B23083) may experience an "MFC exception" error during normal
operation.  If this error occurs, the system will exit the Access
2 user interface (UI) screen and display a window that notifies
the user of a "0==I tubes can count" event.  If the UI is re-
launched, the system will prevent access to the sample manager
screen to request samples for processing and the same "MFC
exception" error will occur.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Beckman Coulter Inc.
                    250 S. Kraemer Blvd.
                    Brea 92821
                    California
                    United States


BERNARD L MADOFF: Judge Approves $2.45-Mil. Fraud Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that in
shareholder derivative suits connected to investments with Bernard
L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, a judge has signed off on a
$2.45 million dollar settlement between investment funds and an
auditing firm.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bucaria approved the
settlement in Sacher v. Beacon Associates Management Corp.,
5424/2009, calling the accord a "fair and reasonable consideration
for the compromise of all the claims asserted" against Friedberg,
Smith & Co.

Jordan Group LLC and Joel and Susan Sacher were investors in
Beacon Associates LLC I and Beacon Associates LLC II.

The funds invested about 75 percent of assets, valued at
approximately $350 million, with Madoff before the firm fell apart
in December 2008.

In the wake of the exposure of Madoff's Ponzi scheme, the
investors filed two Nassau County suits derivatively on behalf of
investment funds, against the funds' manager and its principals,
the funds' investment consultant and its independent auditor,
Friedberg Smith, based in Bridgeport, Conn.

In February 2013, Justice Bucaria and other judges approved a $219
million global settlement that involved some of the parties in
this case.

Justice Bucaria's Sept. 30 settlement approval closes the Jordan
Group and Sacher litigation in front of him.

The funds have been made almost entirely whole from the
settlements and distributions from Irving Picard, trustee for the
Liquidation of Bernard Madoff Investment Securities, according to
plaintiffs attorneys at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

Charles Hecht -- hecht@whafh.com -- Daniel Krasner --
krasner@whafh.com -- partners at Wolf Haldenstein and
Daniel Tepper -- tepper@whafh.com -- an associate, were lead
plaintiffs counsel.

Stephen Jacobs -- sjacobs@lcbf.com -- of Landman Corsi Ballaine &
Ford represented Friedberg, Smith & Co.


BETTER BRANDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Zubak, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Better Brands Distributing Company and Danny Harlow, individually,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02779 (W.D. Tenn., October 6, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Better Brands Distributing Company provides healthcare services
for individuals who may suffer from chronic illness, recovery from
surgery or hospital stay, or are simply in need of help with daily
needs in the home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 777
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: 601-862-398
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


BHP BILLITON: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of Tutela Action
----------------------------------------------------------
BHP Billiton Limited said in its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that an appeal has been filed
against the dismissal of a tutela action.

The Company said that the non-government organization, Corporacion
Colombia Transparente (CCT), brought three separate class actions
(Popular Actions 1,029, 1,032 and 1,048) against various
defendants in connection with the privatization of 50 per cent of
the Cerrej¢n Zona Norte (CZN) mining complex in Colombia in 2002.
The mining complex is currently owned by CZN and Carbones del
Cerrej¢n Limited (CDC). Our subsidiary Billiton Investment 3 BV
owns a 33 per cent share in CDC, and our subsidiaries Billiton
Investment 3 BV and Billiton Investment 8 BV (BHP Billiton
Shareholders) collectively own a 33.33 per cent share in CZN.

CCT alleges, in part, that the defendants failed to comply with
the privatisation process, and that the offer price for shares in
CZN between Stages 1 and 2 of the privatisation process was not
correctly adjusted for inflation.

"Our share of the alleged adjustment of the CZN share price would
be approximately US$4.41 million. In the alternative, CCT seeks
declaration that the privatisation is null and void and forfeiture
of the transfer price paid, of which our share would be
approximately US$147.14 million. In both instances, CCT also seeks
unquantified sanctions, including payment of stamp taxes, an award
of 15 per cent of all monies recovered by the defendants, together
with interest on all amounts at the maximum rate authorised by
law," the Company said.

Popular Action 1,048 was dismissed in December 2008. Popular
Action 1,032, the CZN action, was originally dismissed on 18
February 2011, the Court determining that there were no
irregularities in the privatisation of the Cerrej¢n Zona Norte
mining complex.

CCT's request for a reconsideration of the judgment was denied. In
March 2011, CCT filed an appeal against the dismissal. This appeal
was dismissed in February 2013 and the plaintiff filed for a
revision of the judgment. Revision of judgment is a new avenue of
review introduced by the Columbian Administrative Code that
applies to the last instance judgments and may be used when the
plaintiff believes certain issues were not considered in the
decision. In January 2014, the request for revision was denied and
the action is therefore concluded. Popular Action 1,029 was
dismissed in December 2008. Despite the fact that this dismissal
was final, the plaintiff filed a tutela action at the Council of
State challenging the dismissal and obtained from the Council of
State a decision ordering the first instance judge to continue
with the action. Neither CZN nor BHP Billiton shareholders were
informed of this action.

In August 2013, at the request of the defendants, the Council of
State annulled the steps that had been taken in the proceeding and
the defendants filed a reply to the action. The tutela action was
then subsequently dismissed; however, an appeal has been filed
against the dismissal.

BHP Billiton is among the world's top producers of major
commodities, including iron ore, metallurgical and energy coal,
conventional and unconventional oil and gas, copper, aluminium,
manganese, uranium, nickel and silver.


BHP BILLITON: "Choles" Class Action Remains in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
BHP Billiton Limited said in its Form 20-F filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that a class action arising out
of the privatization of the Cerrej¢n Zona Norte (CZN) mining
complex has been brought by Mr Mart¡n Nicol s Barros Choles,
against various defendants including Carbones del Cerrej¢n Limited
(CDC).  Mr Choles claims that the transfer of rights by CDC to CZN
was ineffective because it only involved a transfer of shares and
not the transfer of the underlying rights in the properties and
assets used in the CZN mining complex. Consequently, he is seeking
orders that CDC pays for the use and lease of the properties and
assets until November 2009, and that from that date the properties
and assets of the Cerrej¢n project revert to the State. This
action remains in the discovery phase.

BHP Billiton is among the world's top producers of major
commodities, including iron ore, metallurgical and energy coal,
conventional and unconventional oil and gas, copper, aluminium,
manganese, uranium, nickel and silver.


BIANCA AMOR: Recalls Various Styles of Children Sleepwear
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 28, 2014
Starting date:            September 30, 2014
Posting date:             September 30, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41597

Affected products: Various Styles of Children's Sleepwear

The recall involves various styles and brands of 100% cotton
children's sleepwear sold at Bianca Amor's Liquidation
Supercentres.  All colours and patterns of the sleepwear are
included in this recall.

The recalled sleepwear does not meet the design and flammability
requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian law.

Loose-fitting children's sleepwear can contact ignition sources
such as stove elements, candles, and matches more readily than
tight-fitting sleepwear, and once ignited will burn rapidly,
potentially resulting in severe burns to large areas of the
child's body.  For this reason, cotton is not permitted in loose-
fitting sleepwear.

Neither Health Canada nor Bianca Amor's has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
sleepwear items.

For information on what makes safe sleepwear, visit the Healthy
Canadians children's sleepwear page.

Approximately 2,382 of the recalled children's sleepwear items
were sold from Bianca Amor's Liquidation Supercentre locations in
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The recalled items were manufactured in China and sold from Jan.
2014 to Sept. 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Bianca Amor's
                Calgary
                Alberta
                Canada

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled sleepwear and can
return the recalled product(s) to the Bianca Amor's store where it
was purchased to receive a store credit.  Otherwise, the recalled
products should be disposed of in regular household garbage.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Recalls Buscopan Tablets
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2014
Posting date:             October 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41757

Recalled products: Buscopan Tablets 10 mg

Out of specification dissolution result obtained during routine
stability studies.

Companies:

   Recalling Firm     Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd
                      5180 South Service Road
                      Burlington L7L 5H4
                      Ontario
                      Canada

   Marketing Authorization Holder
                      Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd
                      5180 South Service Road
                      Burlington L7L 5H4
                      Ontario
                      Canada


BP PLC: Colombian Farmers Sue Over Damage Caused by Oil Pipeline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Croft, writing for The Financial Times, reports that BP is
being sued for environmental damage that Colombian farmers allege
the oil group caused to their land by building a pipeline.
The case, which opens at the High Court last week, is being
brought by 73 peasant farmers known as "campesinos", who are
seeking about GBP18 million in compensation from the oil group.

They claim that the British company Equion Energia (formerly BP
Exploration (Colombia) Limited) negligently managed the
construction of the Ocensa oil pipeline in Colombia during the
mid-1990s -- causing serious damage to their land.  The case is
being vigorously defended by BP.

The trial is likely to be one of the largest environmental legal
cases in recent years.  It also comes weeks after a US court ruled
that BP acted with gross negligence in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon
disaster.

A number of the Colombian farmers are due to travel to London to
give evidence in the case that was first filed in 2008 and is due
to last three months.

The Ocensa oil pipeline was a project undertaken by BP Exploration
(Colombia) Limited (BPXC) in the mid-1990s in partnership with
Colombia's national oil company and four other multinational
companies after BP discovered more crude oil in the Cusiana-
Cupiagua oilfields.

BPXC entered into contracts with the farmers to lay the pipeline
through their private land.

The farmers, who are being represented by law firm Leigh Day,
allege that the construction of the pipeline caused severe soil
erosion, reduced vegetation coverage and blocked up or reduced
vital water sources, thereby significantly reducing the
productivity of their farms.  They claim that BPXC played a key
part in the design, implementation and management of the project
and the construction process and that it is therefore liable for
the damage to their land.  The claims will be argued with
reference to contractual and extra-contractual liability under
Colombian law.

In 2010 BPXC changed its name to Equion after BP sold off its
shares in BPXC.

Shubhaa Srinivasan, partner at Leigh Day representing the farmers,
said: "At last the farmers are going to have a chance to tell
their stories and to have their case decided."

BP said in a statement it was confident in its legal position and
was defending the case vigorously.

"The Ocensa pipeline project in Colombia involved significant
steps being taken at the time of construction to engage with local
communities, make appropriate compensation payments and ensure
that the land the pipeline traversed suffered no material damage,"
it said.  "BP believes that these measures were effective and that
the construction of the pipeline was carried out to a high
standard."

Leigh Day is also representing a number of Nigerian farmers and
fishermen who are suing fellow oil company Shell in relation to
oil spills in the Bodo Delta in 2008 and 2009.

About 15,000 villagers in the Bodo community -- who are mostly
subsistence fishermen and farmers -- are seeking compensation for
two oil spills in the Niger Delta.  The spills, in late 2008, were
caused by failures in the Bomu-Bonny pipeline.

Shell admitted liability but continues to dispute the amount of
oil spilled and the extent of the environmental damage caused.
The case is due to come to trial next year.


CABRINHA: Recalls Kiteboarding 1X & Overdrive 1X Control Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 8, 2014
Posting date:             October 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41751

Affected products: Cabrinha Kiteboarding 1X and Overdrive 1X
Control Systems

The recall involves the Cabrinha Kiteboarding 1X and Overdrive 1X
control systems.  These control systems are both comprised of:

   -- a light-weight control bar to control and depower the kite;
   -- a set of flying lines; and
   -- a harness loop/quick release (QR) mechanism

Both products have an orange and black EVA grip and a new
QuickLoopTM harness loop/QR.  The RecoilTM spring mounted along
the depower mainline is used to maintain the position of the trim
adjusters.

The Recoil spring on the control mechanism can jam, leading to a
loss of control, which poses a risk of injury.

In the United States, Cabrinha has received two reports of the
spring jamming.  No injuries were reported.  No injuries were
reported from Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 109 units were sold at specialty water sports stores
across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
July 15, 2014 to August 26, 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Neil Pryde Ltd
                    Hong Kong
                    China

   Importer         Adventure Sports Inc dba Pryde Group Americas
                    Miami
                    Florida
                    United States

Consumer should immediately stop using the recalled control system
and contact a Cabrinha authorized dealer to obtain a free
replacement binding.  A list of authorized dealers can be found at
Cabrinha's website.


CANADIAN TIRE: Expands Recall to Cuisinart Electric Smoker
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 6, 2014
Posting date:             October 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Improper Safety Mechanisms, Product
                          Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41683

Affected products: Cuisinart Electric Smoker

The voluntary recall involves all units of the Cuisinart electric
smoker identified by product number 85-1153.  All batch codes are
affected.

The electric smokers are black with the name "Cuisinart" printed
on the stainless steel door.  The product has five cooking racks
and a thermostat to control the temperature.

The affected Cuisinart electric smokers are being recalled as a
precautionary measure due to safety concerns that gas may build up
within the unit causing the door on the smoker to open while the
unit is in use.

Canadian Tire has received ten reports of the door on the smoker
opening while in use.  No injuries have been reported.

Health Canada has received two reports of consumer incidents
related to the use of these electric smokers.  No injuries have
been reported.

Approximately 9,238 units of the Cuisinart electric smokers were
sold at Canadian Tire stores across Canada.

The recalled Cuisinart electric smokers were manufactured in China
and sold between Feb. 2012 and Sept. 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
                Toronto
                Ontario
                Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected Cuisinart
electric smokers and return them to their local Canadian Tire
store for a refund.


CHAMPION TELECOM: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norwin Rodriguez and Class Plaintiffs v. Eddy Dominguez, Andrew
Scott, Champion Telecom Inc., and Does 1 Through 10, Case No.
3:14-cv-04467 (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per work week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of building and
installing cell phone towers in the western United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Dal Bon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON
      95 South Market Street, 3rd Floor
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Telephone: (408) 977-7710
      E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Kirkland Signature Stuffed Salmon
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Costco Wholesale Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9301

Affected products: Kirkland Signature Stuffed Salmon purchased
between June 10, 2014 to Sept. 29, 2014


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls About 18,000 Chair & Table Sets
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that nearly 300,000 shears that can
break are among this week's recalled consumer products.  Others
include potentially faulty helmets and hanging lamps.

SHEARS

DETAILS: Fiskars 32-Inch Bypass Lopper Shears with model number
6954.  They were sold at The Home Depot Inc. stores nationwide and
online at HomeDepot.com from May 2011 through June 2014 for about
$40.

WHY: The handles can break when cutting branches and cause
injuries.

INCIDENTS: 11 reports of the handles breaking, which caused
bruising and cuts to some users.  Some needed stitches on their
head and face.

HOW MANY: About 277,000.

FOR MORE: Call Friskars at 855-544-0151 or go to www2.fiskars.com
and click on product notifications on the bottom of the page.

