---

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

             Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 95

                             Headlines


3M COMPANY: Environmental Suit Over Decatur Facility Stayed
3M COMPANY: Second Suit Over Decatur Facility Remains Inactive
3M COMPANY: Lawsuit by Franklin County Resident Remains on Hold
3M COMPANY: Dismissed From Litigation Over Ceradyne Acquisition
ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Colorado

ANHING CORP: Recalls Chili Powder Due to Salmonella Risk
APPLE INC: Dist. Court Ruling in Adapter Litigation Reversed
ARTHROCARE CORP: Has MoU to Settle Securities Suit in Delaware
AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York
BACAI INC: Recalls LiteFit USA Due to Sibutramine Content

BANK OF NEW YORK: S.C. Tosses Counsel's Case For Lack of Standing
BARRICK GOLD: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
BLOCKHEAD'S BURRITOS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
BLUE MOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Hourly Employees' Overtime, Suit Says
BURGER KING: Dist. Court Denied Motion to Dismiss TCPA Suit

CALIFORNIA: Atty. Fee Bid Denied in Suit vs. Controller, SEIU
CATERPILLAR INC: Regeneration System Is Defective, Suit Claims
CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Engines
CHASQUI TRANSPORTATION: Sued for Not Paying Yard Assistant's OT
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Sex Abuse Legal Action Ongoing in Perth

CIGNA CORP: Appeals Order in Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit
CIGNA CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment in Ingenix Suit Pending
CSK AUTO: Parties in "Melgar" Suit Ordered to Meet and Confer
CYTRX CORP: Faces 3 Shareholder Suits in Calif. Federal Court
CYTRX CORP: Faces "Rajasekaran" Stock Suit in Calif. State Court

DOMINEX NATURAL: Recalls Corkscrew Pasta Due to Undeclared Nuts
DSI BUILDING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
EAGLE ROCK: Shareholders File Suit Over Regency Transaction
EURONET WORLDWIDE: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Former Employee
EXPEDIA INC: Consumer Plaintiffs File Leave to Amend Complaint

EXPEDIA INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Consumer Suit in Canada
EXPEDIA INC: Court Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit Against Hotwire
EXPEDIA INC: "Manriquez" Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
EXPEDIA INC: Court Denies Certification to Occupancy Tax Suit
FLAWLESS BEAUTY: Recalls Unapproved Drugs in the U.S.

GERON CORP: Faces Securities Litigations in California Court
HANOVER INSURANCE: Fails to Overturn Order in Suit by Ex-Employee
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Securities Litigation Junked
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: ERISA Suit Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
HICKORY FARMS: Recalls Chipotle Ranch Sauce

HOSPIRA INC: One Lot of 1% Lidocaine HCI Injection Recalled
HOSPIRA INC: One Lot of 0.25% Marcaine(TM) Recalled
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Solodyn Antitrust Suits Consolidated in Mass.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. in Discovery
INCYTE CORP: Delaware Court Dismisses Securities Litigation

INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Files Class Action in New Jersey
KROGER CO: Two Private Selection Ice Cream Flavors Recalled
L'OREAL USA: Judge Refuses to Certify Consumer Class Action
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Still Faces Suit by Lessors, Royalty Owners

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Pays $14.4MM in "Molina" Labor Litigation
LIFELOCK INC: Expects Consolidation of Shareholder Suits in Ariz.
LILY BLOOM'S: Kitchen Poparoons Contain Undeclared Milk
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Expects Court to Rule on "Bezich" Certification
LSI CORP: June 10 Fairness Hearing in Settlement of Merger Suit

M+W US: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Owed But Never Paid
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Rules in Suit v. Sheriff
MASIMO CORP: Motion to Stay "Unsolicited" Fax Ad Suit Pending
MASIMO CORP: Faces Amended Complaint in Ala. Over Pulse Oximeters
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Dismisses Amended Calif. Securities Suit

MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Weinberger Case in Israel Remains Stayed
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Withdrawal of TASE Delisting Suit Approved
METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Fails to Give 60-Day WARN Notice, Suit Says
MF GLOBAL: J.C. Flowers Defeats Sapere's Lawsuit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Partial Summ. Judgment Granted in "Grochowski"

MIFINCA FRESH: Removed "Angulo" FLSA Class Suit to S.D. Florida
MIRAVALLE FOODS: Ground Annato Recalled Due to Health Risk
NANO WELL-BEING: Recalls Super Arthgold Dietary Supplement
OSI SYSTEMS: Cal. Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Consumers Lose Bid to Certify Lawsuit

OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment in Favor of Redbox Under Appeal
OUTERWALL INC: DiSimone/Sinibaldi Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
PACIFIC ORGANIC: Listeria Risk Prompts Recalls of Mangos
PANTRY INC: Dismissed From Lawsuits Over Motor Fuel Temperature
PANTRY INC: Fairness Hearing Set in FACTA Violation Suit Accord

PFIZER INC: Faces "Smith" Suit in Kentucky Over Lipitor Drug
PFIZER INC: Zoloft Is Defective & Dangerous, Minor's Parents Say
PHOENIX LIFE: Judge Orders Trial in Class Action Over Rate Hikes
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: "Higgins" Suit Settlement Wins Final Approval
PPL CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss Cane Run Environmental Claims

PVF CAPITAL: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Merger Class Action
RICH FOODS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Suit Claims
SECURITY CREDIT: Faces "Weissmandl" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
SIXDOG INVESTMENTS: Recalls Eggs Due to Salmonella Risk
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Briefing in Suit v. Delta, AirTran Suspended

SPECIALTY RETAILERS: Negligently Contacted Class Members' Phones
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Employee Complaints v. Boeing Remain Pending
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: New Defendants Named in Kan. Securities Suit
STATE AUTO: Still Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over "ITV" Program
STATE FARM: Has Suppressed Payment for Auto Repairs, Suit Claims

STE FROMAGERE: Recalls Raclette and Montboissie Cheese
STONYFIELD: 188 6-Packs of Yobaby Peach/Pear Yogurt Cups Recalled
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Privacy Class Action Tossed
TARGET INC: Calif. Supreme Court Tosses Coffee Tax Class Action
TAYLOR CAPITAL: Has MoU to Settle MB Financial Merger Suit

TEMPUR SEALY: Bid to Dismiss "Dodson" Suit Denied
TEMPUR SEALY: Kentucky Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
TEMPUR SEALY: Still Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Mattress, Pillow
TELEXFREE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Int'l Pyramid Scheme
TEREX CORP: Files Motions to Dismiss ERISA, Securities Lawsuits

TOWER GROUP: Motions Filed to Consolidate Securities Lawsuits
TOWER GROUP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over ACP Re Merger Agreement
TOYO TIRE: Sued for Rigging Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Prices
TOYS "R" US: Pays Penalty for Antitrust Suit v. Babies "R" Us
TRULIA INC: Settlement of Suit Over Market Leader Merger Approved

TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Sued Over Unfair Means to Collect Debt
TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants-In-Part Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Suit vs. DHS and ICE
VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Tosses Suit Over Defective Audi Brakes

WEGMANS FOOD: Undeclared Egg Prompted Wegmans Easter Bread
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Blue Bunny Bordeaux Choco Ice Cream Recalled
WHOLE FOODS: Undeclared Egg Prompts Mini Butter Croissants Recall
XPO LOGISTICS: Settles Suit Over Pacer International Acquisition
YRC WORLDWIDE: Bryant Securities Suit Accord Up for Approval Anew

* Accounting Case Settlements in 2013 Up for Second Year


                            *********


3M COMPANY: Environmental Suit Over Decatur Facility Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
An environmental litigation filed against 3M Company in the
Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama remained stayed after the
filing of a bankruptcy petition by a co-defendant, according to
3M's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility. The Circuit Court in 2005
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In May 2013, the
Court stayed the case for an unknown period due to the filing of
a bankruptcy petition by a co-defendant.


3M COMPANY: Second Suit Over Decatur Facility Remains Inactive
--------------------------------------------------------------
No further action in the second case over 3M Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility is expected unless and until a
stay is lifted, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
(filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the first action, filed in the same
court in 2002. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and
property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members
of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected
unless and until the stay is lifted.


3M COMPANY: Lawsuit by Franklin County Resident Remains on Hold
---------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental case filed by a Franklin County, Alabama
resident against 3M Company remains on hold in the Morgan County
Circuit Court pending the resolution of class certification
issues in the first case filed there, according to the company's
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based
on the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands
in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT,
Inc., Synagro South, LLC, and Biological Processors of America.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010,
consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan
County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending
the resolution of the class certification issues in the first
case filed there.