CHAIR AND TABLE SET

DETAILS: A three-piece cafe set sold at Costco Wholesale Stores.
The set includes two aluminum swivel chairs and a rectangular
table with a tabletop made from porcelain tile.  They were sold
from December 2013 to May 2014 for about $400.

WHY: The recalled chairs can break due to a missing metal washer
plate and might cause a customer to fall.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 18,000.

FOR MORE: Call Dimension, the distributor, at 800-598-6532 or go
online at www.costco.com

BED BUG HEAT TREATMENT SYSTEMS

DETAILS: ThermalStrike Expedition bed bug heat treatment system.
Customers use them by placing items inside to kill bed bugs.  They
were sold at Bedbug Central, Bedbug Supply, Protect-a-Bed, Univar
and other pest control sellers nationwide between December 2011
and May 2014 for between $189 and $199.  They were also sold
online at Amazon.com.

WHY: A flexible, electrical conducting strip at the top of the
device can break, posing a fire risk.

INCIDENTS: Four reports of an electrical strip breaking.  There is
one report of a fire and three reports of units sparking.  No
injuries were reported.

HOW MANY: About 1,700.

FOR MORE: Call PAB Two at 866-470-1755 or go online at
www.thermalstrike.com

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

DETAILS: Kymco MXU 700 ATVs that came in black, camouflage, gold,
green, red and silver.  The recall is for model years 2013, 2014
and 2015.  They were sold at Kymco dealers nationwide from April
2013 to August 2014 for about $9,000.

WHY: The fuel cap may not vent properly, causing the fuel to heat
up and pressure to build up in the tank and may cause it to
rupture and burn the rider or start a fire.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 540.

FOR MORE: Call Kymco at 888-235-3417 or go online www.kymcousa.com

HANGING LAMPS

DETAILS: Hanging lamps that were sold at Rejuvenation stores
nationwide from July to September for between $250 and $325.

WHY: The cord holding the pendant can fail, causing it to fall
from the ceiling.

INCIDENTS: One report of the pendant falling. No injuries have
been reported.

HOW MANY: About 85.

FOR MORE: Call Rejuvenation at 888-401-1900 or go online at
www.rejuvenation.com

BICYCLE HELMETS

DETAILS: Louis Garneau P-09 aerodynamic bicycle helmets with model
number 1405362.  They were sold at bicycle dealers nationwide and
online at Louisgarneau.com from January through September for
between $280 and $350.

WHY: The helmet may not protect the wearer from impact in cold
weather.

INCIDENTS: None reported.

HOW MANY: About 1,180.

FOR MORE: Call Louis Garneau USA at 800-448-1984 or go online at
www.louisgarneau.com/us-en/


COUCHE-TARD: Recalls Circle K Squares Due to Undeclared Peanut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Couche-Tard Inc.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland
                          and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9286

Affected products: Circle K Chocolate Chip Confetti Squares and
Confetti Square Butterscotch with all codes where peanut is not
declared on the label


COUCHE-TARD: Recalls Circle K Chocolate Chip Cookies
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Couche-Tard Inc.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland
                          and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9309

Affected products: Circle K Confetti Square Chocolate Chip Cookies
with all codes where peanut is not declared on the label


CRACKER BARREL: Faces "Hill and Hernandez" & "Perzan et al" Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2014, for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2014, a
putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") was filed on April 11, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Proper v.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., in which the named
plaintiffs are challenging the Company's classification of
associate managers as being exempt from the minimum wage and
overtime requirements.  Two other putative collective action suits
alleging claims under the FLSA, Hill and Hernandez v. Cracker
Barrel and Perzan et al. v. Cracker Barrel, were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Middle District of Florida
in August 2014 and for the District of Massachusetts in September
2014, respectively.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential
class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out".  If any of these
putative collective actions is conditionally certified, the
Company would have an opportunity to seek to have the class de-
certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to all of the claims
raised in these three lawsuits, and accordingly, plan to defend
them vigorously.  All of these proceedings remain in the early
stages with significant uncertainty as to factual issues, outcome
of legal proceedings (including certification of the collective
action), and likely number of opt-in plaintiffs and/or damages
claimed.  At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
likely results or the economic effects on the Company of any of
these lawsuits," the Company said.


DIRECTV LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Oliver" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Oliver, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07794 (N.D.
Ill., October 6, 2014), alleges that the Defendant made one or
more unauthorized calls to the Plaintiff's cell phone using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

DirecTV, LLC is a direct broadcast satellite service provider and
broadcaster.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      Brian B. Kilpatrick, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120, Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com
              brian@hughesellzey.com

          - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalaes@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


DOLE PACKAGED: Falsely Marketed Fruit Products, "Mahan" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Mahan, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
13796 (D. Mass., October 6, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's
marketing its fruit products as all natural and free of artificial
ingredients, synthetic additives and chemical preservatives when,
in fact, they are not all natural.

Two of the listed ingredients in this product are ascorbic acid
and citric acid. Both ascorbic acid and citric acid are added,
artificial, synthetic chemical preservatives.

Dole Packaged Foods, LLC provides retail food products, including
Mandarin oranges and substantially similar products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Bonnie J. Prober, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
              bprober@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 515-3393
      Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, PC
      120 North LaSalle, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
      E-mail: chd@cliffordlaw.com

         - and -

      Zona Jones,  Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP
      490 Park Street
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 835-6000
      Facsimile: (409) 813-8618
      E-mail: zjones@pulf.com

         - and -

      Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
      THE FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 880-9571
      Facsimile: (917) 591-5245
      E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
      PRATT & ASSOCIATES
      1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
      San Jose, CA 95126
      Telephone: (408) 429-6506
      Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
      E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


EBAY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Roman, writing for Bank Info Security, reports that eBay
has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against
the company in July following a breach earlier this year that
resulted in 145 million customers having their personal
information compromised.

The plaintiff named in the case "does not allege that he has been
injured by misuse of the stolen information," eBay says in its
motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed Sept. 30.  "He does
not allege that anyone has used his password, or that anyone has
even tried to commit identity fraud with his information -- let
alone that anyone has actually succeeded in doing so -- and that
he has thereby suffered harm."

Instead, eBay argues, the plaintiff "relies on vague, speculative
assertions of possible future injury -- that maybe at some point
in the future, he might be harmed."

In addition, eBay argues the plaintiff failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.  eBay alleges the plaintiff has
taken a "shotgun" approach to pleading his claims, "asserting no
fewer than 10 causes of action, including one under a statute that
does not provide a private right of action and another under a
statute that was repealed before the complaint was filed."

Lawsuit Details

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Collin Green and all customers of
eBay, contends that the breach was the result of the company's
"inadequate security" for protecting identity information of its
millions of customers.

"eBay was aware of the value of the personal information it held,
and threat to the security of that information long before the
2014 security breach," the lawsuit says, citing eBay's first
quarter 2014 SEC filing, where the company acknowledged that
security breaches were a constant threat.

The lawsuit asserts that e-Bay violated state privacy laws, the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Federal Stored Communications Act.
It also alleges a violation of Louisiana R.S. 51:3072, which
states that "expeditious notification of possible misuse of a
person's personal information is imperative."

The suit doesn't specify instances of fraud or identity theft, but
says class members "must be vigilant for many years in checking
for fraud in their name, and be prepared to deal with the steep
costs associated with identity fraud."  It seeks compensatory
damages, consequential damages, injunctive relief and costs of the
suit, including attorneys' fees.

Breach Background

The breach, which eBay revealed in May, occurred between late
February and early March.  It began after a small number of
employee log-in credentials were compromised, which allowed cyber-
attackers to gain access to eBay's corporate network.

Compromised information included encrypted passwords, customer
names, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses, phone numbers and
dates of birth, according to the company.  The exposed database
did not contain financial information, eBay says.  The company
urged 145 million customers to reset their passwords.


ELEKTA INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 6, 2014
Posting date:             October 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41739

Recalled Products: Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion

Health Canada has got a report that the latches may be locked
before they have been fully turned, resulting in a poorly locked
frame. Investigations show that it may be possible to have a
situation where the adapter latches can get stuck just above the
coordinate frame surface and as a result the coordinate frame will
not be fixed properly.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Elekta InstrumentS AB
                    Kungstensgatan 18,
                    Stockholm 10393
                    Sweden


EPL OIL: Defendants' Date to Answer Suit Indefinitely Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2014, for the
transition period from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014, that in
March and April, 2014, three alleged stockholders filed three
separate class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on behalf of the Company's stockholders against
the Company, its directors, Energy XXI, EGC, and Clyde Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of EGC
("Merger Sub").  The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The consolidated
lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "lawsuit").

The Company said, "Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action
challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI,
EGC, Merger Sub, and EPL (the "Merger Agreement"), including that
(a) our directors have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger and (b) we along with Energy XXI, EGC,
and Merger Sub, allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are
based on their allegations that (i) the Merger allegedly provided
inadequate consideration to our stockholders for their shares of
our common stock; (ii) the Merger Agreement contained contractual
terms -- including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B)
"competing proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions -- that
allegedly dissuaded other potential acquirers from making
competing offers for shares of our common stock; (iii) certain of
our officers and directors allegedly received benefits --
including (A) an offer for one of our directors to join the Energy
XXI board of directors and (B) the triggering of change-in-control
provisions in notes held by our executive officers  --  that were
not equally shared by our stockholders; (iv) Energy XXI required
our officers and directors to agree to vote their shares of our
common stock in favor of the Merger; and (v) we provided, and
Energy XXI obtained, non-public information that allegedly allowed
Energy XXI to acquire us for inadequate consideration. Plaintiffs
also allege that the Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 by
us and Energy XXI on April 1, 2014 omits information concerning,
among other things, (i) the events leading up to the Merger, (ii)
our efforts to attract offers from other potential acquirors,
(iii) our evaluation of the Merger; (iv) negotiations between us
and Energy XXI, and (v) the analysis of our financial advisor.
Based on these allegations, plaintiffs seek to have the Merger
agreement rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys'
fees."

"Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. We cannot predict
the outcome of the lawsuit or any others that might be filed
subsequent to the date of the filing of this Transition Report;
nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the lawsuit. The defendants intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit."


FAIR TRADING: Recalls Pei Tien Konjac Brown Rice Rolls
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fair Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9276

Affected products: 160 g. Pei Tien Konjac Brown Rice Roll (Egg)
and 160 g. Pei Tien Konjac Brown Rice Roll (Seaweed)


FEDEX GROUND: Disagrees With Kansas Supreme Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Erik Sherman, writing for Forbes.com, reports that a major labor
class action lawsuit targeting FedEx Ground just cleared a major
hurdle.  The Kansas Supreme Court just ruled that Kansas drivers
for the service had been employees, not independent contractors as
FedEx claimed, as the published decision says.  The result will
have a major impact on a set of class action suits alleging FedEx
Ground had misclassified its workers.

The decision had been sought by the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in July, according to Bloomberg BNA.  Judges Frank
H. Easterbrook, Ilana Diamond Rovner, and John Daniel Tinder said
that the Kansas court "is in a better position than we to say what
Kansas law is."  A decision that the Kansas drivers were not
employees could have put the suit into jeopardy.

The appeals court had been considering 21 appealed decisions in
lawsuits alleging that FedEx Ground had incorrectly treated its
drivers as owners of independent businesses rather than as
employees.  The difference could mean whether the drivers could
continue to see back compensation as well as expenses that had
been pushed onto them by the classification.

In a statement sent by FedEx Ground, the company said: "We
fundamentally disagree with this ruling and are committed to
protecting the rights of thousands of independent business owners
to continue owning and operating their own businesses."

However, the suits were brought by some of those people that the
company insisted were independent business owners. FedEx Ground
also notes that in 2011 it stopped using the business model the
court reviewed.

In the 2000s, FedEx Ground drivers in multiple states filed suit,
leading to a consolidated action that charged the company with
falsely categorizing many of them as independent contractors.

FedEx lost a three-judge panel appeals hearing in the Ninth
Circuit in early September, reversing one district court decision.
According to Beth Ross, lead counsel for the California plaintiffs
and a partner with labor law firm Leonard Carder, "A conservative
estimate of FedEx's exposure would be $250 million to $300 million
excluding the mandatory attorney fees," just in California alone.

In a statement at the time, FedEx Ground Senior Vice President and
General Counsel Cary Blancett said, "We fundamentally disagree
with these rulings, which run counter to more than 100 state and
federal findings -- including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit -- upholding our contractual relationships with
thousands of independent businesses."  The company had planned to
appeal to a full bench hearing at the Ninth Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit was considering a separate number of cases,
including claims by 479 Kansas plaintiffs.  The appeals court
asked the Kansas Supreme Court to rule on two issues.  The first
was whether the drivers would have been considered employees of
FedEx under the Kansas Wage Payment Act, which was passed "to
protect low income workers who were shorted, docked, or cheated
out of pay for services performed."  The second was if the answer
would change if drivers had more than one service area.

The Kansas Supreme Court said that the drivers were employees and
that the answer did not change if the drivers were responsible for
more than one delivery area.  The deciding factor was that FedEx
Ground exercised significant control over the drivers.

Although the Kansas Supreme Court decision does not decide the
outcome of the suits under consideration by the Seventh Circuit,
the answer means the cases can now proceed.  It is unclear whether
FedEx has any additional legal step it can take at this point.

The case is, In CARLENE M. CRAIG, LEO RITTENHOUSE, JEFF BRAMLAGE,
LAWRENCE LIABLE, and KENT WHISTLER, Appellants, v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, Appellee, NO. 108,526, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  A copy of Kansas
Supreme Court's Opinion is available at http://bit.ly/1qfPn5Rfrom
Leagle.com.


FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Fiskars 32-inch Bypass Lopper Shears
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 8, 2014
Posting date:             October 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41719

Affected products: Fiskars 32-inch Bypass Lopper Shears, model
6954

The recall involves Fiskars Titanium bypass lopper shears with
model number 6954.  The lopper shears have 32-inch (81-centimetre)
dark orange steel handles and black rubber grips with a gray
strip.  Plastic gears connected to the pruning blades allow the
consumers to open and close the pruning blades by moving the
handles.  "FISKARS" is printed on one handle and product
identification information, including model number 6954, is
printed on a label on the opposite handle above the barcode.  The
UPC is 4656116954.

The recall does not apply to any other Fiskars loppers.

The lopper handles can break when attempting to cut branches,
posing a risk of serious injury and laceration.

Fiskars has received 11 reports of incidents in the United States
involving lopper handles breaking, including reports of bruising
and lacerations, some required stitches to the head and face.  The
company has not received any reports of incidents in Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 11,000 of the recalled loppers were sold in Canada
exclusively at Home Depot.  About 277,000 products were
distributed in the United States.

The recalled loppers were manufactured in China and sold from Jan.
2012 to June 2014 in Canada and from May 2011 to June 2014 in the
United States.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Green Guard Industry Co. Ltd.
                    Tanzhou Town
                    China

   Distributor      Fiskars Canada Inc.
                    Markham
                    Ontario
                    Canada

   Retailer         The Home Depot of Canada Inc.
                    Toronto
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled 32-inch
bypass lopper shears and contact Fiskars to receive a replacement
lopper.  To identify the 6954 lopper, look at the handle label for
the model number ("Model 6954") above and left of the UPC barcode
graphic.


FOODFEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Next by Nature Chocolate Cherries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Foodfest International 2000 Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Foodfest International 2000 Inc. is recalling next by Nature brand
Dark Chocolate Cherries from the marketplace because they may
contain peanuts which are not declared on the label.  People with
an allergy to peanuts should not consume the recalled product.

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

If you have an allergy to peanuts, 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 a recall in another country.  The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

Affected products: 85 g. Next by Nature Dark Chocolate Cherries


FRUITS DE MER: Recalls Madeleine Tomalley Spread
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated 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:    9308

The food recall warning issued on Sept. 26, 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.

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

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
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 CFIA's 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.

Affected products: 80 g. Madeleine Tomalley Spread which was also
sold without a label and is also known locally as "lobster paste"


HAR MASPETH: Recalls Jinga "Pan Fried Anchovies"
------------------------------------------------
HAR Maspeth Corp. of Maspeth, NY, is recalling its 2 ounce and 4
ounce packages of Jinga "Pan Fried Anchovies" due to contamination
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
persons may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever,
severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

The recalled Jinga "Pan Fried Anchovies" were distributed
nationwide in retail stores and through mail orders.  The product
comes in a 2 ounce and 4 ounce, clear plastic packages marked with
an expiration date of "9/28/2014" stamped on the top.

An alleged illness has been reported to date in connection with
this problem.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by The Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Food Inspectors
and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory
personnel revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes.

Customers who have purchased 2 ounce and 4 ounce packages of Jinga
"Pan Fried Anchovies" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-718-706-9300.


HOFFMANN-LAROCHE: Judge Dismisses 4 Bellwether Accutane Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that in rulings likely to have repercussions that will reverberate
through the 7,300-plus Accutane cases that are centralized in
Atlantic County, N.J., Judge Nelson Johnson has dismissed four
bellwether cases on statute of limitations grounds.

Judge Johnson, a Superior Court judge who took over Atlantic's
multi-county litigation docket Sept. 1, found that the four
plaintiffs, one of whom is a lawyer, failed to show that they
learned of their illnesses and the possible connection with
Accutane within two years of filing their lawsuits against
drugmakers Hoffmann-LaRoche and Roche Laboratories.

Judge Johnson's Oct. 3 opinions explain that he decided to address
the timeliness question because in reviewing 24 prospective
bellwether cases that had been recommended by counsel, he observed
that at least 13 of them would likely have to defend against a
motion to dismiss based on the two-year limitations period.

If the same proportion were to hold true over the entire Accutane
docket -- 7,377 cases as of Aug. 30 -- the limitations issue would
be a potential factor in almost 4,000 cases.

Judge Johnson conducted a "Lopez hearing" -- so named after the
1973 N.J. Supreme Court decision in Lopez v. Swyer -- in four
bellwether cases to determine whether the plaintiffs filed within
two years of diagnosis and, if not, whether they were entitled to
equitable tolling under the discovery rule.

In determining that each of the plaintiffs knew or should have
known enough to sue more than two years before the deadline,
Johnson questioned the truthfulness of two of them, including
attorney Danielle Kays, saying "her testimony regarding how and
when she first linked her IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] to her
use of Accutane strains credibility irreparably."

Accutane was used to treat severe acne until Roche withdrew it
from the market in 2009, according to court documents.

Ms. Kays claimed she first made the connection between the drug
and her illness Sept. 18, 2008, while doing research for her law
firm, when she -- "fortuitously," Judge Johnson said -- came
across a case that discussed claims for intestinal problems
purportedly caused by Accutane.

Judge Johnson noted that Ms. Kays was unclear about whether the
case referred to inflammatory bowel disease or ulcerative colitis
but she claimed that upon reading it she was able to understand
for the first time the cause of her medical condition.

She sued Sept. 16, 2010, which Johnson said was "conveniently two
days shy" of the final day to file.

Judge Johnson was skeptical about Ms. Kays' inability to explain
how she remembered the precise date she saw the case.  Judge
Johnson said that in his experience as a judge and practicing
attorney, people recall when things happened with reference to who
they were with, the season, a particular event and so on but Kay
had "no anchor for her memory" and had to refresh her recollection
when deposed about it last December.

Judge Johnson also questioned why Ms. Kays did not remember the
name of the case that sparked her recognition.

"The undersigned has been working with attorneys for more than
four decades, and can imagine no attorney in the same or similar
circumstances who would be unable to provide, at a minimum, the
caption and/or citation," Judge Johnson said.

He questioned why Ms. Kays "can't tell us the name," the
jurisdiction or any of the facts of the case and why she did not
print it out or download it.

"To embrace Ms. Kays' testimony, one would have to believe her to
be a singularly uncurious person," Judge Johnson said, adding,
"Lawyers are curious by nature and training."

He concluded that Ms. Kays had not met her burden of proof that
she filed on time and was not entitled to equitable tolling and,
thus, dismissed her case with prejudice.

Judge Johnson reached the same result regarding Dennis Nance,
saying Mr. Nance's medical records contain "history that he did
his best to ignore and withhold from the pretrial discovery
process."

Mr. Nance sued in June 2011 and, like all Accutane plaintiffs, had
to complete a Plaintiff's Fact Sheet, a lengthy court form that
identifies their symptoms and lists all their doctors, among other
information.

Mr. Nance initially omitted Dr. Gary Hills of Tulsa, Okla., whom
he saw many times between November 2004 and November 2006 for his
ulcerative colitis, according to Judge Johnson.  It was not until
Mr. Nance's March 2013 deposition that he was able to recall Dr.
Hills and Mr. Nance did not add Hills to his fact sheet until four
days before the Lopez hearing, Judge Johnson said.

Judge Johnson quoted Dr. Hills' November 2013 deposition testimony
about being told by Mr. Nance that he was going to call a lawyer
at a 1-800 number about the relationship between his colitis and
Accutane.  Dr. Hills said that conversation would have occurred no
later than Mr. Nance's final visit, in November 2006.

Judge Johnson observed that Mr. Nance was "visibly uncomfortable
while testifying about Hills" and he made no serious effort to
explain how he initially omitted him.

Judge Johnson faulted a third plaintiff, Kristy Brecke, for her
delay in obtaining a diagnosis after she experienced rectal
bleeding within 90 days of starting to take Accutane.

The bleeding was one of the known risks of Accutane that
Ms. Brecke was told about beforehand, as part of what Judge
Johnson described as an "elaborate warning system" used by Roche,
which involved a brightly colored 50-plus-page brochure and
counseling by a licensed medical professional about the 15
warnings, accompanied by a consent form and pre-prescription
pregnancy testing for female patients.

"A person would have to be either a child or an adult of limited
mental capacity, not to appreciate that the use of this medication
is associated with known, harsh side effects which cause
unpleasant conditions," Judge Johnson said.

Ms. Brecke told her doctor about the bleeding as early as December
2003 and the doctor suspected Accutane was the cause, according to
Judge Johnson.

Though the bleeding continued, she was not diagnosed with IBD
until 2006, partly because instead of seeking a medical opinion
she was away from home on 10 extended "high desert treks" in the
United States over a one-and-a-half-year period, followed by a
two-month backpacking trip to Southeast Asia, according to
Judge Johnson.

"While her adventuresome spirit is remarkable, reasonable people
would consider her disregard for her health foolhardy," Judge
Johnson said.

The last dismissed plaintiff, Gregory Luongo, simply waited too
long to sue -- more than eight years -- after being diagnosed with
ulcerative colitis, despite brochure warnings that should have
tipped him off to the Accutane connection, according to Judge
Johnson.

Roche responded to the dismissals with a statement that it was
"gratified that the trial court recognized [its] extensive
communication of safety information to Accutane patients through
its 'elaborate warning system' rendered all four of the trial-set
cases time-barred."  The company also said it "will continue to
defend the Accutane cases brought against it based both on the
strength of these warnings and on the developing science that
continues to rule out a link between Accutane and inflammatory
bowel disease."

None of the plaintiffs' lawyers returned a call: Steven D. Davis
-- sdavis@torhoermanlaw.com -- of Tor Hoerman Law in Edwardsville,
Ill., for Ms. Kays; Alan Sklarsky -- asklarsky@wcblegal.com -- of
Philadelphia-based Williams Cuker Berezofsky, for Mr. Nance;
Stephen Bolton -- sbolton@hookbolton.com -- of Hook Bolton in
Pensacola, Fla., for Ms. Brecke; and Jeffrey Crawford --
jcrawford@bpblaw.com -- of Bailey Peavy Bailey in Houston, for Mr.
Luongo.   The dismissed cases were among the five slated for trial
early next year and other bellwether cases must now be selected to
replace them.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edda Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-03198 (N.D. Ga., October 6, 2014), failure to secure and
safeguard its customers' personal financial data, personal
identifying information and private information.

The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
specialty retailer and fourth largest retailer in the United
States, with stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, 10 Canadian provinces and
Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregory W. Jones, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com
              www.siprut.com

         - and -

      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      191 Peachtree Street NE Suite 4200
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 965-8811
      E-mail: jsoffin@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com


HORIBA ABX: Recalls ABX PENTRA Magnesium RTU
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Posting date:             October 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number:    RA-41755

Recalled Products: ABX PENTRA Magnesium RTU

Potential that, customers running the Magnesium RTU Assay on the
ABX PENTRA 400 Chemistry Analyzers that on-board stability has
been updated.  User will be unable to calibrate the Magnesium RTU
Assay after 1 day of on-board (on instrument use), the control
will be out of range at values lower than target values.  The
result reported using this failed calibration will be flagged
"cal_error" displayed on the results with a "C".

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Horiba ABX, Parc Euromedecine
                    rue Du Caducee - BP 7290, Cedex 4
                    Montpellier 34184
                    France


HOSPIRA: Recalls 1 Lot of Vancomycin Hydrochloride for Injection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced it is initiating a voluntary
nationwide user-level recall of one lot of Vancomycin
Hydrochloride for Injection, USP, Equivalent to 1 g Vancomycin
(Sterile Powder), NDC 0409-6533-01, Lot 35-315-DD with expiration
date of 01 NOV 2015.  This action is because the product may have
experienced temperature excursions during shipment to a customer
and then was further distributed by the customer.  There have been
no adverse events or complaints reported for the affected lot.
Hospira is undertaking the recall out of an abundance of caution.

Due to lack of information on the effect of uncontrolled
temperatures on vancomycin and toxicological and clinical
characterization of potential degradants, a meaningful medical
risk assessment cannot be performed.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.  This
recall is being carried out to the medical facility/retail level
(both human and veterinary).  Please notify all users in your
facility.  If you have further distributed the recalled product
please notify any accounts or additional locations which may have
received the recalled product from you and instruct them if they
have redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations
or facilities to the medical facility/retail level. In addition,
customers should inform potential users of this product in their
organizations of this notification.  Hospira will be notifying its
direct customers via a recall letter and will arrange for impacted
product to be returned to Stericycle.  For additional assistance,
call Stericycle at 1-844-861-6215 between the hours of 8am to 5pm
ET, Monday through Friday.


IKEA: Recalls Pastaalgar FullkorN and Pastaalgar Over Soy
---------------------------------------------------------
If you have purchased Pastaalgar FullkorN, elk-shaped wholegrain
pasta or Pastaalgar, elk-shaped pasta, in the Swedish Food Market
at IKEA, please be aware that the product may contain soy, which
is not declared on the product.  As a precautionary measure, IKEA
has decided to recall these products.

Analyses of Pastaalgar Fullkorn and Pastaalgar have indicated
presence of soy which is not declared on the product.  Soy is an
allergen and persons allergic to soy may experience an allergic
reaction if eating the product.  The product is safe for anyone
not allergic or sensitive to soy.

Customers allergic to soy or otherwise concerned are welcome to
return Pastaalgar Fullkorn and Pastaalgar to the nearest IKEA
store for a full refund.  Ikea are sorry for any inconvenience
this may cause.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Formally Resolved Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2014, that
on September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, formally
resolved the federal securities class action lawsuits filed
against the Company and the other defendants in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Mulligan v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., et al, No. 3:13-cv-01037-EMC
(N.D. Cal.) (the "Securities Class Actions").  The settlement
provides for the resolution of all the pending claims in the
Securities Class Actions, without any admission or concession of
wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
The Company and other defendants agreed to the settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of
further litigation.   Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will
pay $8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims
that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other
defendants in the Securities Class Actions.  The Company will not
be taking any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount
will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policy.
The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court
approval and certain other conditions and does not resolve the
related shareholder derivative litigations.


INDIANA: BMV Commissioner Fails to Provide Class Action Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the commissioner of the Indiana
Bureau of Motor Vehicles faces possible charges of contempt for
failing to provide documents in a class action law suit.

A Marion County judge ordered Don Snemis on Oct. 1 to explain why
the state agency hasn't handed over the documents by the court-
ordered deadline of Sept. 29.  The order followed a motion filed
by an Indianapolis-based law firm two days prior that asked the
judge to intervene.

"A year ago, we asked for the very specific documents that
implicated the BMV in the overcharging of millions of Hoosiers by
millions of dollars.  The BMV went a year without giving it to us.
Finally, 60 days ago, the judge said no: You must give the
plaintiffs all of these documents before September 29.  They
haven't done that," attorney Irwin Levin --
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- of Cohen & Malad LLP, which is
representing the motorists involved in the lawsuit.

The law firm alleges the BMV is concealing information that could
prove it overcharged millions of motorists through unauthorized
license fees.

"Obviously the BMV thinks they can keep things secret even after
the court has ordered them to produce them to the public," said
Mr. Levin.  "It is really outrageous conduct, especially when it's
coming from our own government."

The plaintiffs are seeking about 60,000 emails, meeting minutes
and other records from the BMV.  They hope the documents will
confirm testimony from former director Matthew Foley, who said he
warned top officials about the overcharges two years before they
were acknowledged.

An attorney for the BMV says it didn't violate the judge's court
order and isn't trying to hide anything.  He said the agency needs
a few more weeks to finish compiling the documents.

"The BMV is producing everything that is responsive and not
privileged within that scope," said BMV attorney Wayne Turner.
"But, the discovery called for 60,000 documents and hundreds of
thousands of pages.  It takes time to do that work.  We're about
80 percent of the way done with that now.  So, we requested
additional time."