3M COMPANY: Dismissed From Litigation Over Ceradyne Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County entered an order
dismissing 3M Company and Cyborg Acquisition Corporation from a
lawsuit over the acquisition of Ceradyne, Inc., according to 3M
Company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against Ceradyne, Inc., its directors, 3M, and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in
connection with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne. Two suits
were filed in California Superior Court for Orange County, and
two were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court. The suits alleged
that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach
of their fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by seeking to sell Ceradyne
through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and
on unfair terms, and/or by allegedly failing to make adequate
disclosures to Ceradyne stockholders regarding the acquisition of
Ceradyne. 3M completed its acquisition of Ceradyne in November
2012. In November 2012, the parties reached a settlement with the
California plaintiffs for an amount that is not material to the
Company, while the Delaware plaintiffs dismissed their complaints
without prejudice. The settlement will bind all former Ceradyne
shareholders and has received preliminary approval from the
California court. A final approval hearing was held in July 2013,
and the California Court denied approval of the settlement. The
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of
approval of the settlement, which motion was denied by the
California court. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint, which motion was denied without prejudice
in January 2014. By stipulation in February 2014, plaintiffs
agreed to voluntarily dismiss claims against 3M and Cyborg
Acquisition Corporation without prejudice. In March 2014, the
Court entered its Order dismissing 3M and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation from the action without prejudice.


ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Advanced
Emissions Solutions, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Colorado, and docketed under 1:14-cv-01243, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Advanced Emissions securities between March
14, 2013 and March 12, 2014, both dates inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Advanced Emissions
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 30, 2014
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides environmental technologies and specialty
chemicals to the coal-burning electric power generation industry,
primarily in the United States.  It operates through three
segments: Refined Coal, Emission Control, and CO2 Capture.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was employing
improper accounting practices, particularly with respect to its
method for recognizing revenue for its Emission Control business
segment contracts; (ii) the Company was experiencing increased
operating losses, primarily driven by a reduction of revenues and
margins for its Emission Control segment with a corresponding
increase in backlog; (iii) the improper accounting practices
would require the Company to restate its reported financial
statements, and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On March 13, 2014, the Company announced in a Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 8-K filing that, "the Company is
currently reviewing its accounting practices, particularly its
methods of recognizing revenue for its Emission Control business
segment contracts.  The Company expects the result of this review
will likely result in increased operating losses, primarily
driven by a reduction of revenues and margins for its emission
control segment with a corresponding increase in backlog for the
same period."

On this news, shares of Advanced Emissions fell from $54.23 to
$50.90, on March 13, 2014, on unusually heavy trading volume.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


ANHING CORP: Recalls Chili Powder Due to Salmonella Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Anhing Corporation of Los Angeles, CA is conducting a Nationwide
recall of Caravelle Brand Chili Powder in 8 ounce plastic tubs
lot code 560916, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

The product was distributed through retail stores.

This Chili Powder is contained in a clear plastic tub with a red
lid. It has an orange paper label which reads in part "Caravelle
CHILI POWDER HOT Net Weight 8 oz. (227G) Packed For ANHING CORP.
Los Angeles, CA 90031 PRODUCT OF THAILAND". It also contains Thai
and Chinese wording. The Bar Code is: 080736115551. There are two
codes involved 560916 or 570115. These codes ore located on a
white label adhering to the bottom of the plastic tub.

There are no illnesses reported to date.

This recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
State of Maryland.

The problem was noted only in code 560916, but as a precaution
Anhing is recalling the other code also present in the shipment.
The company has ceased the distribution of the product as FDA and
the company continues their investigation as to what caused the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-323-221-8003 between 9AM
and 5PM Pacific Standard Time


APPLE INC: Dist. Court Ruling in Adapter Litigation Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed a
district court's judgment in In re: MAGSAFE APPLE POWER ADAPTER
LITIGATION, NAOTAKA KITAGAWA, Jr.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. ROBERT JOSEPH GAUDET, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE,
INC., Defendant-Appellee. In re: MAGSAFE APPLE POWER ADAPTER
LITIGATION, NAOTAKA KITAGAWA, Jr.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. MARIE GRYPHON, Objector, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, NOS. 12-15757, 12-15782.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's March 8, 2012,
order approving the settlement agreement and attorneys' fee award
in the cases; its May 29, 2012, order requiring the objectors to
post appeal bonds; and its August 22, 2012 order striking an
objection filed by Robert Joseph Gaudet's objection to the
settlement agreement and attorneys' fee award. The case is
remanded for further proceedings.

In its April 24, 2014 memorandum, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/KmCu5afrom leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit found that
the district court did not cross-check the attorneys' fee award
against the percentage-of-the-recovery method. The district court
conducted the fairness hearing before the claims-submission
period closed, leaving the Ninth Circuit with no reliable way of
estimating how many valid claims were submitted or the total
amount that Apple intends to pay claimants under the refund
component of the settlement agreement.

The district court also did not assess with specificity whether
class counsel received a disproportionate share of the
settlement, nor did it mention the clear-sailing provision or the
implied reversion clause, ruled the Ninth Circuit.


ARTHROCARE CORP: Has MoU to Settle Securities Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement was reached providing for the settlement of all of
the claims in In re ArthroCare Corporation Stockholder
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9313-VCL, according to the company's
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Shortly following the announcement of the Merger, eight putative
class action and/or derivative lawsuits were filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware by alleged stockholders of
ArthroCare against various combinations of the Company, the
individual directors of the Company, Smith & Nephew, Merger Sub,
Parent HoldCo, One Equity Partners LLC, One Equity Partners, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC ("J.P. Morgan Securities"), and JPMorgan
Chase & Co. (together with its subsidiaries, "JPM"). By orders
entered on February 25, March 14, and March 19, 2014, the Court
consolidated these actions under the caption In re ArthroCare
Corporation Stockholder Litigation , Consol. C.A. No. 9313-VCL
(the "Consolidated Action"), and appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel.

On March 18, 2014, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Verified
Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the
"Complaint") in the Consolidated Action. The Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and
that Smith & Nephew, Merger Sub, Parent HoldCo, the OEP Entities,
J.P. Morgan Securities, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. aided and
abetted these fiduciary breaches. In support of these claims, the
lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Merger
consideration undervalues the Company, that the sales process
leading up to the Merger was flawed and influenced by conflicts
of interest, that JPM, J.P. Morgan Securities, and the OEP
Entities facilitated the sale of the Company to Smith & Nephew in
order to facilitate OEP's exit from its investment in the
Company, assist OEP and JPM in the spin-off of OEP out of JPM,
and obtain for JPM and its affiliates fees for roles as financial
adviser to Smith & Nephew in the Merger and in the transaction
financing for the Merger, and that the Merger Agreement contains
deal-protection provisions that unduly favor Smith & Nephew and
deter potential superior proposals.

The Complaint also alleges that the Merger violates 8 Del C. Sec.
203 ("Section 203"). In support of this claim, the Complaint
alleges that Smith & Nephew became an owner of 15% or more of the
Company's voting securities and an interested stockholder in the
Company (as those terms are defined in Section 203) by engaging
J.P. Morgan Securities and a JPM subsidiary as its financial
adviser and loan underwriter, respectively, in connection with
the Merger. In light of this allegation, the Complaint further
alleges that because the Merger is not subject to approval of
holders of 66-2/3% of the Company's outstanding shares (other
than those shares deemed to be owned by Smith & Nephew), the
Merger violates Section 203.

The Complaint also alleges that the Merger violates, and that the
Company failed to enforce, certain standstill provisions of the
August 14, 2009 Securities Purchase Agreement, which was entered
into with the Company at the time that the OEP Entities invested
in the Company. The Complaint further alleges that the
preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company on March 6, 2014
omits certain material information concerning, among other
things, the process leading up to the Merger, the financial
interests of, and roles in the Merger by, JPM and the OEP
Entities, the inputs and analysis in Piper Jaffray & Co.'s
fairness opinion analysis, and the role of Goldman Sachs & Co.
The Consolidated Action seeks, among other things, a declaratory
judgment, to enjoin the Merger, unspecified money damages, costs
and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 21, 2014, the Court scheduled a hearing for April 28-29,
2014 to hear co-lead plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin
the Merger and hear, on an expedited basis, the parties'
arguments on whether Section 203 applies to the Merger.