INFOBLOX INC: Calif. Securities Class Action Consoldated
--------------------------------------------------------
Infoblox Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2014, that beginning on May 30, 2014,
the first of three putative securities class action suits was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of its
officers.  The cases are Ansfield v. Infoblox Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-02500-VC (N.D. Cal.); Beqaj v. Infoblox Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02564-VC (N.D. Cal.); and Achey, et al. v.
Infoblox Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02644-VC (N.D. Cal.).

These suits, which have been deemed to be related cases, allege
that defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
or failed to disclose material facts, regarding the Company's
financial results, business, operations and prospects.  The
various suits assert claims covering the period from September 5,
2013 through May 29, 2014, are purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during that period, and
seek compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, as well
as equitable or other relief.

On July 29, 2014, various members of the putative class filed
motions for appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and approval of lead
counsel, and also moved for consolidation of the various actions.
On September 25, 2014, the lead plaintiffs were appointed and the
suits consolidated.  The defendants do not need to respond to any
of the existing complaints.  Instead, the lead plaintiffs will be
permitted to file an amended consolidated complaint and defendants
will thereafter respond to that amended pleading. No discovery has
yet occurred; pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all discovery and other proceedings
are stayed until and unless a motion to dismiss is denied (or
until defendants choose to answer rather than filing a motion to
dismiss).

"Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.  We are
unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows," the Company said.

Infoblox Inc. is a leader in network control, network automation
and domain name system (DNS) security though appliance-based
solutions that enable and secure dynamic networks and next-
generation data centers.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: Court to Weigh on Suit Over Security Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Greenhouse, writing for The New York Times, reports that
after his 12-hour shifts at an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas,
Jesse Busk says, he and 200 other workers typically waited in line
for 25 minutes to undergo a security check to see whether they had
stolen any goods.

Upset that the temp agency that employed him refused to pay
workers for that time, Mr. Busk sued.  On Oct. 1, the Supreme
Court was set hear oral arguments about this hotly contested
issue.

The nation's retailers are paying close attention because such
security checks are common.  The Supreme Court is to determine
whether the check and related waiting time were part of Mr. Busk's
regular, compensable workday or, as the temp agency argues, were
time after his workday and not compensable.

"It was unfair not being paid for those 25 minutes," said
Mr. Busk, who was laid off from the Amazon warehouse job and now
works as a boxing instructor.  "The job was exhausting -- we would
sometimes walk 20 miles a night -- and I was eager to go home and
get some sleep."

Mr. Busk, who made $12.35 an hour, and a second worker filed a
class action in 2010, asserting that wage and overtime laws were
being violated.  In friend-of-the-court briefs filed with the
Supreme Court, retailers' groups pointed to a study that found
that 63 percent of stores checked bags and performed other
antitheft checks at the end of the workday.  The retailers
expressed concern that if the court ruled for Mr. Busk, they would
have to pay employees for that time.

In its brief, the temp agency, Integrity Staffing Solutions,
argues that the security check and the related waiting time are
part of the "preliminary" or "postliminary" activities that are
not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act, which Congress
passed in 1947.  Integrity Staffing pointed to a 1956 Supreme
Court case, Steiner v. Mitchell, involving the donning and doffing
of work clothes at a battery-making plant.  The court wrote that
compensation was required for tasks that were "integral and
indispensable" to workers' "principal activities."

Integrity Staffing wrote in its brief, "Time spent passing through
a security screening is a paradigmatic example of an activity that
is noncompensable" because it is "postliminary to employees'
principal job activities."  Its counsel of record is Paul D.
Clement, one of the nation's foremost Supreme Court practitioners.

Mr. Busk's lawyer, Mark R. Thierman, disagreed. "The antitheft
check is integral and indispensable because the company said you
have to do it," he said.  "If the company tells you to do it, it
doesn't matter whether it's related to what else you do on the
job."

Mr. Thierman said that if an employer ordered a worker to do
something, that work should be compensable, whether or not it was
integral and indispensable to primary work activities.  He cited a
2005 Supreme Court case, IBP v. Alvarez, which said that if a
company required its employees to arrive at a particular time
to begin waiting, even if there was no work to be done at that
time, the waiting time would be compensable and not just
preliminary.

"It's by definition a principal activity because you were told to
do it," Mr. Thierman said.

He argued that under Integrity Staffing's logic, if the company
ordered an employee to mow the lawn outside the Amazon warehouse
for 25 minutes after his 12-hour shift, the company would not have
to pay for that work because it would not be considered "integral
and indispensable" to his principal activity of tracking down
goods ordered online.

Integrity Staffing declined to comment, as did Amazon, which is
not a defendant in the case.  In several similar lawsuits
involving workers at other Amazon warehouses, plaintiffs have sued
not just temp agencies but also Amazon, asserting that it should
be held accountable as a joint employer.

Integrity Staffing is appealing a ruling by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that Mr. Busk
had stated a legitimate wage claim.  That court found that the
security check at the Amazon warehouse was "necessary to the
principal work performed," was "done for the benefit of the
employer" and was therefore "integral and indispensable."

The Obama administration has filed a brief backing Integrity
Staffing.  Signed by lawyers from the Labor and Justice
Departments, the administration's brief said the Ninth Circuit's
focus on whether antitheft checks were done for the employer's
benefit was "an insufficient proxy for determining" whether they
were integral and indispensable to a principal activity.

The administration argued that the security check at the Amazon
warehouse was little different from a security check at an airport
that construction workers must go through on their way to a
project at the airport.  The 11th Circuit has ruled that the time
spent in that airport security check was not compensable and not
integral to the job, on the grounds that it was ordered by the
Federal Aviation Administration, not the employer, and was not of
particular benefit to the employer.

Some pro-labor groups voiced surprise that the administration was
backing Integrity Staffing.  "The administration says it's time to
put more money in the pockets of workers who work long hours with
low pay," said Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the
National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for workers.
"Their position in this case is contrary to what they've been
saying."

Edward A. Brill, who filed a supporting brief for the Retail
Litigation Center, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business
groups, voiced concern that if the Supreme Court ruled for
Mr. Busk, it would encourage a wave of lawsuits and force many
retailers to spend a lot of money revamping their security checks
and clock-out procedures.

"It's important to have a bright-line test," he said, "so that
it's not enough to allege in a complaint that you had to wait 25
or 30 minutes."


J&B EUROPEAN: Recalls Kupiec Rice Cakes With Dark Chocolate
-----------------------------------------------------------
J&B European Distribution Inc. of Brooklyn, NY is recalling 40
cases of Kupiec brand Rice Cakes with Dark Chocolate, net wt. 3.1
OZ. (90g), UPC # 5 906747 171742, because they may contain
undeclared milk.  People who have an allergy to milk run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

Kupiec brand Rice Cakes with Dark Chocolate, net wt. 3.1 oz. (90g)
were distributed to retail outlets throughout NY, NJ, and PA, and
to one retail location in North Carolina.  The product was shipped
between 6/24/2014 and 7/23/2014.

Kupiec brand Rice Cakes with Dark Chocolate, NET WT. 3.1 oz., UPC
# 5 906747 171742, are packed in a white oval plastic package
picturing a stack of the rice cakes topped with chocolate.  There
are 6 rice cakes per package.  The product was imported from
Poland.

J&B European Distribution is not aware of any confirmed illnesses
to date in its distribution area; however the FDA has confirmed
one such case in the Chicago, IL area.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of milk.  Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by an inadvertent omission on the label by the
producer during the revision of the packaging process.

Consumers who have purchased Kupiec brand Rice Cakes with Dark
Chocolate, net wt. 3.1 oz., UPC # 5 906747 171742, are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact J&B European Distribution at 1-718-782-
3712, Monday - Friday, 8am - 4pm, ET.


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Sued in Pennsylvania Over Violation of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01353 (W.D. Pa.,
October 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Kohl's Corporation owns and operates a department store retail
chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


KRAFT CANADA: Recalls Double Cheddar Shredded Natural Cheese
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kraft Canada Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9310

Affected products: 180 g. Kraft Double Cheddar Shredded Natural
Cheese


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Disgruntled Investors File Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Tim McGlone, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that top
executives at Toano-based Lumber Liquidators were greeted recently
with a new lawsuit filed by disgruntled investors who claim the
company misled them by touting high expected earnings when, in
fact, profits were about to plummet.

The company has been battered over the past year by lawsuits, a
federal criminal investigation and financial results that fell
short of expectations.  Its stock price, which reached nearly $120
a share, recently traded below $53 before closing at $54.29.

On Sept. 26, Robert Lynch, Lumber Liquidators' CEO, and
Daniel Terrell, its chief financial officer, were served with a
lawsuit filed by the city of Hallandale, Fla., Police Officers'
and Firefighters' Personal Retirement Trust.

Lawyers for the retirement fund say in court papers that Mr. Lynch
and Mr. Terrell misled investors by failing to report that the
company was having supply chain problems and product shortages,
which affected earnings.  While the trust filed its lawsuit in the
Alexandria federal court, it is also seeking to intervene in a
suit in the Newport News federal court filed by two investors who
made similar allegations.

About a year ago, an environmental group issued a report that said
it had evidence that the company was importing illegally harvested
wood from protected Russian forests that are home to the
endangered Siberian tiger and the Far East leopard.  That led to a
raid on the company's headquarters and its Richmond warehouse in
an ongoing federal investigation.

The company faces other suits across the U.S. over allegations of
illegal fax solicitations, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, and selling formaldehyde-tainted products.


M & A INTERIOR: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Israel Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. M. & A. Interior Painting & Tiling, Inc., Muneshwar
Singh, and Shafi "Doe," in their individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-08047 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

M. & A. Interior Painting & Tiling, Inc. owns and operates a
general construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander L. Gastman, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)679-5000
      Facsimile: (212)679-5005


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Accord to Serve as Template
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Anzalone, in an article for the University of Buffalo's
Buffalo.edu, reports that the $765 million class action settlement
of concussion claims for retired NFL players that won preliminary
approval in the U.S. Court of Appeals is a "potential template"
for other professional athletes, says University at Buffalo Law
School faculty member Christine P. Bartholomew, who is an expert
on class action and antitrust litigation.

"This is a settlement to watch," says Ms. Bartholomew, who was a
class action attorney specializing in antitrust and consumer class
actions before joining the Law School faculty in 2006.

"It has potential implications far beyond the NFL retirees
involved," she says.  "This case demonstrates how collective
action can be a successful avenue for highlighting the dangers
facing professional athletes."

The $765 million lawsuit brought by retired NFL players won
approval from a Philadelphia federal judge, the first hurdle
before the settlement is finalized.  The players appealed the
pending settlement to the Third Circuit, asking the court to
expand benefits.

The Third Circuit rejected the challenge.  The Brain Injury
Association of America recently filed a brief questioning the
eligibility definitions in the proposed settlement.  Both
challenges will be decided as part of the final approval process,
Ms. Bartholomew says.

Players had until Oct. 12 to decide whether to participate in the
settlement.  Final approval for the settlement is scheduled for
Nov. 19.

More than 5,000 football players have sued the league for damages
for head injuries.  The retirees accuse the NFL of failing to
inform players of the link between repeated traumatic head impact
and long-term brain injuries.

Ms. Bartholomew says the settlement does provide "very real,
significant compensation," even though it is hard putting a dollar
amount on future potential health problems.

"It is hard not to see this case -- and its potential settlement -
- as a potential template for other professional athletes," she
says. "This is particularly true for the pending NHL concussion
case.  I wouldn't be surprised to see similar claims brought by,
say, professional basketball or baseball players in the near
future."

Ms. Bartholomew says the significance of this case goes beyond
professional athletes.

"Class action practitioners and scholars are also closely
monitoring this settlement," she says.  "My guess is the players
who challenged the settlement plan to appeal the settlement all
the way to the Supreme Court.  This court, in particular, has been
pretty hostile to class actions.  Whether even a settlement that
is well-structured and significant, like this one, would survive
Supreme Court review is anyone's guess these days."

After spending 10 years as a class action attorney,
Ms. Bartholomew's academic scholarship builds on her extensive
real-world experience.  Her research now focuses on civil
procedure and, in particular, class actions and antitrust.  Her
most current scholarship explores the tension between class
actions' enforcement potential and heightened procedural and
evidentiary rules.

"I am currently examining the procedural and evidentiary rules
governing class actions and how new interpretations of these rules
limit plaintiffs' abilities to bring aggregate claims," she says.

Ms. Bartholomew's scholarship has been published in leading law
reviews, including Cardozo Law Review, Brooklyn Law Review and
Fordham Law Review.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Won't Be Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the deadline for former players to opt out of the proposed
settlement with the National Football League won't be moved back,
the federal judge handling the case has ruled.

Lawyers for some of the players had asked U.S. District Judge
Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to push the
deadline back from Oct. 14 to a date beyond the fairness hearing
for the settlement, which is scheduled for Nov. 19.

Thomas Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com -- of Corboy & Demetrio
in Chicago and several other lawyers who are representing former
players allege that they've been left in the dark about the
particulars of the accord and can't properly advise their clients
as to whether they should take part in the class settlement or opt
out and pursue their own case against the National Football
League.

Judge Brody had granted preliminary approval in early July to a
settlement agreed to by the NFL and co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.  The judge had rejected the first deal in January
because she was troubled by the lack of empirical support for the
total amount of the settlement -- which was $760 million -- and
that she was unsure that there would be enough money to cover all
of the players with potential claims because the portion of the
settlement from which injured players could draw was capped at
$675 million.

She ordered the NFL and the co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs to
submit to the court the documentation on which they based that
settlement, but that information wasn't made available to the
other lawyers representing clients in the case.

Last month, actuarial reports commissioned by co-lead counsel for
the plaintiffs and the NFL were made public.  Although each report
took a different route to get to its conclusion, each found that
with the amount of interest likely to accrue on the bulk of the
original settlement, there would have been enough to last for the
65-year expected life of the fund.

Mr. Demetrio's primary concern about the settlement is that it
doesn't sufficiently compensate players and their families for
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.

That's an argument to be raised at the fairness hearing, Judge
Brody told Mr. Demetrio during a telephone conference about his
motion on Oct. 7.  The issue before her now is the length of the
opt-out period, which was set to be 90 days from when she granted
preliminary approval to the settlement in July.  A recording of
the call was posted on the docket shortly after the call ended.
"We believe that at the end of the day, you are going to see that
CTE must be included in the settlement going forward," Mr.
Demetrio had said.

As for the length of the opt-out period, Mr. Demetrio said, "I
don't believe it is sufficient because we don't know what we're
opting out of."