On April 9, 2014, following expedited discovery, the parties to
the Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle
providing for the settlement of all of the claims in the
Consolidated Action on the terms and conditions set forth in a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").  Pursuant to the MOU,
Smith & Nephew agreed to pay or cause to be paid on behalf of
itself and all other defendants twelve million U.S. dollars
(US$12,000,000) (the "Settlement Payment") into an interest-
bearing account established by co-lead counsel (the "Common
Fund").  Co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and the class will retain
an administrator (the "Administrator") to oversee the
administration and distribution of the Common Fund and the
Settlement Payment.  The Administrator's costs and any other
costs of administering the Settlement Payment (other than the
reasonable costs of notice to class members) will be deducted
from the Common Fund prior to distribution of the Settlement
Payment.  Following final Court approval of the settlement, the
Administrator will distribute the Settlement Payment on a pro
rata basis to all holders of record of shares of ArthroCare
common stock as of the date the Merger closes, except no such
payment shall be made to any defendant in the Consolidated Action
or its respective affiliates for their own account(s), pursuant
to further terms and conditions set forth in the MOU.  In
addition, pursuant to the MOU, defendants acknowledged that the
pendency and prosecution of the Consolidated Action were causal
factors underlying ArthroCare's decision to include certain
supplemental disclosures in the definitive proxy statement filed
by ArthroCare with the SEC on April 3, 2014.  Plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, to which defendants reserve all
rights.  The parties to the Consolidated Action have agreed that
any such award will not be deducted from the Common Fund.

The MOU further provides that, among other things, (a) the
parties will enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement
(the "Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Court
for review and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the Consolidated Action on the merits; (c) the
Stipulation will include a general release of defendants of
claims relating to the Merger; and (d) the proposed settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the Merger,
completion of confirmatory discovery, class certification, and
final approval by the Court after notice to ArthroCare's
stockholders.


AVON PRODUCTS: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is seeking to dismiss an amended securities
complaint filed against it by the City of Brockton Retirement
System, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including
October 26, 2011. The amended complaint names the Company and two
individual defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the
adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012.


BACAI INC: Recalls LiteFit USA Due to Sibutramine Content
---------------------------------------------------------
Bacai Inc. is voluntarily recalling 13165 lot (lot number is
found next to the expiration date) of LiteFit USA, to the retail
and consumer level. This product is used as an herbal diet
supplement and is packaged in plastic bottles of 30 softgels.
Sample analysis by the FDA has revealed that this product
contained sibutramine.

Risk Statement: Sibutramine is a controlled substance that was
removed from the market in October 2010 for safety reasons. The
product poses a threat to consumers because sibutramine is known
to substantially increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in
some patients and may present a significant risk for patients
with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart
failure, arrhythmias, or stroke. This product may also interact,
in life-threatening ways, with other medications a consumer may
be taking.

Bacai is the distributor of LiteFit USA an herbal diet supplement
manufactured by Global Herb, LLC. Bacai was approached by Global
Herb to distribute its herbal diet supplement LiteFit USA which
it guaranteed is made in the US and meets with all US health and
safety standards. As proof of its legitimacy, Global Herb
provided Bacai with the certification of analysis for LiteFit
USA.  Based on Global Herb's guaranty and the certification of
analysis, in the summer of 2013 Bacai entered into a good faith
oral contract to distribute LiteFit USA. Subsequently, Bacai was
contacted by the FDA and informed that, unbeknownst to Bacai,
LiteFit USA contained Sibutramine.

Without admitting guilt or wrongdoing, Bacai is voluntarily
recalling all LiteFit USA distribute by Bacai from June 26, 2013
to March 27, 2014 to the retail and consumer level. Todate, Bacai
has not received any reports of adverse events related to this
recall.

The affected LiteFit USA lots include the following lot number
13165, Expires: May 2017. LiteFit USA was distributed worldwide
to wholesalers, retailers, and through the internet.

Bacai is notifying its distributors and customers by mail and is
arranging for return and refunds of all Litefit USA sold in the
US. Consumers/distributors/retailers that have product which is
being recalled should stop using and return it to the place of
purchase.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Bacai
by 714-775-0050 from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm PDT. Consumers should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using
this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


BANK OF NEW YORK: S.C. Tosses Counsel's Case For Lack of Standing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants The Bank of New York Mellon and The Bank of New York
Mellon Corp., on behalf of themselves and dissolved entity BNY
Alternative Investment Services, Inc., move to dismiss an action,
pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), based on documentary
evidence and for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants
also move to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing.

Plaintiffs are three law firms that represented two subclasses in
consolidated federal class actions (Matter of Tremont Securities
Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, US Dist Ct SD NY 09 MD
2052, 08 Civ 11117 [TPG]) (Tremont action), alleging claims
arising out of the Madoff Ponzi scheme.

In a Decision and Order dated April 15, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/AjwzVgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Marcy S.
Friedman of the the Supreme Court, New York County granted the
motion of The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation, and BNY Alternative Investment Services, Inc.
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7),
and on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing.  The complaint
is dismissed with prejudice.

The case is captioned PLAINTIFFS' STATE AND SECURITIES LAW
SETTLEMENT CLASS COUNSEL ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP and BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP IN THEIR CAPACITIES
AS CO-LEAD COUNSEL AND LEAD COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE STATE LAW
SUB-CLASS AND THE SECURITIES SUBCLASS IN "IN RE TREMONT
SECURITIES LAW, STATE LAW AND INSURANCE LITIGATION," and not in
their individual capacities, Plaintiffs, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY ALTERNATIVE
INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., AND JOHN DOES 1-9 INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, RYE SELECT BROAD MARKET FUND LP, RYE SELECT BROAD
MARKET PRIME FUND LP, and RYE SELECT BROAD MARKET XL FUND LP,
Nominal Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO. 653415/2011, 2014 NY Slip Op
30992(U).


BARRICK GOLD: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to miningweekly.com, the world's top gold producer on
May 2 said it would "vigorously defend" itself against class
actions instigated by Toronto-based Merchant Law Group with the
Courts in Ontario and Alberta, alleging that between May 7, 2009,
to May 23, 2013, Barrick Gold had misrepresented the status of
its roughly $8.5-billion Pascua-Lama copper/gold project
straddling the Argentine/Chilean border.

Merchant Law Group started Canada-wide multibillion-dollar
shareholder class actions seeking compensation for purchasers of
Barrick securities, whom according to the law firm, had lost
billions of dollars as a result of Barrick's "misrepresentations
and failures" regarding the Pascua-Lama project.

"The company is aware that a notice of action has been filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  Barrick disputes the
allegations, and will defend itself against any lawsuit
vigorously," Barrick spokesperson Andy Lloyd said in an emailed
statement to Mining Weekly Online.

During the fourth quarter of 2013, Barrick announced the
temporary suspension of construction at Pascua-Lama, except for
activities required for environmental and regulatory compliance.
The project encountered problems last year when a local
indigenous community, aided by nongovernmental organizations,
complained about water from the construction processes polluting
the Estrecho river, which communities in the valley need for
agriculture and personal use.

The complainants said excessively high concentrations of arsenic,
aluminium, copper and other elements had been found in the water
near Pascua-Lama, which had become one of the most unpopular
mining ventures in Chile.

Barrick denied that it had polluted the river, but agreed to
build a new water management system.

After regulators stopped construction on the Chilean side of the
project at the end of 2012, the company resolved to slow
construction and, currently, to mothball the project.

Barrick also has emerging labor unrest on the Chilean side to
deal with.

These delays and additional infrastructure commitments are
expected to further raise the project's total cost.

The company expects to spend about $300-million on Pascua-Lama
during 2014.

The company on April 30 said that the ramp-down was on schedule
to be complete by midyear and that the majority of demobilization
had already taken place.  It said that a decision to restart
development would depend on improved economics and reduced
uncertainty related to legal and regulatory requirements. The
remaining development would take place in distinct stages with
specific work programs and budgets to facilitate more efficient
execution and improved cost control.

Barrick added that it continued to explore opportunities to
improve the project's risk-adjusted returns, including strategic
partnerships or royalty and other income-streaming agreements.

The deposit is located on the border between Chile and Argentina,
with 75% of the orebody lying in Chile and 25% in Argentina.  It
is a world-class resource of almost 18-million ounces of National
Instrument 43-101-compliant proven and probable gold reserves and
676-million ounces of silver contained within the gold reserves,
with a mine life of 25 years.  It is expected to produce between
800 000 oz and 850 000 oz of gold and 35-million ounces of silver
in its first five years of production.


BLOCKHEAD'S BURRITOS: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Moses, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, Ryan Duncan, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees, and O'Neil Dennis,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees v. Blockhead's Burritos, Inc. d/b/a Blockheads
Burritos, Ram Eats, LLC d/b/a Blockheads Burritos, Egg White,
Inc. d/b/a Blockheads Burritos, Ken Sofer, and Don Sofer, Case
No. 1:14-cv-03075-LGS (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2014) alleges that the
Plaintiffs worked more than 44 hours per week at their respective
locations without being paid overtime.

Blockhead's Burritos, Inc., doing business as Blockheads
Burritos, is a New York Corporation located in New York City.
The Company owns, operates and controls six Blockheads Burritos
restaurants, one Benny's Burritos, and one Mother Burger.