He asked that it be moved to a date after the fairness hearing.
Christopher Seeger, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs who has
done much of the negotiating with the NFL for the two settlements,
vehemently defended the agreement during the call on Oct. 7.

"Mr. Demetrio doesn't need to know what I thought while I was
negotiating.  He doesn't need to know what the drafts of certain
documents looked like.  He doesn't need to understand the research
that I've done, which encompasses my own experience and the
research I've done in negotiating settlement values," Mr. Seeger
had said.

All Mr. Demetrio must decide is whether to advise his client to
opt out of the settlement, Mr. Seeger said, "and I don't think
Mr. Demetrio could argue he doesn't understand what the offer is."
Brody issued a one-page order on Oct. 9 denying the motion to
extend the opt-out period.

During the call on Oct. 7, she had said she expected to make a
ruling quickly and issue a memorandum later.  "That may very well
be at the time of the fairness hearing," she had said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeals in "Pinela" and "Monjazeb" Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that the appeal with
respect to the Pinela class action has been fully briefed and
awaits the setting of a date for oral argument, and the appeal
with respect to the Monjazeb class action will be dismissed once
final approval of a class action settlement is granted.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Sheila
Monjazeb, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was dismissed by Ms.
Monjazeb and refiled in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County.

This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit
originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the
Company has engaged in various violations of the California Labor
Code and Business and Professions Code, including without
limitation, by (1) asking employees to work "off the clock," (2)
failing to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3)
improperly calculating deductions on paychecks delivered to its
employees and (4) failing to provide a chair or allow employees to
sit during shifts.

The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions have been deemed
"related" cases and are pending before the same trial court judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed
demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but
also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class
action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to
further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration.

The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.
Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate
appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb, with the Court of Appeal, asserting that the trial
court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier
determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
The appeal with respect to Mr. Pinela has been fully briefed and
awaits the setting of a date for oral argument. The appeal with
respect to Ms. Monjazeb will be dismissed once final approval of
the class action settlement is granted.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEIMAN MARCUS: No Date Set for Oral Argument in Tanguilig Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that no date has been
set for oral argument in the appeals related to the Tanguilig
class action.

The Company said the trial court decided to set certain civil
penalty claims asserted by Bernadette Tanguilig for trial on April
1, 2014.  In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's
alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest
breaks in compliance with California law.

On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil penalty claims, based
on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as
required by California law. After several hearings, on February
28, 2014, the court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the
case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court has
awarded the Company its costs of suit in connection with the
defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an
attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a
notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as
a second notice of appeal from the award of costs, both of which
are pending before the Court of Appeal.

Should the Court of Appeal reverse the trial court's dismissal of
all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms.
Tanguilig will seek class certification of the claims asserted in
her Third Amended Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her
class claims will likely be reduced by the class action settlement
and release in the Monjazeb class action case; however, that
settlement does not cover claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for
alleged Labor Code violations from approximately December 19, 2003
to August 20, 2006 (the beginning of the settlement class period
in the Monjazeb case). No date has been set for oral argument in
Ms. Tanguilig's appeals.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement in "Monjazeb" Case Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that in the Monjazeb
class action, a settlement was reached at a mediation held on
January 25, 2014.  After several hearings, the trial court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on May 6, 2014 and directed
that notice of settlement be given to the settlement class. The
deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement was August
11, 2014. The final approval hearing was held on September 18,
2014. The court stated that final approval of the settlement would
be granted, but required plaintiff's counsel to submit additional
information to support plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Approves Settlement in "Newton" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on December 6, 2013, against the Company in the
San Diego Superior Court by a former employee. The case is
entitled Marisabella Newton v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., et al.,
and the complaint alleges claims similar to those made in the
Monjazeb case. After filing an answer to the complaint in the
Newton case and responding to discovery, the Company reached a
settlement of Ms. Newton's individual claims and a dismissal of
her class allegations, subject to court approval. The court
approved the settlement and dismissed the case on August 25, 2014.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Rubenstein" Case Over Pricing Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on August 7, 2014, against The Neiman
Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court by a
customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the Company's Last
Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges that the Company
has violated various California consumer protection statutes by
implementing a marketing and pricing strategy that suggests that
clothing sold at Last Call stores in California was originally
offered for sale at full-line Neiman Marcus stores when allegedly,
it was not, and is allegedly of inferior quality to clothing sold
at the full-line stores.

"On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. We will
vigorously defend our interests in this matter. We will continue
to evaluate this matter based on subsequent events, new
information and future circumstances," the Company said.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEIMAN MARCUS: 3 Cyber-Attack Class Actions Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that three class actions
relating to the Cyber-Attack were filed in January 2014 and later
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs between February and April
2014.  The plaintiffs had alleged negligence and other claims in
connection with their purchases by payment cards.

Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-
file a complaint.

Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint.

Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right
to re-file a complaint.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Remijas" Cyber-Attack Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2014, that the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the Remijas class action on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure
to demonstrate an actionable injury.

Three new putative class actions relating to the Cyber-Attack were
filed in March and April 2014, also alleging negligence and other
claims in connection with plaintiffs' purchases by payment cards.

Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD, Inc.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on April 1, 2014,
were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and without
prejudice as to Shields.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
was filed on March 12, 2014 in the Northern District of Illinois.

On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The
Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2,
2014.

On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury.

Neiman Marcus is one of the largest luxury, multi-branded, omni-
channel fashion retailers in the world.


NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Final Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. said in its Form
20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2014, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014, that a
final approval hearing is set for November 14, 2014, on the
settlement reached in the Consolidated Class Action and the Tardio
Action.

On July 23, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
against our company, Michael Minhong Yu and Louis T. Hsieh, Wong
v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
06316-MMM-JEM, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. Shortly thereafter, three more
putative shareholder class action suits against the same
defendants were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Sax v. New Oriental Education &
Technology Group, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-05724-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed July
25, 2012); Gabel v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group,
Inc., No. 1:12-cv-05963-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 3, 2012); and
Tardio v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc., No.
1:12-cv-06619-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 29, 2012).

The four actions contain similar factual allegations, allege
virtually the same class period, are brought against the same
defendants, and advance the same theories of liability. These
actions seek to represent a class of persons who suffered damages
as a result of their trading activities related to our ADSs from
July 21, 2009 to July 23, 2012. All four actions allege violations
of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 (2012), and section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a).

The complaints allege that various press releases, financial
statements and other related disclosures made by our company
during the class period contained material misstatements and
omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws, and that
the press releases, financial statements and other related
disclosures artificially inflated the value of our company's ADSs
and affected the trading prices of our ADSs. The complaints
generally seek monetary damages on behalf of the class of persons
who suffered losses during the class period.

On September 17, 2012, the Company moved the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") to have the four actions
transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes in a single
jurisdiction before a single judge. On September 21, 2012, various
plaintiffs filed separate motions to be appointed lead plaintiff
and, in some instances, for consolidation of the lawsuits.
Plaintiffs subsequently submitted a stipulation seeking to
consolidate the actions pending in the Southern District of New
York ("SDNY") and appoint a lead plaintiff.

On October 12, 2012, the Wong action in the Central District of
California was voluntarily dismissed, rendering the Company's MDL
motion moot and leaving the remaining three actions pending in the
Southern District of New York. On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs'
actions were consolidated as a single action in the SDNY and a
lead plaintiff was appointed.

On December 10, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC"), which is the operative
complaint in the consolidated action. Defendants moved to dismiss
the CAC on January 25, 2013. Defendants' motion to dismiss has
been fully briefed and currently remains pending before the Court.
The action otherwise remains at its preliminary stages.

On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff Julio Tardio, the named plaintiff in
Tardio v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., No.
1:12-cv-06619-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 29, 2012) (the "Tardio
Action"), which was ultimately consolidated into the Consolidated
Class Action, filed a motion to be appointed co-lead plaintiff in
the Consolidated Class Action. Plaintiff Tardio sought to
represent the interests of New Oriental options traders who were
excluded from the putative class proposed in the CAC. After a
round of briefing from all parties, the Court ordered that the
Tardio Action be severed from the Consolidated Class Action so
that Plaintiff Tardio can bring an individual or class action
lawsuit on behalf of New Oriental options traders. The Court
ordered, however, that any answer to Plaintiff Tardio's complaint
be stayed until the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss
in the Consolidated Class Action. Plaintiff Tardio subsequently
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on June 6, 2013.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
remains pending before the Court.

On December 23, 2013, the Court entered an order granting in part,
and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the CAC.
Specifically, the Court dismissed the allegations regarding
alleged misstatements concerning the company's ownership of our
schools and learning centers. The Court denied the motion as to
the remaining allegations.

In April 2014, parties in both the Consolidated Class Action and
the Tardio Action reached a settlement of both actions. The
parties submitted an executed settlement agreement and
accompanying papers to the Court on May 23, 2014. On June 10,
2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving both
settlement agreements. A final approval hearing is set for Friday,
November 14, 2014.

"We did not admit to any wrongdoing and continue to deny the
allegations made in both actions," the Company said.


NEW ZEALAND: Seeka Supports Kiwifruit Growers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Porter, writing for Bay of Plenty Times, reports that
leading post-harvest company and kiwifruit grower Seeka has
confirmed it will be supporting class action being brought against
the Government by a group of kiwifruit growers over damages caused
by the Psa vine infestation.

The decision puts it at odds with the positions outlined by the
New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc. (NZKGI) and single-desk export
marketing organization Zespri, which have cautioned growers
against joining the action.

Michael Franks, chief executive of the Te Puke-headquartered
NZX-listed post-harvest operator, said in a letter to its 500-odd
growers on Oct.4 that the company had become aware of inaccurate
statements regarding Seeka circulating in the industry, and had
decided to make a statement about its position.

"Having fully considered the financial and human impacts on Seeka
and its people of the alleged biosecurity breach and the loss of
wealth by our shareholders, Seeka has taken the decision to join
the class action," said Mr. Franks.

"Seeka considers the right place for the issue to be considered is
in the courts rather than under the vines.

"Seeka has seen the legal opinions both for and against and offers
no opinion on their merits other than to say, in our opinion there
is merit in having them tested.  Seeka respects the rights of
every grower to make their own decision in relation to this matter
and offers no guidance to any grower."

Mr. Franks told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend Seeka would be
claiming in respect of 105ha of leases it had control over, as
well as significant losses suffered as a post-harvest operator,
conservatively estimated at more than $45million.

"We support the class-action claim, but we were not responsible
for bringing it," he said.

NZKGI earlier strongly advised growers not to join the claim until
it had finished due diligence on the agreement growers were being
asked to sign when they joined the claim.

"A key concern for NZKGI is ensuring growers are not exposed to
large financial costs in the event the claim is unsuccessful,"
said NZKGI vice-president Doug Brown.  "We believe this claim may
damage the kiwifruit industry's relationship with the New Zealand
Government."

Mr. Franks said in his letter to growers Seeka rejected any
argument that the action would put at risk the single-desk system.

"The single desk is not involved in this action.  We understand
the group of growers seeking support for this action considers it
to be a matter of accountability and compensation."


ONE FIFTY: "Zamora" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Zamora and Arturo Caravantes on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class Members v. One Fifty
Fifty Seven Corp. d/b/a Russian Tea Room, RTR Funding Group, Inc.,
Gerald Lieblich, Ken Biberaj and Hasan Biberaj, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08043 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Russian Tea Room restaurant with
a principal place of business at 150 W 57th Street, New York, New
York.

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


OVERLAND STORAGE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overland Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2014, for the
fiscal year June 30, 2014, that in May 2014, the Company announced
that it had signed an agreement and plan of merger with Sphere 3D.
Since the merger was announced, four separate putative shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, all of its
directors, and Sphere 3D in the California Superior Court in and
for the County of San Diego. Three of the lawsuits also named
Cyrus Capital Partners, the majority shareholder of the Company,
as a defendant.

The Company said, "On June 25, 2014, the Superior Court entered an
order providing for the consolidation of all cases relating to our
decision to enter into the merger agreement with Sphere 3D. These
cases have been consolidated before a single judge and are
referred to as In re Overland Storage Inc., Shareholders
Litigation, Lead Case No. 37-2014-00016017-CU-SL-CTL. On July 30,
2014, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint."

"The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and conflicts of
interest against our directors relating to the merger process, the
terms of the merger agreement, and the consideration to be
received our shareholders under the terms of the merger agreement.
The lawsuit alleges that the other defendants aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duties by our directors. The
relief sought includes an injunction prohibiting the consummation
of the proposed merger, rescission of the merger to the extent
already implemented or rescissory damages, damages, and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

"We believe the lawsuit to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the action. However, if the plaintiffs
are successful in preventing the merger, or are awarded
significant damages, it could materially and adversely affect our
business, financial condition, liquidity, and the market price of
its common stock."

Overland Storage is a trusted global provider of unified data
management and data protection solutions across the data
lifecycle.


PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "McLean" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashaunte McLean, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Primary Financial Services, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-07789 (N.D. Ill., October 6,
2014), arises out of the Defendant's illegal conduct in making
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and an
artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephone numbers
of Plaintiff and others.

Primary Financial Services, LLC is a collection agency, which
regularly conducts debt collection business activity in the State
of Illinois and throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Court Dismisses "Edelman" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, that
with respect to the putative class action lawsuit filed in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Edelman v.
Protective Life Corporation, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2014-90247400,
on September 5, 2014, the court held a hearing to address motions
to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Company, the members
of the Company's Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc.  On
September 19, 2014, the court granted those motions and dismissed
the lawsuit in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible
appeal by the plaintiff.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: MOU Reached in Delaware Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, that
with respect to the three putative class action lawsuits filed in
the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned Martin
v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB,
Leyendecker v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action
No. 9931-CB, and Hilburn v. Protective Life Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9937-CB, on August 1, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted an order of consolidation and appointment of co-
lead counsel, consolidating the three lawsuits for all purposes
under the caption In re Protective Life Corporation Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 9794-CB, and designating the Hilburn
Complaint as the operative complaint (the "Delaware Action").

On September 24, 2014, the Company, each of the members of the
Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc.
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the
plaintiffs in the Delaware Action, which sets forth the parties'
agreement in principle for a settlement of the Delaware Action.
As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company's
Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. have agreed to
the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense,
distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.

The MOU contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a
mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, that
includes any and all record and beneficial owners of shares
(excluding the members of the Company's Board and their immediate
family members, any entity in which any member of the Company's
Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in interest
thereto) who held shares at any time during the period beginning
on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or termination
of the proposed merger, including any and all of their respective
successors in interest, successors, predecessors in interest,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them,
together with their predecessors, successors and assigns, and a
global release of claims relating to the Merger as set forth in
the MOU.  The claims in the Delaware Action will not be released
until such stipulation of settlement is approved by the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  The settlement will not
affect the consideration to be received by the Company
stockholders in connection with the Merger.

In the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 3, 2014, The
Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, a kabushiki kaisha
organized under the laws of Japan ("Dai-ichi"), and DL Investment
(Delaware), Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dai-ichi, pursuant to which DL Investment
(Delaware), Inc. will merge into and with the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Dai-ichi.


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Files Answer in "Barahona" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. filed an Answer in the case Radiant Global
Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Inc. (Ingrid
Barahona California Class Action), Los Angeles County Superior
Court, Case No. BC525802, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24,
2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc.
("Radiant"), DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA"), and two
third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing
Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary
employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona seeks damages and
penalties under California law alleging that she and the putative
class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices,
including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among
others, failure to provide certain rest and meal periods, as well
as failure to pay minimum wages and overtime. Ms. Barahona alleges
that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and
Radiant and DBA.

"Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their
entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the
putative class members in any way, and are vigorously defending
against these allegations based upon our preliminary evaluation of
applicable records and legal standards," the Company said.  "In
addition, we believe that the plaintiff's class definition is
overly broad and cannot meet California's class action
certification requirements. On August 28, 2014, we filed an Answer
to Ms. Barahona's First Amended Complaint, and the case remains in
the early stages of litigation. We are unable to express an
opinion as to the final outcome of the matter."

Radiant Logistics, Inc. is a non-asset based transportation and
logistics services company providing domestic and international
freight forwarding services and truck brokerage services through a
network of Company-owned and strategic operating partner locations
operating under the Radiant, Airgroup, Adcom, DBA and On Time
network brands located throughout North America and an integrated
service partner network serving other markets around the globe.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Class Action Threatens Fluctuating Workweek
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, Igor Kossov and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360,
report that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation
of Independent Businesses on Oct. 2 urged the Second Circuit to
strike down an appeal seeking to revive a proposed class action
against RadioShack Corp., arguing the revived case could threaten
businesses that use "fluctuating workweek" schedules.

The Chamber and NFIB filed an amicus brief asking the appeals
court to affirm U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer's dismissal of
lead plaintiff Jaime Wills' suit against the electronics retailer.
The appeal challenges RadioShack's use of the fluctuating workweek
method to calculate performance-based bonuses for managers.

The brief argues that Judge Engelmayer correctly determined that
RadioShack's methodology conforms with federal and New York labor
laws, and said Mr. Wills' suit is a veiled attack on the
fluctuating workweek itself.  It is not the first time
RadioShack's labor practices have been questioned.  The company
has also faced similar litigation in Pennsylvania over its use of
the fluctuating workweek method.

Ordinarily, employees who work overtime must receive 1.5 times the
pay they get for regular hours.  But under a fluctuating workweek
schedule, nonexempt employees get paid a fixed amount per week and
receive half their hourly wage for each hour of overtime.  The
Chamber said the lawsuit threatens the flexibility afforded
employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act for putting together
a fluctuating workweek system.

"The payment of a fixed salary for variable hours is lawful, as is
the payment of bonuses, and the FLSA does not prohibit employers
from combining the two," the brief said.  "The district court
recognized (correctly) that an employer who pays employees a fixed
salary for variable hours is not prohibited from also paying
'performance-based bonuses' that are not based on the number of
hours worked."

Mr. Wills claimed the U.S. Department of Labor decided in 2011
that performance-based bonuses were incompatible with the
fluctuating workweek method, which allows employers to pay workers
a reduced overtime rate amounting to half their hourly pay.

But Judge Engelmayer determined that the 2011 decision only
applied to hourly bonuses, not performance-based ones.

Mr. Wills worked as a manager of the company's store in Tonawanda,
New York, from October 2008 to December 2011.  Earlier in 2011,
the DOL ruled that bonuses were incompatible with the fluctuating
workweek method, his suit alleged.

The lawsuit was filed against RadioShack in April 2013, alleging
the company should have compensated its workers for overtime with
pay at time-and-a-half from the date of the DOL decision forward.

The Chamber and NFIB are represented by Tammy McCutchen --
tmccutchen@littler.com -- Robert Pritchard --
rpritchard@littler.com -- and Daniel Thieme -- dthieme@littler.com
-- of Littler Mendelson PC.

Mr. Wills is represented by Joshua Cohen -- jcohen@crklaw.com --
and Jason Bristol -- jbristol@crklaw.com -- of Cohen Rosenthal &
Kramer LLP and Anthony Lazzaro of The Lazzaro Law Firm LLC.

RadioShack is represented by Charles Bird -- cbird@mckennalong.com
-- of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP.

The case is Jaime Wills v. RadioShack Corp., case number 13-4661,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


S & K VEGETABLES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Alberto Zelaya Martinez, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. S & K Vegetables Corp. d/b/a
Apna Bazar Cash and Carry and Desh Deepak Bhardwaj, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-05844 (E.D.N.Y., October 6, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket or grocery store
known as Apna Bazar Cash and Carry and located at 7220 37th
Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr , Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com


SALLIE MAE: Faces "Schultz" Suit for Making Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Schultz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sallie Mae, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07808 (N.D. Ill., October 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone without their prior express consent.

Sallie Mae, Inc. offers education loans to students or their
families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
     BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
     155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 729-5288
     E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Judge Tosses Disk Drive Price-Fixing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that defense
lawyers for several electronics companies accused of a price-
fixing conspiracy scored a victory when a federal judge refused to
certify classes of purchasers to pursue claims against the makers
of optical disk drives.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California ruled reports by plaintiffs' expert witnesses failed to
measure up to the "rigorous analysis" demanded by evolving class
certification standards.  Plaintiffs' expert testimony pinpoints
individual examples of bid rigging, but falls short of showing an
overarching conspiracy carried out by makers of the disk readers
used in computers and game consoles.  Judge Seeborg added that he
sees a "troubling disconnect" between plaintiffs' narrowly
tailored expert reports and their lawyers' sweeping arguments.

"The [direct purchaser plaintiffs] simply have not shown they
possess a viable methodology for proving with generalized
evidence, that all, or nearly all members of the class suffered
damage as a result of defendants' alleged anti-competitive
conduct," Judge Seeborg wrote.

The judge, who denied motions to certify classes of both direct
and indirect purchasers, added that plaintiffs' model "makes no
attempt to establish, but instead simply assumes, class-wide
impact."

Optical disk drives, used in a variety of consumer electronic
products, allow data to be read from and written to disks, such as
CDs and DVDs.  The antitrust class actions follow a U.S.
Department of Justice investigation into bid rigging said to have
affected bulk purchases made by Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and
Microsoft Corp.  Hitachi-LG Data Storage Inc., a joint venture of
Japan's Hitachi Ltd. and Korea's LG Electronics Inc., pleaded
guilty and agreed to pay a $21.1 million fine in 2011.  Other
defendants in the civil action include Samsung Electronics Co. and
Toshiba Corp.

The suits allege that makers of the disk drives colluded between
2004 and 2009 to stabilize a decline in prices.

Ropes & Gray represents the Hitachi partnership; O'Melveny & Myers
represents Samsung; Latham & Watkins represents Toshiba; and
Boies, Schiller & Flexner represents Sony Corp.

Following Judge Seeborg's order, plaintiffs lawyers are weighing
their options, said Richard Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com --
of Saveri & Saveri, lead counsel for the direct purchasers.
Possible responses include filing a petition for appeal, asking
Judge Seeborg for leave to modify the proposed class, proceeding
with individual plaintiff suits or settling.  Judge Seeborg didn't
make clear whether he would consider certifying a modified class.
He mandated that both sides have 20 days to submit a joint report
detailing how they think the litigation should proceed.

"I still think it's a good case, and I think there's a good class
in here," Mr. Saveri said.  "It may not include everybody, but
that's the way it is in all these cases."

Jeff Friedman and Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
represent the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

Judge Seeborg also questioned whether a class action is the best
vehicle to bring claims against the disk drive manufacturers.
Several of the plaintiffs with the strongest claims and largest
purchases, including Dell, have preemptively opted out of the
class litigation and filed individual suits.

Even if plaintiffs were able to demonstrate classwide impact,
"substantial questions would remain as to whether a class action
would be the superior method of proceeding," Judge Seeborg wrote.
Mr. Saveri said parallel opt-out litigation supports the case for
class certification.  "Obviously, if there's a company like Dell,
who's out there filing lawsuits," he said, "it must mean that
these are very good lawsuits and that people have been injured."
Seeborg also pointed to recent case law that has imposed stricter
requirements on plaintiffs in the class certification stage,
citing U.S. Supreme Court cases Comcast v. Behrend and Wal-Mart
Stores v. Dukes.

O'Melveny partner Ian Simmons -- isimmons@omm.com -- who is
defending Samsung in the disk drive litigation, said courts are
taking a closer look at class certification motions.

"After Comcast, assumptions and presumed impact have no place in
the analysis," he said.  "Rather, courts have to take a hard look
at the evidence and the economic evidence that is put before them
in deciding the class certification question."


SUPERIOR AIRCRAFT: "Mobley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Mobley, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Superior Aircraft Services, Inc. and Barry Kornman, Case No. 0:14-
cv-62299 (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Superior Aircraft Services, Inc. owns and operates an airline
service company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren Jeffery Rousso, Esq.
      DARREN J. ROUSSO, P.A.
      9350 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1200
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 670-6669
      Facsimile: (305) 670-6666
      E-mail: Roussolaw@aol.com


SWS GROUP: Plaintiffs Drop Bids for Preliminary Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------
SWS Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a class
action withdrew motions for preliminary injunction prohibiting the
consummation of the merger of the Company and Peruna LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Hilltop Holdings Inc. ("Hilltop").

Two putative class actions on behalf of purported stockholders of
the Company challenging the proposed merger of the Company and
Peruna are pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  Both lawsuits name as defendants the Company, the
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.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends 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.


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Dangers Caused by Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Munson Brothers Farm, Aryl Sondgeroth, Matthew Sondgeroth and
Union Line Farms, Inc. v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07806
(N.D. Ill., October 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of developing and
selling, in interstate commerce, corn seed which includes certain
genetically engineered traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-0000
      E-mail: earonowitz@gelaw.com
              alevitt@gelaw.com

         - and-

      Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Mindy B. Pava, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
              mpava@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
      2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main Street
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Klint Bruno, Esq.
      THE BRUNO FIRM
      134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 425
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 286-4915
      E-mail: kb@brunolawchicago.com

         - and -

      Kim Stephens, Esq.
      Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
              jdennett@tousley.com

                           *     *     *

Tom Meersman, writing for Star Tribune reports, that Minnetonka-
based Syngenta Seeds is facing a potential billion-dollar backlash
from farmers over a new variety of corn seed that producers in
Minnesota and elsewhere grew and that China has refused to buy.

Farmers filed class-action lawsuits in Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa,
Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska federal courts against Syngenta
Corp. and its seed and crop protection companies.  The complaints
claim that Syngenta "crippled" the U.S. corn export market to
China and lowered domestic corn prices for all farmers.

Minnetonka-based Cargill also sued Syngenta in September in a
similar case.

Syngenta issued a statement calling the latest lawsuits "without
merit," and said it "strongly upholds the right of growers to have
access to approved new technologies that can increase both their
productivity and their profitability."

At issue is corn seed that contains a genetically engineered
trait, MIR 162, to protect corn against damage from more than a
dozen insect species such as the corn borer and corn rootworm.
Syngenta spent five to seven years and $200 million developing the
trait, according to court documents.  The company began selling it
commercially to U.S. growers in 2011 as Agrisure Viptera, after
approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2010.

The issue is not that farmers object to Syngenta's right to
manufacture genetically modified seed products, also known as
GMOs.  The problem, according to the lawsuits, is that Syngenta
sold Viptera corn -- and farmers grew it -- before the product had
been approved by China, one of the largest importers of U.S. corn
in recent years.

"The vast majority of U.S. corn has been effectively excluded from
what was previously the third largest export market for U.S.
corn," the complaints said, and U.S. farmers have lost sales and
income of more than $1 billion.

China is also the largest market overall for Minnesota
agricultural exports, especially soybeans, according to federal
and state reports.

Last November, Chinese authorities turned away U.S. corn shipments
that Cargill was delivering because the cargoes contained traces
of the Viptera corn.  Cargill was able to sell the GMO corn to
other countries that have approved Viptera, but it claimed $90
million in damages from the Chinese rejections.

Trans Coastal Supply Co. of Decatur, Ill., a major exporter of
livestock feed products, also sued Syngenta in September.

China has not decided yet whether to approve Viptera corn for
import, and until then has adopted a zero-tolerance policy for
accepting the product -- either in corn, or in dried distillers
grain, a valuable byproduct of ethanol production used as animal
feed.

Minnesota farmer John Mages, who grows about 800 acres of corn and
soybeans near Belgrade in Stearns County, said that he planted
Viptera corn in 2013, but not in 2014.  He said most of his
Viptera corn was sold to a local ethanol plant, and he's not
likely to join any class-action lawsuit.

Even though Viptera was planted by a minority of U.S. farmers, the
lawsuits said, it has been mixed with other corn in grain
elevators, rail hopper cars, barges and oceangoing ships,
effectively contaminating them with a product that China will not
accept.

The plaintiff in the Minnesota lawsuit, filed on Oct. 9, is Marlen
Greer, a producer near Zumbro Falls.  He grows non-GMO corn and
claims that a recent crop was rejected by a terminal elevator
because it tested positive for a GMO corn trait, according to the
complaint, which "could only be as a result of cross-pollination
from nearby fields."

The National Grain and Feed Association estimated earlier this
year that Chinese rejection of U.S. shipments also lowered
domestic corn prices by 11 cents per bushel, leading to a
projected loss of $1.14 billion for the last nine months of the
marketing year that ended on August 31, 2014.

Rather than waiting for China to approve Viptera corn, the
lawsuits said, Syngenta "pushed its product on farmers" to enhance
its profit margins, and is still doing so with plans to keep
selling Viptera and Duracade, a similar product that was
introduced and grown for the first time in 2014 and that also does
not have China's approval.

In its statement, Syngenta noted that the genetic trait in Viptera
was approved by U.S. agencies in 2010, commercialized "in full
compliance with regulatory and legal requirements," and approved
for import in several major corn importing countries.

"Farmers can have confidence in planting this innovative
technology," the company stated on its website, because hybrids
containing the Agrisure Viptera trait have been sold and planted
in multiple countries.  Japan and Mexico have been the top two
importers of U.S. corn in recent years.

Doug Albin, who grows corn and soybeans near Clarkfield in western
Minnesota, said he has not purchased or grown Viptera corn, but he
is troubled by the lawsuits.