Ram Eats, LLC, doing business as Blockheads Burritos, is a New
York Corporation that owns and operates a Blockheads Burritos in
New York.  Egg White, Inc., doing business as Blockheads
Burritos, is a New York Corporation that owns and operates a
Blockheads Burritos in New York.  The Individual Defendants are
owners, officers or agents of the Defendant Corporations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
          GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2743
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 300-5358
          Facsimile: (888) 265-7054
          E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com


BLUE MOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Hourly Employees' Overtime, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Murphy, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Blue Mountain Health System, Case No. 3:14-cv-00840-
JMM (M.D. Pa., April 30, 2014) accuses the Company of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
other hourly employees any compensation for work time that -- had
it been credited -- would have been counted in whole or in part
as overtime hours.

Blue Mountain Health System is corporate entity headquartered in
Lehighton, Pennsylvania (Carbon County).  The Company is a
regional health services company that owns and operates various
healthcare facilities, including the Palmerton Hospital (a
hospital facility in Palmerton, Pennsylvania), The Village at
Palmerton (an assisted living facility in Palmerton), Gnaden
Huetten Memorial Hospital (a hospital facility in Lehighton,
Pennsylvania), and The Summit at Blue Mountain (a nursing and
rehabilitation center in Lehighton).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
                  asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
                  mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


BURGER KING: Dist. Court Denied Motion to Dismiss TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc. brought a purported class action
captioned JAY CLOGG REALTY GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING
CORP., Defendant, CASE NO. PWG-13-662, (D. Md.) under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227,
alleging that Defendant Burger King Corp. sent improper and
unsolicited facsimile advertisements to members of the purported
plaintiff class. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint or
to strike the class allegations, arguing that Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim and that, in any event, claims under the
TCPA are not amenable to class relief.

"Because I find that there is nothing in the TCPA that precludes
a class action, the motion to dismiss is denied," District Judge
Paul W. Grimm ruled in his April 15, 2014 Memorandum Opinion,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/jekANcfrom
Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied with
leave to refile once Plaintiff obtains adequate factual support
for its motion, Judge Grimm added.

The Defendant must answer Plaintiff's Complaint within the time
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.

Jay Clogg Realty Group, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A
Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law PC, Matthew P
McCue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- The Law Office of Matthew P
McCue & Stephen Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us -- Stephen H Ring
PC.

Burger King Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott
Blynn -- dblynn@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye and Warren LLP.


CALIFORNIA: Atty. Fee Bid Denied in Suit vs. Controller, SEIU
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DIANNE KNOX, et al., on
behalf of themselves and the classes they represent, Plaintiffs,
v. JOHN CHIANG, Controller, State of California, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:05-CV-02198-MCE-CMK, (E.D. Cal.), are state
employees who have  sought redress from Defendants Controller of
the State of California John Chiang and Service Employees
International Union, Local 1000 (SEIU) for violations of
Plaintiffs' First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiffs alleged, and the Supreme
Court of the United States ultimately held, that Defendants used
Plaintiffs' monies to support political causes without satisfying
constitutionally required procedural safeguards. Following entry
of judgment, Plaintiffs were awarded attorney's fees and
expenses. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental
Attorney's Fees.

In a memorandum and order dated April 16, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/zs3wZpfrom Leagle.com, Chief
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion saying Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a) provides a mechanism by which
a party can provide an estimate for the amount of fees sought,
"yet Plaintiff failed to do so and instead filed the instant
motion well beyond the time required under Local Rule 293(a)."
Plaintiffs fail to show good cause for why their untimely request
for attorney's fees should be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs'
Motion must be denied, he said.

Dianne Knox, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young, National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

William L. Blaylock, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young,
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Robert A. Conover, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young,
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Edward L. Dobrowolski, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by W. James
Young, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc &
Steven R. Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Karyn Gil, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young, National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Thomas Jacob Hass, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young,
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Patrick Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young,
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Jon Jumper, Plaintiff, represented by W. James Young, National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc & Steven R.
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham.

Steve Westly, Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Woods, Cal.
Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General.

California State Employees Association, Local 1000, Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey B. Demain -- jdemain@altshulerberzon.com -
- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Peder J. Thoreen --
pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

State Controller John Chiang, Defendant, represented by Douglas
J. Woods, Cal. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General.


CATERPILLAR INC: Regeneration System Is Defective, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Bagley, an individual v. Caterpillar, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00323-DBP (D. Utah, April 30, 2014)
is brought on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated
persons, who purchased or leased a vehicle with a 2007, 2008,
2009, or 2010 Caterpillar, Inc. C-13 or C-15 heavy duty on-
highway diesel engine (collectively "MY22007 CAT Engine") in
Utah.

MY2007 CAT engine contains exhaust emission controls to reduce
diesel engine exhaust emissions in compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's 2007 Heavy Duty On Highway
Emissions Standard, according to the complaint.  To meet the EPA
2007 Emission Standard applicable to heavy duty, on-highway
diesel engines, Caterpillar designed, manufactured, sold for
profit, and warranted MY2007 CAT Engines with an exhaust emission
control system containing integrated components intended to
reduce air pollutants, in particular, oxides of nitrogen and
particulate matter, to levels not to exceed those set by the 2007
Standard.  The exhaust emission control system employed by CAT is
known as the "Caterpillar Regeneration System" or "CRS."

The Defendant's CRS is defective in material and workmanship
causing the vehicle to not function as required under all
operating conditions, on a consistent and reliable basis, even
after repeated emissions warranty repairs and replacements, Mr.
Bagley alleges.  He contends that these repeated warranty repairs
and replacements failed to repair or correct the CRS defect
resulting in damages, including diminished value of the vehicles
powered by MY2007 CAT Engines, and the costs to re-power the
vehicles with diesel engines that are compliant with the 2007 EPA
Emission Standards.

Caterpillar, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business located in Peoria, Illinois, and is registered
to conduct business in Georgia.  Caterpillar designed,
manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected,
marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the MY2007
CAT Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control, the
CRS, to be free of defects in material and workmanship.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Clark, Esq.
          Darren K. Nelson, Esq.
          PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
          185 S. State Street, Suite 800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-7840
          Facsimile: (801) 532-7750
          E-mail: rclark@parrbrown.com
                  dnelson@parrbrown.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  DEcklund@carellabyrne.com


CATERPILLAR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Engines
----------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Law360, reports that trucking company
Scenic Boundaries Trans Inc. slammed Caterpillar Inc. with a
putative class action in Minnesota federal court on April 30
alleging the company manufactured thousands of diesel engines
with defective emissions reduction systems that made their
vehicles unreliable.

Scenic Boundaries filed suit on behalf of any company or
individual who purchased or leased a vehicle with Caterpillar's
2007 model year heavy duty on-highway diesel engine, as the
engines have repeatedly failed despite numerous warranty repairs
and replacements to the emissions system.

According to Scenic Boundaries, Caterpillar created the emissions
system to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
requirements, but Caterpillar's product frequently clogs and
fails to burn off excess emissions, leading to engine shutdown.
The engines will not start running again until they undergo
costly repairs, but those services haven't ameliorated the issues
in the long run.

"Scenic Boundaries used these vehicles in the operation of its
business and experienced repeated after treatment and
regeneration failures rendering its vehicles inoperable for the
transportation of goods," the complaint said.  "Scenic Boundaries
repeatedly took its vehicles to an authorized Caterpillar repair
facility for remediation which remediation did not correct the
defect in the MY2007 CAT Engine causing the vehicles to be
unavailable for transportation."

Caterpillar's emissions system for the heavy duty diesel engines
comprises of a diesel particulate filter, after-treatment
regeneration device and electronic control module, with the
filter burning off the first round of emissions and additional
emissions getting picked up by the regeneration device.  The
control module monitors and regulates the emissions reduction,
but all three parts of the system are likely to fail, Scenic
Boundaries said.

Although Caterpillar knew it couldn't fix the emissions systems
failures, it continued to attempt to repair and replace the
engines, leaving vehicle owners in the lurch as they underwent
multiple trips to repair shops.

"Defendant represented to plaintiff and class members that each
emission warranty repair would correct the defect; therefore,
plaintiff and class members continue to experience defective
exhaust emission control, when CAT knew, or should have known,
that the [Caterpillar Regeneration System] defect could not be
corrected," the complaint said.

Caterpillar eventually stopped producing the faulty engines in
2009 or 2010, the complaint claimed, and it maintained
Caterpillar shouldn't be allowed to evade the class action based
on possible statute of limitations issues.

"Given Caterpillar's failure to disclose this known but non-
public information about the defective nature of the MY 2007 CAT
Engines -- information over which it had exclusive control -- and
because plaintiff and class members therefore could not
reasonably have known that the MY Cat Engines were defective,
Caterpillar is estopped from relying and should not be allowed to
rely on any exception regarding any statutes of limitation that
might otherwise be applicable to the claims asserted herein," the
complaint said.