"I'm always concerned about what my customer wants," Mr. Albin
said.  "But on the flip side we can't allow foreign governments to
dictate our technology and how we grow food in the United States."

He called the situation a "dilemma," with all sides hiring
attorneys. "Everybody's looking for someone to blame," Mr. Albin
said.

China is not against genetically modified crops, and in recent
weeks has been promoting them in a media campaign, according to
reports.  China allows some GMO seeds to be cultivated, and has
imported millions of tons of GMO soybeans in the past decade.
China's interest in importing corn is more recent, and it
purchased an estimated 5 million tons of foreign corn in 2012-
2013, up from 47,000 tons in 2008, according to the USDA.

Michael Swanson, agricultural economist for Wells Fargo, said he's
skeptical about China's zero-tolerance policy for Viptera corn.
"It seems unusual given all the food safety issues that are
occurring in China to believe that they have a better regulatory
framework than we do," he said.

Mr. Swanson said that in the past decade, China has made a habit
of raising concerns about U.S. shipments at just the times when
prices were changing significantly.

"Typically it was when the market had peaked in price and was
starting to come down, which allowed them to repurchase those same
products much cheaper after the issue had been resolved," he said.

Besides corn, he said, China had issues with U.S. cotton that fit
the same pattern.

"It always works out to their advantage," he said.  "It's never
the case where they have to end up paying more after they've made
a decision."

In the latest case, U.S. corn futures had soared to $8 a bushel in
the summer of 2013, but had dropped almost 50 percent by the end
of the year.  Mr. Swanson said it's impossible to prove that China
was using concerns about Viptera as a ploy to exit contracts for
pricey corn, but it could be interpreted that way.

"I call it the Wal-Mart effect," he said.  "When someone becomes
that big a part of your sales base, they have enormous leverage
over you."


TEXAS HEALTH: Potential Ebola Suits May Face Legal Challenges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that potential suits
against the Dallas, Texas hospital that sent home a patient later
diagnosed with Ebola face long odds in the face of state medical
malpractice laws.

Texas tort-reform measures have made it one of the hardest places
in the United States to sue over medical errors, especially those
that occurred in the emergency room, according to plaintiffs'
lawyers and legal experts.

"It's one of the highest legal burdens of any state in the
country," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of New York Law
School's Center for Justice and Democracy, who studies U.S. tort
law.

Although it appears no lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the case, possible legal claims could be brought by Ebola patient
Thomas Eric Duncan or his family, anyone he may have exposed to
the disease, or hospital workers put at risk.

Mr. Duncan, now in critical condition, first visited Texas Health
Presbyterian Hospital's emergency room late at night on Sept. 25.
Mr. Duncan told a nurse he had just returned from Liberia, where
the disease is raging, but he was sent home with antibiotics.  On
Sunday, Sept. 28, he was admitted after his symptoms became worse,
becoming the first patient to be diagnosed with Ebola in the
United States.

Texas Governor Rick Perry on Oct. 6 said that there had been
"mistakes" handling the Ebola diagnosis, the latest in a series of
officials and health experts questioning the initial response.

The hospital on Oct. 3 said Mr. Duncan's travel history was
"documented and available to the full care team," correcting its
earlier statement that staff were not made aware of his recent
travel to West Africa.

Failure to properly diagnose a disease is a common basis for
malpractice lawsuits, but each state has its own standards.

To bring a civil claim in Texas over an emergency-room error,
including malpractice, plaintiffs have to show staff acted in a
way that was "willfully and wantonly negligent," meaning that the
staff had to have consciously put Mr. Duncan or others at extreme
risk by releasing him, rather just having made a mistake.

Still, alarm bells about Ebola had been ringing in the media and
among public health officials for several weeks before
Mr. Duncan's diagnosis.  In August, the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention issued guidelines for healthcare
practitioners to identify signs of Ebola and warned them to be
particularly vigilant about anyone who had traveled recently to
West Africa.

And it is possible that a communications breakdown at the hospital
may have delayed the diagnosis, putting more members of the public
at risk and creating a plausible claim for negligence, said Dallas
plaintiffs' attorney Les Weisbrod.

"In my opinion, it would be willful, or wanton, or conscious
disregard to let somebody go like this," Mr. Weisbrod said.

Most states use a more lenient negligence standard for emergency-
room malpractice, according to lawyers and legal experts.
Charles Silver, a professor at the University of Texas School of
Law, co-authored a study in 2012 that showed the claim rate for
malpractice in Texas had fallen an estimated 60 percent since
2003, when the tort reform began.

Texas also caps non-economic damages -- which compensate for
subjective injuries like pain and suffering and emotional
distress, rather than past and future medical costs -- at
$750,000.  As a result of those and other tort-reform measures,
medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas have "dried up to the point
of disappearing," Mr. Silver said.

U.S. health officials have identified 10 people who had definite
contact with the patient, including family members and health
workers, and are monitoring 38 additional people who may have been
exposed.

Should any of those individuals develop Ebola, the same "willful
and wanton" standard would likely apply to a lawsuit they could
bring against the hospital, lawyers and legal experts said.  They
would also face the additional hurdle of showing the hospital had
a legal duty to them despite not being treated there.


TOTAL TENNIS: Faces "Poblete" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Carlos Poblete and Ofelia Armas Balderas, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Total Tennis
Saugerties N.Y. LLC, Edward J. Fondiller, in his individual
capacity, and Ellen Neilly in her individual capacity, Case No.
1:14-cv-01216 (N.D.N.Y., October 6, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides tennis and
paddle training services to individuals in New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea L. Callan, Esq.
      WORKER JUSTICE CENTER OF NEW YORK
      9 Main Street
      Kingston, NY 12401
      Telephone: (845) 331-6615
      Facsimile: (845) 331-6617
      E-mail: acallan@wjcny.org


TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Affirms $15.6-Mil. Verdict in Dealership Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the state Superior Court has affirmed a $15.6 million verdict
awarded to a driver and passengers in a Toyota van who were
injured when the vehicle malfunctioned and careened into a ravine.

A three-judge panel in Lewis v. Toyota Motor upheld a Philadelphia
jury's award of roughly $11.3 million to Dr. Noreen Lewis, the
driver of the rented Toyota Sienna minivan, and roughly $4.3
million to the five passengers who rode with her.  The verdict was
rendered against the Center City Toyota and Ardmore, Pa., Toyota
dealerships, which the plaintiffs claimed did not properly inspect
the van for problems.

Center City Toyota and Ardmore Toyota, referred to collectively as
CCT by the court, requested a new trial, claiming the testimony of
one of its expert witnesses was unfairly limited because he could
not testify about the specifics of the accident.

However, Judge Anne Lazarus wrote in a memorandum decision that
CCT's auto mechanic expert, Timothy Hilsey, was not qualified to
testify on the manner in which the accident occurred.

"Hilsey was presented as an automotive mechanic, and, accordingly,
the trial court qualified him only as an automotive mechanic
expert.  Additionally, Hilsey did not inspect the vehicle involved
in the instant accident," Judge Lazarus said.  "For these reasons,
the trial court found that Hilsey's testimony regarding the speed
of the car, the movement the tire made, or damage to the vehicle
would have been purely speculative and outside his realm of
expertise."

On March 8, 2008, Dr. Lewis was driving the van from Philadelphia
to Vestal, N.Y., accompanied by five family members.  According to
the trial court's summary, Dr. Lewis heard a "jerk" and shortly
thereafter the steering wheel locked and the brakes failed.  The
van went off the road and rolled several times down a ravine.

Dr. Lewis suffered a concussion, several fractured bones,
lacerations to her face, ripped muscles, contusions to the lungs
and heart, and disc and vertebrae injuries.  Dr. Lewis' mother's
injuries included a punctured lung and broken wrist while the
other passengers suffered broken bones and back and neck pain.

Dr. Lewis sued Toyota Motor Corp. for design defects in the van
and CCT for failing to maintain the van, according to Lazarus.
The passengers filed a separate suit.  Toyota was dismissed from
the litigation after its motion for summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiffs alleged the van's steering wheel locked because of
a separation from the ball joint, which occurred prior to the
accident.  According to Judge Lazarus, the plaintiffs further
alleged that CCT improperly inspected the vehicle roughly three
months before the accident by failing to follow the instructions
in the Toyota Sienna maintenance manual.

The jury rendered its verdict March 19, 2013, and was followed
shortly thereafter by CCT's appeal.

In addition to asserting that Mr. Hilsey should have been able to
testify as to the nature of the accident, CCT argued that he
should not have been prohibited from testifying about a particular
page of the van's service manual, Lazarus said.

At trial, Judge Lazarus said, the plaintiffs used a page from the
manual to show that CCT had not followed the recommended
maintenance procedure to inspect the van.  The page was used
during redirect examination of Mr. Hilsey and CCT sought to
introduce an additional page to show that the procedure was
optional.

Judge Lazarus said the trial court disallowed introduction of the
additional page because it had not been mentioned and was outside
the scope of the redirect examination.

"The page CCT sought to introduce indicated that the service
method in the manual is 'very effective to perform repair and
service' and provides warnings in the event other methods are
used," Judge Lazarus said.  "Even if this page demonstrates that
other procedures might exist for inspection purposes, the
information does not detract from plaintiffs' argument that the
manual contains the recommended procedure."

CCT also argued that the trial court erroneously prevented another
expert, Lee Carr, to respond to plaintiffs' mechanic expert Dennis
DeWane's testimony on the van's ball joint, ruling Mr. Carr's
testimony was outside the scope of his pretrial report.  Judge
Lazarus said the trial court should have accepted Carr's expert
testimony as "fair rebuttal."

However, "although the trial court should have permitted Carr to
testify in response to DeWane's testimony, its failure to do so
was harmless error.  Most of the substance of Carr's proposed
testimony was admitted into evidence, either through Carr's
testimony, or the testimony of CCT's other experts," Judge Lazarus
said.

John J. Hare -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall Dennehey Warner
Coleman & Goggin represented the defendants and declined to
comment.  Thomas Duffy of Duffy + Partners represented Dr. Lewis
and did not return a call seeking comment.


TRUNKBOW INT'L: No Hearing Date Yet on Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Trunkbow International Holdings Limited said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
that the Court has not yet set a date for a hearing on the final
approval of the Proposed Settlement in the Consolidated State
Action.

On November 8, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
a purported Trunkbow shareholder in District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, captioned Hansen v. Trunkbow, et al., Case No. A-12-
671652-C (the "Hansen Action"). The complaint named as defendants
several directors and officers of Trunkbow, namely, Wanchun Hou,
Qiang Li, Jihong Bao, Xin Wang, Albert Liu, Regis Kwong, Kokhui
Tan, Iris Geng, Tingjie Lv, Zhaoxing Huang and Dong Li (the
"Individual Defendants"). Although Trunkbow was included among the
defendants listed in the caption, the complaint did not assert a
cause of action against the Company. The plaintiff in the Hansen
Action sought recovery on behalf of all Trunkbow shareholders for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants
in connection with the proposed "going-private" transaction
involving the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of our
common stock not beneficially owned by the Consortium Members at a
price of US$1.46 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").

On November 14, 2012, another putative class action lawsuit was
filed by a purported Trunkbow shareholder in District Court, Clark
County, Nevada, captioned Robert Davis v. Hou, et al., Case No. A-
12-671946-C (the "Davis Action"). Trunkbow was named as a
defendant in this action, along with each of the Individual
Defendants named in the Hansen complaint. The plaintiff in the
Davis Action sought recovery on behalf of all Trunkbow
shareholders for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
and for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches by Trunkbow. The
plaintiffs in both actions alleged that the share price proposed
by Hou and Li was inadequate in light of the Company's intrinsic
value and anticipated future growth. Among other things, the
plaintiffs in both actions sought to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction until such time as the Individual Defendants have
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties. Only the Company
was served in the actions, but it had no obligation to respond to
the complaints until after a transaction agreement had been signed
and an amended complaint had been filed.

After the Company announced that it had entered into a Merger
Agreement with Parent on December 10, 2013 and filed a Preliminary
Proxy Statement and Notice of Special Meeting of Stockholders on
Schedule 14A with respect to the Merger on December 20, 2013 (the
"Preliminary Proxy Statement") with the SEC, five additional
putative class action lawsuits were filed between December 20,
2013 and January 7, 2014 in District Court, Clark County, Nevada,
purportedly on behalf of all stockholders of the Company, other
than the named defendants and their respective affiliates,
asserting claims against Trunkbow, Parent, Merger Sub, Hou, Li and
other members of the Board.

The five actions are captioned as follows: Jason Lines v. Trunkbow
Int'l Holdings Ltd., et al., Case No. A-13-693474-C, filed on
December 20, 2013 (the "Lines Action"); William Morgan v. Hou, et
al., Case No. A-13-693613-C, filed on December 26, 2013 (the
"Morgan Action"); Troy Hertel v. Trunkbow Int'l Holdings Ltd., et
al., Case No. A-13-693654-C, filed on December 27, 2013 (the
"Hertel Action"); Lu Sun v. Trunkbow Int'l Holdings Ltd., et al.,
Case No. A-14-694023-C, filed on January 6, 2014 (the "Sun
Action"); and Jean Fontaine v. Trunkbow Int'l Holdings Ltd. et
al., Case No. A-14-694147-C, filed on January 7, 2014 (the
"Fontaine Action").

The complaints generally alleged that the Merger Agreement was
entered into as a result of an unfair process and for an unfair
price and that the defendants breached, or aided and abetted the
breach of, fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders. In
addition, the Morgan, Hertel, Sun and Fontaine Actions alleged
that the Preliminary Proxy Statement omitted information necessary
for it not to be materially misleading and asserted claims for
violation of the duty of candor.

On January 9, 2014, counsel for all the named plaintiffs in the
Hansen, Lines, Morgan, Hertel, Sun and Fontaine Actions filed a
motion seeking consolidation of all the filed actions (as well as
any similar actions that may be filed) into a single proceeding,
and for the appointment of lead plaintiffs, co-lead counsel, co-
liaison counsel, and a plaintiffs' counsels' executive committee
to oversee the litigation of a consolidated action. On January 10,
2014, the plaintiff in the Davis Action voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice.

On March 13, 2014, the Court entered an Order of Consolidation and
Appointment of Lead Counsel, consolidating the remaining six
actions under the caption In re Trunkbow International Holdings
Limited Shareholders Litigation, No. A-12-671652-B (the
"Consolidated State Action"), and appointing co-lead counsel, co-
liaison counsel, and a plaintiffs' counsels' executive committee
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs' Counsel").

The parties in the Consolidated State Action have reached a
proposed settlement of those claims (the "Proposed Settlement").
On April 7, 2014, the Company filed a supplement to the
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the SEC containing supplemental
disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") which form the basis
for the Proposed Settlement. On April 11, 2014, the parties
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with respect to
the Proposed Settlement. On August 6, 2014, the parties entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement and Release (the "Settlement
Stipulation") based on the terms in the MOU.

In entering into the Proposed Settlement, the defendants expressly
denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and
contentions alleged by the named plaintiffs in the Consolidated
State Action, including but not limited to any allegation of
wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage to any of the named
plaintiffs or the purported class, or that the disclosures and
materials provided to Trunkbow shareholders regarding the Merger
were incomplete or in any way misleading, that any additional
disclosure was required under the SEC rules or any applicable
legal principle, and that the Supplemental Disclosures were
material. The defendants are entering into the Proposed Settlement
solely to eliminate the distraction, burden, and expense of
further litigation, and to fully and finally resolve all claims
relating to the Merger. The defendants believe that they acted
properly and fully complied with their fiduciary and other legal
obligations at all times, believe the Consolidated State Action
has no merit, and maintain that they have committed no disclosure
violations or any other breach of duty whatsoever in connection
with the Merger or any public disclosures. The Proposed Settlement
is subject to the final approval of the court. Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement, Class
Certification and Notice to Class Members (the "Proposed
Settlement Motion") was filed on August 20, 2014.

A hearing on the Proposed Settlement Motion was held on September
22, 2014, at which time, the Proposed Settlement was preliminarily
approved. The Court has not yet set a date for a hearing on the
final approval of the Proposed Settlement.


TRUNKBOW INT'L: Federal Action Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trunkbow International Holdings Limited said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
that the Court has not yet set a date for a hearing on the final
approval of the Proposed Settlement in the Consolidated State
Action.

On January 22, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
a purported stockholder of the Company in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, captioned Bornet
Olivier v. Wanchun Hou et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00106 (the
"Federal Action"). Trunkbow and each of the Individual Defendants
named in the Hansen complaint were named as defendants in the
Federal Action. The plaintiff in the Federal Action sought
recovery on behalf of all Trunkbow shareholders for alleged
violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by the Company and the
Individual Defendants, alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Individual Defendants, and
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The plaintiff in the
Federal Action alleged that the share price proposed by Hou and Li
was inadequate in light of the Company's intrinsic value and
anticipated future growth and that the Preliminary Proxy Statement
omitted information necessary for it not to be materially
misleading. Among other things, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction until such time as the Company has
implemented a process to obtain the highest possible value and
provide all material disclosures in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. Only the Company was served in the action.

On May 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Federal Action entered into
a stipulation with the Company to stay the Federal Action pending
final approval of the Proposed Settlement in the Consolidated
State Action.


VAN LOC: Faces "Valdez" Suit in Texas for Payment of OT Work
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Valdez, Pedro Argueta, Francisco Navarette, Eduardo Guox,
Doroteo Lasaro, and Oscar Martinez v. Van Loc Restaurant, Inc.,
and Kim Johnson, Case No. 4:14-cv-02842 (S.D. Tex., October 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for worked in excess of 60 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Vietnamese restaurant in Houston,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


VENDINI INC: $3 Mil. Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report
that a California judge on Oct. 3 gave final approval to Vendini
Inc.'s $3 million settlement in a class action accusing the ticket
seller of compromising customer information when its servers were
breached in 2013, including close to $1 million in attorneys' fees
to plaintiffs' counsel.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan noted in his
tentative ruling that the plaintiffs, Vendini customers who claim
their information may have been at risk, faced an uphill battle
given the fact that the ticket seller had adopted industry
standard security protocols and had not made any agreements with
customers regarding the use of their information.

"Balanced against this reality is the $3 million settlement fund,
which is not insubstantial," Judge Kirwan said.  "The court finds
that the settlement amount, balanced against the strength of
plaintiffs' claims, is facially reasonable and fair."

Under the deal, Vendini will pay $3 million into a settlement fund
for the class.  Plaintiffs' attorneys with Counselone PC will
receive 30 percent of the pot plus up to $25,000 in costs.  Lead
plaintiffs Lanie Lim and John Lewert will receive $2,500 each, and
class members may make claims for unreimbursed identity theft
losses for up to $3,000 or for unreimbursed expenses of up to
$1,000, according to the ruling.

Judge Kirwan adopted his tentative ruling approving the settlement
on Oct. 3.

Ms. Lim and Mr. Lewert sued Vendini in January, seeking to
represent a class of customers whose data was involved in the
security breach.  They received notice from Vendini in May of 2013
that the company's databases had been hacked in April by a third
party who may have been able to access customers' personal
information, including names, mailing address, email addresses,
phone numbers, credit cards and expiration dates, court documents
said.

They accused Vendini of failing to implement and maintain policies
and procedures that would protect customer data or to detect and
prevent hackers from accessing it, according to the tentative
ruling.  The plaintiffs claimed they lost time and expenses
dealing with the aftermath of the breach and suffered anxiety and
fear of identity theft and fraud.  Their lawsuit accused Vendini
of false advertising under California law, violating the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, invasion of privacy and
violating the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, court documents said.

The parties soon entered settlement talks, which included
Vendini's insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., which
sued the ticket seller not long after the breach. St. Paul asked a
California federal court to declare $7 million in liability
insurance off-limits to Vendini because it was facing the
impending class action in state court. U.S. District Judge Susan
Illston stayed St. Paul's case in March pending the outcome of
settlement talks, court records show.

The plaintiffs are represented by Justin Kachadoorian and Anthony
J. Orshansky of Counselone PC and by Joseph Siprut of Siprut PC.

Vendini is represented by Nancy Harris -- nharris@orrick.com -- of
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Lim, et al. v. Vendini, Inc., case number 1-14-cv-
259897, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara.


* Courts Leave Privacy Breach Victims Largely Powerless
-------------------------------------------------------
Rabeh M. A. Soofi, writing for The Recorder, reports that so far,
2014 has been the year of the data breach.  But despite the rise
in privacy violations nationwide, state and federal courts are
leaving victims of privacy breaches largely powerless.

Recent court decisions addressing data breach cases have resulted
in dismissals at the pleadings stage in favor of the facility or
organization involved in the breach, slowly eroding consumer
privacy protections and rendering the patchwork of applicable U.S.
privacy laws toothless.

The tide against privacy breach actions began turning after the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Clapper v. Amnesty
International (133 S. Ct. 113 (2013)).  In Clapper, the court
essentially ruled that in order to have standing in claims
involving privacy violations, class action plaintiffs must show
tangible financial damages, like the cost of credit monitoring
services and unauthorized charges.

Going on the Offensive

After the case was decided, defendants involved in mass data
breaches used Clapper to stave off plaintiffs' class action
claims. Their efforts were successful.  Since 2013, federal courts
have tossed nearly all mass data breach cases out on 12(b)
motions, on the basis that the putative plaintiffs failed to
allege financial loss and thereby had no standing.  This includes
class actions in connection with breaches involving Trustwave
Holdings' 2012 breach of 3.6 million Social Security numbers and
other records on the South Carolina Department of Revenue and an
Adobe Systems 2013 breach involving 38 million users.  Almost
every federal judge presented with the arguments in Clapper has
granted the motion to dismiss, at least in part.

The problem with Clapper is that it is basically impossible for
plaintiffs to prove they suffered "actual financial injury" when
it comes to privacy claims.  Unless plaintiffs discover
unauthorized charges on their credit cards or billing statements
or receive bills or invoices for unordered products or services,
Clapper ensures consumers have few if any avenues of recourse when
made the subject of a mass data breach.  Financial damages
suffered by a putative class plaintiff are often not automatically
imputed to all members of the class, and the lack of commonality
between class members' alleged damages can destroy class
certification.

In July, the California Court of Appeal dismissed what may have
been the largest health data breach class action in history.  In a
case involving the disclosure of 4.2 million patient records held
by northern California-based Sutter Health, the court ruled that
plaintiffs alleging breaches of medical information must allege
their private medical information was actually "accessed" and not
merely "possessed" by the unauthorized person, in order to be
actionable as a data breach.

The Sutter Health case came after two earlier, similar state Court
of Appeal data breach decisions.  Then in May, the court ruled in
the matter involving Eisenhower Medical Center, holding that
Eisenhower was not liable for a data breach involving the private
information of more than 500,000 patients. The case arose
following a theft of computers from Eisenhower's facilities
containing the ages, birth dates, Social Security numbers, medical
record numbers and names of patients.  The court in Eisenhower
ruled the disclosure of patient medical record numbers and
demographic information did not constitute "medical" information
and therefore was not actionable.

Several months earlier, the California Court of Appeal issued a
similar opinion, this time involving UCLA Health System in
connection with a 2011 data breach of medical information
belonging to 16,000 patients stored on a hard drive.  The hard
drive was apparently stolen from a physician's home during a
robbery, causing the court to dismiss the claims on the grounds
that there was no allegation or proof the stolen patient data was
actually accessed or viewed by a third party.

Holding Victims to a Higher Standard

All three decisions heighten the type and nature of allegations
required from victims of data breaches, despite the clear and
unambiguous language of the governing state law -- in California's
case, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which
permits nominal damages of $1,000 to be pursued in the event of a
privacy breach involving patient records, in the absence of actual
financial damage.

As with Clapper, requirements that a litigant allege and prove
negligently-stored information was actually released into the
hands of a third party is close to impossible.  Are consumers
required to hunt down the privacy thief -- assuming the
perpetrator is even located in the United States, which would be a
rarity -- to determine what was done with the privacy information,
whether it was "accessed" and how? From a practical perspective,
the new requirements seem excessive and unnecessary; after all,
individuals who are victims of regular theft do not have to prove
what was actually done with their stolen goods.

Why should victims of privacy breaches be held to higher
standards? In privacy breach actions, the cases are brought
because the entity charged with responsibility for the safekeeping
of confidential information was not successful in preserving its
confidentiality, and should be held responsible.

Why then have recent court rulings on data breach cases been so
unfavorable to consumers? The holdings handed down by federal and
state courts seem to imply consumer data or private information
has zero intrinsic value, given the consistent determination that
a mere breach of data or private information, without resulting
collateral or consequential financial harm, does not confer
standing, as no cognizable injury has allegedly been sustained.

These policy arguments, however, seem to be out of tune with
reality.  In February, the BBC confirmed a memory stick containing
the personal data of 2,000 Barclay's customers was stolen and sold
"as worth millions on the black market."  Then, in June, a review
of YouTube revealed dozens of videos selling stolen credit card
information pilfered through the various data breaches involving
blue chip companies earlier in the year.  According to research by
Javelin Strategy and Research, selling stolen customer data netted
$18 billion in 2014.

So if consumer data is being sold on the black market for millions
and billions of dollars, why are state and federal courts coming
to the conclusion the disclosure of private information does not
automatically result in damage to the consumer?

Government Enforcement

The courts' proliferation of that value proposition -- that data
breaches themselves result in no cognizable injury, absent proof
of "financial harm" to the consumer -- has only impaired consumer
civil redress.  State and governmental agencies with enforcement
power to pursue administrative actions in connection with privacy
breaches have been totally unaffected.  So far in 2014, the Office
of Civil Rights and the Department of Health and Human Services
has investigated 4,463 breaches involving medical information,
which resulted in 3,470 corrective actions, compared with 339
investigations and 260 corrective actions in 2004.

In the past year, OCR/HHS has obtained at least $10 million from
investigating and fining facilities involved with the breaches of
medical information.  Jerome Meites, chief regional civil rights
counsel at HHS, spoke at a recent American Bar Association
conference in Chicago, saying the last year of enforcement will
"pale in comparison" to enforcement actions planned for the next
12 months.

There is no doubt consumer data has value, and mass privacy
breaches of consumer financial or medical information do result in
measurable damages to the consumer.  Antitrust violations,
securities fraud claims, false advertising and similar claims all
allow injured individuals to bring civil claims against the
perpetrators, independent and in spite of governmental enforcement
action that may be brought in connection with the perpetrator's
negligent or wrongful practices.  Yet privacy breaches, on the
other hand, seem to be treated differently.

Privacy breaches have become an all-too-common occurrence.
Personal consumer information is big business not only on the
black market, but among companies in the U.S. and abroad, some of
whom sell this information as their most valuable or only product.
The state and federal governmental agencies charged with enforcing
privacy laws place great emphasis on the importance of regulatory
compliance -- but the real emphasis that must be made is on the
consumer's right to seek redress for the violation of their
private information.  The stolen financial or medical information
belongs to the consumer -- so should the right to pursue claims
for its unauthorized disclosure.


* Disgraced Class Action Lawyer Sells Home, Art Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Pierrepont, The Am Law Daily, reports that the former
securities class action titan Melvyn Weiss is downsizing.

The 79-year-old, Bronx-born Weiss, who pleaded guilty to
participating in a kickback scheme six years ago, is selling a
collection of more than 140 lithographs, etchings and figures by

Pablo Picasso, according to a New York state regulatory filing and
first reported by Bloomberg.  His waterfront home in Oyster Bay
Cove on Long Island's Gold Coast is also on the market for a cool
$18.8 million.

In 2008, Weiss, along with the three other partners behind New
York-based Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, one of the country's
largest class action law firms, admitted to a racketeering
conspiracy that allowed them to file legal actions on behalf of
professional plaintiffs.  From 1979 to 2005, the firm made an
estimated $250 million in attorney fees, prosecutors said.
Weiss was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in a minimum-security
federal prison and was ordered to pay nearly $10 million in
forfeitures and $250,000 in fines.  Three of his former partners,
William Lerach, David Bershad and Steven Schulman, were also
implicated. Milberg Weiss, now known as Milberg, paid $75 million
to settle federal charges.

"I'm going to be 80 years old -- I'm downsizing," Mr. Weiss told
The Am Law Daily in a phone interview on Oct. 7 when asked why he
was selling his art collection and home.

Mr. Weiss says he plans to continue spending time in Oyster Bay.
He and his wife Barbara have seven grandchildren and Mr. Weiss
notes that he is supporting his 104-year-old mother.

Though Mr. Weiss was automatically disbarred after his guilty plea
in 2008, The New York Times and others reported in 2011 that he
was trying to edge his way back into the legal arena by working as
a mediator.  But on Oct. 7, Mr. Weiss says his involvement is
limited.

"Every now and then somebody calls me and I help them out," he
says, adding that he's on the board of directors for the Israel
Policy Forum, which promotes a two-state solution in the Arab-
Israeli conflict. (A 2012 tax filing by the organization shows
that Weiss averaged about seven hours per week working for the New
York-based nonprofit.)

Mr. Weiss maintains that he's "still charitable," although he did
not disclose which organizations he supports.  "I keep myself
busy," he says.


                              *********

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  * * *