Scenic Boundaries' putative class action includes multiple breach
of warranty claims as well as allegations the engine maker
violated Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Prevention
of Consumer Fraud Act.

Scenic Boundaries is represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield and
Roberta A. Yard of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Richard J.
Burke and Jamie E. Weiss of Complex Litigation Group LLC, and
Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP.

The case is Scenic Boundaries Trans Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.,
case number 0:14-cv-01352, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.


CHASQUI TRANSPORTATION: Sued for Not Paying Yard Assistant's OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Delcarpio, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Chasqui Transportation Company, Jose Delcarpio,
Case No. 9:14-cv-80578-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2014) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Delcarpio worked for the Defendants as a yard assistant from
August 26, 2010, through October 25, 2012.  He contends that the
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay his
overtime wages as required by the FLSA.

Chasqui Transportation Company is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Palm Beach County.  Jose Delcarpio is a
corporate officer or owner of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Markel, Esq.
          THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
          3191 Grand Avenue #1513
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 458-1282
          Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
          E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com


CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Sex Abuse Legal Action Ongoing in Perth
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aleisha Orr, writing for WA Today, reports that a lawyer who
defended the Christian Brothers against a class action over child
sexual abuse has described the legal action as a "tsunami" that
needed to be "managed".

Carrolll & O'Dea partner Howard Harrison --
hharrison@codea.com.au -- gave evidence to the Royal Commission
into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse on May 1 and
was expected to be questioned further on May 2.

Public hearings were being held in Perth in relation to sexual
abuse at Christian Brothers run institutions in WA between the
1940s and 1960s.

Mr. Harrison said when pressed that "some" members of the Order
must have been aware of the abuse at the time of legal
proceedings in the 1990s.

The class action representing about 200 men began in 1993 and a
settlement was not reached until three years later.  When asked
about why mediation was not done in the earlier stages of the
process to try to avoid a lengthy court battle, Mr. Harrison said
mediation was an option but because the law firm had a lack of
detail about the case, it did not go ahead.

"An early kind of rollover without proper particulars and
validation and some level of crosschecking could prejudice the
capacity of the order to continue to undertake its ministry," he
said.

The chair of the commission questioned whether a Brother who had
written a report into the history of child sexual abuse within
the order in previous years was engaged by the defense as a
"tactic" to ensure the Brother would be "unavailable" to provide
further background to the report to the plaintiff.

Mr. Harrison said this was not the law firm's aim but agreed that
it was the outcome.   Mr. Harrison was to be the first witness on
May 2.

WA Department of Local Government and Communities director
Narrell Lethorn was also expected to front the hearing.

Shewas expected to give evidence about the establishment,
operation and effectiveness of the Redress WA scheme.

The hearing also heard from Slater & Gordon lawyer Hayden
Stephens, who told the hearing victims were "dragged through"
three years of litigation for a payout that did not reflect the
impact on the victims.


CIGNA CORP: Appeals Order in Amara Cash Balance Pension Plan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation is appealing a ruling ordering it to reform its
Pension Plan, and plaintiffs in a suit filed by purported
participants in the Plan are appealing the decertification of a
class, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation
and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the Cigna Pension Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations including, among other
things, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates
against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-
away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the
post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan description contained
inaccurate or inadequate disclosure about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on
the disclosure claim only, and ordered payment of enhanced
benefits, requiring that class members receive pre-1998 benefits
under the pre-conversion traditional formula and post-1997
accrued benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
decision on all issues, following which the U.S. Supreme Court
granted the Company's petition to review the case.  In May 2011,
the Supreme Court held that the District Court erred in ordering
enhanced benefits under a section of ERISA that allows recovery
of plan benefits only, and directed that the District Court
consider alternate remedies under a different section of ERISA
that allows for "appropriate equitable relief."  In December
2012, the District Court interpreted the Supreme Court's opinion
and ordered the Company to reform the Plan to pay substantially
the same benefits as had been ordered in 2008.  In addition, the
District Court denied the Company's motion to decertify the
class.  Both parties appealed, and the Second Circuit heard oral
arguments in February 2014.  The Company will continue to
vigorously defend its position in this case.


CIGNA CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment in Ingenix Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et
al. is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of the named plaintiffs only and Cigna
Corporation's motion for summary judgment remains pending,
according to Cigna's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

In April 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a number
of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company
improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through
the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of
the Company's competitors.  These actions were consolidated into
Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed on August 7,
2009, asserts claims related to benefits and disclosure under
ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various
medical associations and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments
from 1998 through the present.  Other major health insurers are
the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court dismissed all claims by the
health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack
of standing, the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law
claims and the disclosure claim under ERISA.  In January 2013 and
again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions
by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber
plaintiffs.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
denied plaintiff's request for an immediate appeal of the January
2013 ruling. At present, the case is proceeding in the District
Court on behalf of the named plaintiffs only.  The Company's
motion for summary judgment remains pending.

In addition, the Company and other health insurers were subject
to an investigation by the New York State Attorney General in
2008, the industry-wide resolution of which included the
Company's $10 million contribution to a non-profit organization
that manages the data formerly provided by Ingenix.


CSK AUTO: Parties in "Melgar" Suit Ordered to Meet and Confer
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2014, the parties in the lawsuit captioned OSMIN
MELGAR, Plaintiff, v. CSK AUTO, INC., Defendant, NO. C-13-3769
EMC, (N.D. Cal.) filed a joint letter which raised three
discovery disputes that the parties have been unable to resolve
through the meet and confer process.

District Judge Edward M. Chen ruled on these disputes on April
16, 2014.  In his ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/jgkiFDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen ruled that
Plaintiffs are entitled to discover the contact information of
all putative class members who are: (1) former employees of
Defendant for all purposes; or (2) assistant managers and key
carriers to the extent the communication relates to those
individuals' percipient knowledge of the underlying dispute and
events. Prior to the release of any contact information, the
parties must comply with the notice procedures discussed in
Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.4th
554 (2007). The parties must meet and confer in light of the
Court's guidance on the following issues: (1) the form of the
Belaire-West notice to be distributed and (2) the form, manner,
and questions Plaintiff's contact with putative class members
will take.

The parties must also meet and confer:

* about whether the survey of putative class members is necessary
  in light of the documentation Defendant represents it has and
  the form of any such survey. This meet and confer process will
  include Defendant providing Plaintiff with a reasonable sample
  of the documentation it contends includes the information
  Plaintiff seeks.

* regarding the need for any extensions of discovery deadlines or
  the need to amend the discovery dates initially proposed by the
  parties in their February 27, 2014 letter.

Osmin Melgar, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Malk --
mm@malklawmm.com -- Michael Malk, ESQ., APC.

CSK Auto, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Michael Peterson
-- peterson@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP, Edwin M.
Boniske -- boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP &
Jason Conroy Ross -- jasross@gmail.com -- Higgs Fletcher Mack.


CYTRX CORP: Faces 3 Shareholder Suits in Calif. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation currently faces three purported federal
securities litigations in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's
May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

These actions state substantially the same causes of action, and
allegedly arise from the same events.

(i) Chen v. CytRx Corporation, et al.

On March 14, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and an officer, DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Chen vs. CytRx Corporation, et al., No. CV-
14-1956-GHK-(RTWx). The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of all shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock between November 22, 2013 and March 13, 2014. The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws in
connection with various public statements purportedly issued by
the company or on the company's behalf. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and attorney's fees
and costs.

(ii) Perri v. CytRx Corporation, et al.

On March 18, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and an officer, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Perri v.
CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02052-DDP-(JCGx). The
complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, asserts claims
substantially identical to those asserted in Chen v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., No. CV-14-1956-GHK-(RTWx), described above.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount
and attorney's fees and costs.

(iii) Kim v. CytRx Corporation, et al.

On April 9, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and an officer, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned Kim v.
CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02689-DMG-(AJWx). The
complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
November 22, 2013 and March 13, 2014, asserts claims
substantially identical to those asserted in Chen v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., No. CV-14-1956-GHK-(RTWx), and Perri v.
CytRx Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-02052-DDP-(JCGx),
described above. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and attorney's fees and costs.


CYTRX CORP: Faces "Rajasekaran" Stock Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is a purported state shareholder class action filed against
CytRx Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain officers and each director, as
well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's secondary common stock offering, which closed on
February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendant violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements in filings with the SEC. The complaint
seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, rescission,
and attorney's fees and costs.


DOMINEX NATURAL: Recalls Corkscrew Pasta Due to Undeclared Nuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominex Natural Foods, LLC, is voluntarily recalling its
AngelBowls Corkscrew Pasta and Creamy Tomato Vodka Sauce with
following day codes: 00914 and 01314; ("Corkscrew Pasta") because
its ingredients may include undeclared pine nuts, a potential
allergen. The company has determined that a small number of cases
were inadvertently mispackaged. No illnesses or allergic
reactions have been associated with this product to date.

In an abundance of caution, Dominex Natural Foods, LLC, is taking
the added measure of recalling all product that was manufactured
with the day codes mentioned. The company has already determined
the cause and has worked to eliminate the issue.

Only one flavor of AngelBowls is affected by this recall:

Corkscrew Pasta and Creamy Tomato and Vodka Sauce boxes stamped
with UPC code 2780607001 and date code 00914 and 01314 are
included in this recall.

No other AngelBowls products or any other Dominex products are
affected by the recall. Dominex is taking precautionary steps to
remove all potentially impacted products from retail store
shelves and the entire distribution system.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products should return
them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund.
Anyone requiring more information should contact Dominex consumer
affairs at 1-844-660-9838, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. until 5
p.m. (CST).


DSI BUILDING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Blanco, 836 Bonifant Street, SilverSpring, Maryland 209101,
On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. DSI
Building Services, Inc., 1433 Blandfield Court, Vienna, Virginia
22182, and William Giery, 1433 Blandfield Court, Vienna, Virginia
22182, Case No. 1:14-cv-00475-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va., April 30, 2014)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

DSI is a corporation formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia based in Vienna, Virginia.  DSI has been engaged in
building services and construction and demolition related
business activities in Virginia, District of Columbia and
Maryland.  William Giery has been the controlling officer,
controlling member and holder of a substantial financial interest
in DSI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          836 Bonifant Street
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


EAGLE ROCK: Shareholders File Suit Over Regency Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. faces securities suits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In March and April 2014, alleged unitholders of the Partnership
filed three class action lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the
Partnership's public unitholders. The lawsuits name the
Partnership, its Board of Directors, Regency Energy Partners,
L.P. ("Regency"), and Regal Midstream LLC as defendants. One of
the lawsuits also names the Partnership's general partner and its
general partner's general partner as defendants. Plaintiffs in
each lawsuit allege a variety of causes of action challenging
Regency's acquisition of the Partnership's midstream assets,
including alleged breaches of fiduciary or contractual duties,
alleged aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of duty, and
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
lawsuits allege that the Partnership (i) sold its midstream
assets for inadequate value, (ii) engaged in an unfair sales
process, (iii) agreed to contractual terms (the no-solicitation,
fiduciary out, superior proposal, and termination fee provisions
and the voting and support agreement) that would dissuade other
potential acquirors from seeking to purchase the midstream
assets, and (iv) failed to disclose material information in its
definitive proxy statement concerning the analysis of the
company's financial advisors, potential conflicts of the advisors
(and directors), management's financial projections, strategic
alternatives, other potential acquirors, the bases for certain
actions, and the background of the transaction. Based on these
allegations, the plaintiffs seek in each case to enjoin the
Partnership from proceeding with or consummating the sale of its
midstream assets. To the extent that the sale is consummated
before injunctive relief is granted, the plaintiffs seek to have
the sale rescinded. The plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and
attorneys' fees.


EURONET WORLDWIDE: Reaches Settlement in Suit by Former Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a suit
filed by a former employee, according to the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

During 2012, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit
filed by a former employee alleging wage and hour violations
relating to meal and rest period requirements. The Company has
reached an agreement to settle this lawsuit for an immaterial
amount and completed the settlement in 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: Consumer Plaintiffs File Leave to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated antitrust suit filed against online
travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., filed a motion for
leave to amend a complaint, according to the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Since August 20, 2012, more than thirty putative class action
lawsuits, which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have
been initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs
alleging claims against the online travel companies, including
Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged resale price
maintenance for online hotel room reservations, including but not
limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection statutes and common law tort claims,
such as unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated and
transferred to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas. On February 18, 2014, the
court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but allowed the
plaintiffs the opportunity to move for leave to amend their
complaint. On March 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed their motion for
leave to amend.


EXPEDIA INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Consumer Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court granted on April 2, 2014 Expedia Canada's motion
for summary judgment, dismissed plaintiffs' remaining consumer
class claims and awarded Expedia costs and attorneys' fees,
according to Expedia, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit Against Hotwire
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court consolidated on March 28, 2014 the Miller and Frank
putative class action cases and granted Hotwire's motion to
dismiss as to both cases, according to Expedia Inc.'s May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: "Manriquez" Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case Manriquez v. Expedia was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice on April 1, 2014, according to Expedia Inc.'s May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Denies Certification to Occupancy Tax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the City of Breckenridge Litigation, which is a
suit over the payment of hotel occupancy taxes, according to
Expedia Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.


FLAWLESS BEAUTY: Recalls Unapproved Drugs in the U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------
Asbury Park, NJ, Flawless Beauty and Skin is voluntarily
recalling 11 lots of Roche Laroscrobine Platinum, Relumins
Advanced Glutathione, QAF Pharmaceuticals Inc. Philippines Saluta
Glutathione Rx, Tatiomax Reduced Glutathione + Hydrolyzed
Collagen, TP Drug Laboratories Vitamin C, and Rx Sterile Water
for Injection to the retail and consumer level. These products
are currently unapproved drugs in the US.

These products claim to treat scurvy, degenerative brain and
liver diseases, alcoholic liver disease, and serve as antidotes
to various drugs. The label claims may result in patients not
seeking proper medical treatment. Furthermore, the fact that
these products may be administered intramuscularly or
intravenously, heightens the risk associated with unknown
quality, safety, or efficacy. To date, Flawless Beauty and Skin
has not received any reports of adverse events related to this
recall.

The following products were distributed in the US to wholesale,
retail & Internet customers:

   NAME         STRENGTH    UPC           LOT/BATCH #  EXP. DATE
   ----         --------    ---           -----------  ---------
Roche           1gm Vit C   *3421357*      F040          08-2016
Laroscrobine    + 0.35gm
Platinum        Collagen

Tatiomax        1200mg      4973430081576  UB302         5-12-15
Reduced         Reduced
Glutathione +   Glutathione
Hydrolyzed      + 200mg
Collagen        Reduced
                Collagen

Saluta          600mg       6920425209014  201302275     1/20/15
Glutathione Rx  Glutathione                201308384  10/19/2015

Relumins        1500mg      700175760302   130616        2016.06
Advanced        Glutathione
Glutathione     + 500mg
                Vitamin C

TP Drug         500mg       8853533000533  556273        25/9/16
Laboratories                               556219         2/8/16
Vitamin C

Rx Sterile      N/A         4800573016219  16U421        08-2016
Water for                                  16U423        09-2016
Injection                                  16U394        04-2016

TP Drug         N/A         N/A            Reg.No.:      N/A
Laboratories                               1A1557/30
Vitamin C

Flawless Beauty and Skin is notifying its distributors and
customers by sending recall letters and is arranging for return
of all recalled products. Consumers, distributors & retailers
that have the products which are being recalled should stop using
& return to Flawless Beauty and Skin.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Flawless Beauty and Skin by +1-917-831-5948 or
sweetsuzzy@flawlessbeautyandskin.com on Monday-Friday, 9:30AM -
5:30 PM, EST. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.html

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.html or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


GERON CORP: Faces Securities Litigations in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation faces two purported securities class actions in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company
and certain of the company's officers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
company related to the company's Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in
patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia
vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of
persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in the company's Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET/PV
patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following
long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees.

On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company
and certain of the company's officers. This lawsuit, which is
based on the same factual background as the purported securities
class action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Fails to Overturn Order in Suit by Ex-Employee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky denied a motion by The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. to
alter or amend the Court's December 17, 2013 Order in a suit
filed by former employee Jennifer A. Durand, according to the
company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned
Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The
Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee who received a
lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan at or
about the time of her termination, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and
the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The
plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and
those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an
additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present
value of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of
the lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of
65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the
calculation of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint
included: (a) a claim that the Plan failed to calculate
participants' account balances and lump sum payments properly
because interest credits were based solely upon the performance
of each participant's selection from among various hypothetical
investment options (as the Plan provided) rather than crediting
the greater of that performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b)
a claim that the 2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest
crediting for all participants from the performance of
participant's investment selections to the 30 year Treasury rate,
reduced benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for participants who had account
balances as of the amendment date by not continuing to provide
them performance-based interest crediting on those balances; and
(c) claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and
ERISA notice requirements arising from the various interest
crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs
complain. On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the
Company and the Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of
limitations grounds the additional claims set forth in (a) and
(b) above, however, in response to a motion for reconsideration,
the Court allowed the new breach of fiduciary duty claim to
stand, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained
in the case. On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw"
claim of one of the named plaintiffs who received his lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003. On October 2, 2013, the
Court granted the Company and the Plan's Partial Motion for
Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice the "whipsaw" claim
of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum distribution after
December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the putative class
members he sought to represent. On December 17, 2013, the Court
entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and
related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons
who received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and
December 31, 2003, and a subclass to bring such claims consisting
of all persons who received lump sum distributions between March
1, 1997 and March 12, 2002. On December 17, 2013, the Court also
granted plaintiffs' motion for entry of a final order allowing an
immediate appeal by the two named plaintiffs added in the Amended
Complaint of their dismissed claims that the 2004 Plan amendment
reduced benefits in violation of ERISA, and for one of them, that
his post-2003 lump sum distribution should have been greater. On
January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and
appealable or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the
claims remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on
April 30, 2014.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Securities Litigation Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rudolph Contreras granted a motion to dismiss, without
prejudice the suit In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, according to the company's May 1, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of
the company's officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking compensatory
damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24,
2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged claims
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with
Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital
Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger
agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the
price of the company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff
alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was
not going to be completed, the price of the company's common
stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of the company's officers in the Court seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007 and
September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint
are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim
complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton
complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008.
The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the company's
share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries,
Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR).
That same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as
lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of the company's officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding the company's financial
condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In
particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that defendants
knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts
about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and the company's
capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that
when Harman's true financial condition became known to the
market, the price of the company's common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.

On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.)
was reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell
v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained
before Judge Richard W. Roberts.

On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing
on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the In Re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: ERISA Suit Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the so-called "Russell" lawsuit has filed a
notice of appeal against the dismissal of the lawsuit, which
alleges violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act by Harman International Industries, Inc., but no briefing
schedule has yet been set, according to the company's May 1,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and certain of
the company's officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA
and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries
of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the
Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a
constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The
amended complaint alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present
defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Savings
Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan to invest in the
company's common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly
was "no longer a prudent investment for the Participants'
retirement savings." The amended complaint further claimed that,
during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Savings
Plan's fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan's
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to the Savings Plan's
participants, adverse facts regarding Harman and the company's
businesses and prospects. The Russell Plaintiff also contended
that defendants breached their duties to avoid conflicts of
interest and to serve the interests of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with undivided loyalty. As a
result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint
asserted that the Savings Plan had "suffered substantial losses,
resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the
Savings Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008.
The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss
on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May
22, 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety. The Russell Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal but
no briefing schedule has been set by the Court.


HICKORY FARMS: Recalls Chipotle Ranch Sauce
-------------------------------------------
Hickory Farms, Inc., the specialty food and holiday gift retailer
announced a voluntary recall of its Chipotle Ranch Sauce due to
an undeclared allergen on its label. The Chipotle Ranch Sauce is
formulated with buttermilk powder, a known allergen. However, the
product was mistakenly released with a label that does not
declare the presence of this milk allergen.

No adverse reactions have been reported by consumers. People who
are allergic to milk could have a reaction if they consume this
product and should dispose of it immediately.

The product subject to this recall bears the label: Hickory Farms
Farmstand Recipe "Chipotle Ranch Sauce", NET WT. 9 oz. and has a
Best If Used By date of February 08, 2015 and earlier. This date
is located above the back label.

The product was sold through Hickory Farms' nationwide retail
network which includes hickoryfarms.com, Hickory Farms Holiday
Market storefronts and kiosks, and at various leading retailers.

No other Hickory Farms products are affected. Hickory Farms
remains committed to providing the highest quality products and
works diligently with their suppliers to ensure customer safety.

Consumers with the product can contact the Hickory Farms Consumer
Line Monday - Friday, 8:30am-6:00pm EST at 1-800-762-5558 for a
full refund.

Hickory Farms, Inc.(R) -- http://www.hickoryfarms.com/-- is a
provider of specialty foods and holiday food gifts. Since 1951,
North American families have chosen Hickory Farms' savory
sausages, cheeses and other gourmet foods for their loved ones
each holiday season. The company's award-winning signature
products and eco-friendly gift boxes can be found online, in
catalogs, at leading supermarkets year round and in shopping
malls throughout the Christmas holiday season.


HOSPIRA INC: One Lot of 1% Lidocaine HCI Injection Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced April 18 it will initiate a
voluntary recall of one lot of 1% Lidocaine HCI Injection, USP to
the user level due to a confirmed customer report of orange and
black particulate within the solution and embedded within the
glass vial. Hospira has identified the particulate as iron oxide.
Risk factors associated with the particulate include the
potential for particulate to be injected and/or a delay in
therapy.

If the particulate or smaller pieces of the particulate that
could break off, become free floating within the solution pass
through the catheter into the patient, it may result in local
inflammation, and/or mechanical disruption of tissue or immune
response to the particulate. Chronically, following
sequestration, local granuloma formulation may occur.

This lot was distributed nationwide to distributors/wholesalers,
hospitals and clinics from September 2013 through October 2013.
To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events
associated with this issue for this lot. The lot number affected
by the recall is:

   Product          NDC Number       Lot      Expiration Date
   -------          ----------       ---      ---------------
1% Lidocaine HCI    0409-4279-02  31-427-DK        1JUL2015
Injection, USP,
10mg/mL, 30 mL
single dose,
Preservative - Free

Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the root
cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with existing inventory should immediately stop use and
quarantine any affected product. In addition, customers should
inform potential users of this product in their organizations of
this notification. Hospira will be notifying its direct
distributors/customers via a recall letter and will arrange for
impacted product to be returned to Stericycle for returns
processing. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-
835-2723 (M-F, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET).

For medical inquiries, please contact Hospira Medical
Communications at 1-800-615-0187. This phone number is available
24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

Hospira, Inc. -- http://www.hospira.com/-- is the world's
leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies,
and a global leader in biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated
portfolio, Hospira is uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM)
by improving patient and caregiver safety while reducing
healthcare costs. The company is headquartered in Lake Forest,
Ill., and has approximately 17,000 employees.


HOSPIRA INC: One Lot of 0.25% Marcaine(TM) Recalled
---------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced April 21 it will initiate a
voluntary nationwide recall to the user level for one lot of
0.25% Marcaine(TM) (Bupivacaine HCl Injection, USP), 10 mL,
Single-dose Vial -- Preservative Free (NDC 0409-1559-10), Lot 34-
440-DD. The recall is due to a confirmed customer report of
discolored solution with visible particles embedded in the glass
as well as discolored solution. To date, Hospira has not received
reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this
lot. Hospira has attributed the embedded particulate to a
supplier's glass defect. As a result of this issue, Hospira is
working with its supplier on implementing corrective and
preventive actions.

If the particulate goes undetected and solution is administered
-- depending on the particle size and number -- it could block
administration of the drug to the patient, causing a delay in
therapy. However, this is an unlikely outcome due to the size of
the subvisible particulates identified. It is more likely that
particulates are able to pass through the catheter and may result
in local inflammation, mechanical disruption of tissue or immune
response to the particulate.

While extremely rare, particulate exposed to strong magnetic
fields (e.g. MRI), could potentially dislodge and cause tissue
damage. However, the particulate size identified is considered
too small. Therefore, an adverse outcome is extremely unlikely.
Marcaine is packaged 10 units per carton/100 units per case in
glass fliptop vials. The impacted lot of Marcaine was distributed
December 2013 through January 2014 to wholesalers/distributors,
hospitals and clinics nationwide.

Anyone with an existing inventory should immediately stop use and
quarantine any affected product. In addition, customers should
inform potential users of this product in their organizations of
this notification. Hospira will be notifying its direct
distributors/customers via a recall letter and will arrange for
impacted product to be returned to Stericycle for returns
processing. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-877-
546-7642 (M-F, 8 a.m - 5 p.m. ET).

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below:

  Hospira Contact   Contact Information   Areas of Support
  ---------------   -------------------   ----------------
Hospira Global      1-800-441-4100        To report adverse
Complaint           (8am-5pm CT, M-F)     events or product
Management                                complaints
                    ProductComplaintsPP@hospira.com

Hospira Medical     1-800-615-0187 or     Medical inquiries
Communications      medcom@hospira.com
                    (Available 24 hours
                    a day/7 days per week)

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

Hospira, Inc. -- http://www.hospira.com/-- is the world's
leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies,
and a global leader in biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated
portfolio, Hospira is uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM)
by improving patient and caregiver safety while reducing
healthcare costs. The company is headquartered in Lake Forest,
Ill., and has approximately 17,000 employees.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Solodyn Antitrust Suits Consolidated in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that pending Solodyn Antitrust Class Actions against
Impax Laboratories, Inc. be transferred to the District of
Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re
Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

From July to October 2013, thirteen class action complaints were
filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn and its
generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode
Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

In each case, the complaints allege that Medicis engaged in an
overarching anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, filing
frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous
Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement
agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the
Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn and in violation
of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
including disgorgement and restitution.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated shareholder suit
against Impax Laboratories, Inc., and a trial date has not been
set, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities
Class Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named
officers and directors violated the federal securities law by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection
with manufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward, California
manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact
the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain
approval from the FDA for the Company's branded product
candidate, RYTARY(TM) and its generic version of Concerta. These
two Securities Class Actions have subsequently been consolidated,
assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has been chosen.
The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on
September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18,
2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. Discovery
is proceeding, and a trial date has not been set.


INCYTE CORP: Delaware Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
entered an order dismissing a securities suit against Incyte
Corporation with prejudice, according to the company's May 1,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In March and April 2013, two lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware against the
company the company's former chief executive officer, the
company's former chief commercial officer, and the company's
chief drug development and medical officer. The complaints each
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the company's stock between April 26, 2012 and August 1, 2012.
In general, the complaints allege that the defendants issued
materially false or misleading statements concerning the
company's business and prospects relating to the commercial
launch of JAKAFI. The complaints seek damages in an unspecified
amount, equitable relief of an unspecified nature, and costs and
expenses of litigation.  The actions were subsequently
consolidated.  On February 21, 2014 the Court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On March 31, 2014 the Court entered an order dismissing the
action with prejudice.


INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Files Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against InterCloud
Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired InterCloud securities between
November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014, both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased InterCloud securities
during the Class Period, you have until May 26, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

InterCloud provides a single-source end-to end IT and telecom
solutions to the service provider and corporate enterprise
markets through cloud platforms and professional services in the
United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, various
articles were published enthusiastically touting InterCloud's
stock.  The articles were written by, among others, John Mylant
and an individual referred to as "Kingmaker", who purported to
run a volatility trading group.  Mr. Mylant and Kingmaker's
favorable InterCloud articles stated that they had not been paid
by InterCloud to publish the favorable articles.  InterCloud's
stock price rose from $2.55 on November 14, 2013 to a peak of
$18.13 on January 15, 2014, two days after a glowing article
written by "Kingmaker".  On December 13, 2013, InterCloud sold
debentures with a face value of $11,625,000.

The complaint further alleges that on March 13, 2014, an article
on Seeking Alpha disclosed that John Mylant was a paid promoter
who worked closely with the companies that employed him to
publish favorable articles while falsely stating that he was
independent of the companies he promoted.  And on March 17, after
trading hours, journalist Roddy Boyd asserted that notorious
stock promotion firm, the DreamTeam Group, works with authors
like
Mr. Mylant to create misleading press campaigns touting the
companies that hire it, and had been employed to tout
InterCloud's stock price.

On March 13, 2014, an article published on the Seeking Alpha
website, cited emails sent by John Mylant, a professional Options
trader, which disclosed that Mylant was a paid promoter who
worked closely with the companies that employed him to publish
favorable articles while falsely stating that he was independent
of the companies he promoted.   One of the Company's Mylant was
allegedly employed to promote was Intercloud.

On this news, shares of InterCloud fell $1.19 to $11.91, or more
than 9.08%, on unusually heavy trading volume, on March 13, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


KROGER CO: Two Private Selection Ice Cream Flavors Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) said April 26, 2014 it has recalled
Private Selection Chocolate Hazelnut Mascarpone Ice Cream and
Private Selection Caramel Hazelnut Fudge Truffle Ice Cream sold
at the Kroger family of stores in 31 states because the products
may contain egg not listed on the label.

People who are allergic to egg could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to
egg, there is no safety issue with the product. No customer
illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled Private Selection Hazelnut Mascarpone Ice Cream,
sold in 16 fluid ounce packages with a of UPC 1111052101, was
distributed to Kroger stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and West Virginia; Dillons and Gerbes stores in Kansas
and Missouri; Baker's stores in Nebraska; Fred Meyer stores in
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington; Fry's stores in Arizona;
King Soopers and City Market stores in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah
and Wyoming; Owen's, Pay Less and Scott's stores in Illinois and
Indiana; Ralphs stores in California; Smith's stores in Arizona,
Idaho, Montana Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah; and QFC stores in
Oregon and Washington.

The recalled Private Selection Caramel Hazelnut Fudge Truffle Ice
Cream, sold in 16 fluid ounce packages with a of UPC 1111052100,
was distributed to Kroger stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and
West Virginia; and Owen's, Pay Less, Scott's, and Food 4 Less
stores in Illinois and Indiana.

Customers in the impacted states should return the product to
stores for a full refund or replacement.

What Kroger is doing

Kroger has removed potentially affected item from store shelves
and initiated its customer recall notification system that alerts
customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products
through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

What customers should do

Customers are asked to carefully check their freezers for the
recalled product. Any opened or unopened products included in
this recall should not be consumed by persons allergic to egg,
and should be returned to their local store for a full refund.

Customers who have questions about this recall may contact Kroger
toll-free at 800-KROGERS (800-576-4377). For more information,
please visit http://www.kroger.com/recall

Kroger, one of the world's largest retailers, employs more than
375,000 associates who serve customers in 2,640 supermarkets and
multi-department stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia
under two dozen local banner names including Kroger, City Market,
Dillons, Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Harris Teeter, Jay C,
King Soopers, QFC, Ralphs and Smith's. The company also operates
786 convenience stores, 320 fine jewelry stores, 1,240
supermarket fuel centers and 38 food processing plants in the
U.S. Recognized by Forbes as the most generous company in
America, Kroger supports hunger relief, breast cancer awareness,
the military and their families, and more than 30,000 schools and
grassroots organizations. Kroger contributes food and funds equal
to 200 million meals a year through more than 80 Feeding America
food bank partners. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a
proud member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable and the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber's Million Dollar Club.


L'OREAL USA: Judge Refuses to Certify Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California
judge on May 2 refused to certify a putative class of consumers
alleging L'Oreal USA Inc.'s Kiehl's Since 1851 stores violated
state law by recording their personal information, saying the
evidence didn't show the company had a uniform policy or practice
of illegally collecting information.

Named plaintiff Allen Adjamian alleged that L'Oreal violated
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by asking customers at
its Kiehl's retail stores to provide personal information,
including addresses and telephone numbers, when making credit
card purchases.

During a hearing on May 2, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Elihu M. Berle said the plaintiff's own evidence of Kiehl's
employee training materials made clear that the retailer didn't
have the sort of uniform practice of soliciting customer
information that could sustain a class claim.

"The plaintiff's evidence makes clear that a sales clerk is to
ask permission [before soliciting information], and not every
customer will say yes," he said.  "There is simply nothing to
suggest the defendant had a standard policy throughout California
stores requiring customers submit personal information when
making a credit card purchase . . . individualized issues will
therefore predominate."

Mr. Adjamian filed suit against L'Oreal in March 2013, alleging
that when he made a purchase at a Los Angeles area Kiehl's retail
store in February 2013, the employee conducting the sale
requested his home address, phone number and email address, in
violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

Kiehl's, a cosmetics brand that was acquired by L'Oreal in 2000,
maintains "numerous" retail stores throughout California,
according to Adjamian's complaint.

Mr. Adjamian sought to represent a class of all customers who
made a credit card purchase at a California Kiehl's location and
were asked for their personal information, and contended he was
not "the victim of a random incident," but rather an example of
L'Oreal's company policy seeking to illegally collect customer
information and use that information to track their buying habits
for marketing and advertising purposes.

On May 2, Dimitrios Korvilas -- dimitri@wukolaw.com -- of
Wucetich & Korovilas LLP, representing Mr. Adjamian, told Judge
Berle that the retailer violated the Song-Beverly Act if they
even requested personal information before a credit card
transaction was completed, and that their cash register software
system was specifically designed to collect personal information
during transactions.

"They admit prior to the middle of last year they were not just
collecting information during credit card transactions -- they
were printing them on their credit card receipts," he said.
"Here, there can be no dispute since the information was printed
on a receipt that the information was collected before the
transaction was completed.

Judge Berle, however, said that simply having personal
information listed on a receipt -- information that could have
been collected separately as part of Kiehl's rewards club, for
instance -- wasn't enough to trigger liability under the Song-
Beverly Act, and denied Mr. Adjamian's motion for class
certification.

"Whether the defendant violated the act would depend on the
circumstances surrounding the situation in which the information
was requested," he said. "Plaintiff here has not provided any
evidence of transactions other than his own, and even he
testified he didn't think the information was required for him to
pay."

Mr. Adjamian is represented by Jason M Wucetich and Dimitrios V.
Korovilas of Wucetich & Korovilas LLP.

L'Oreal is represented by Dennis S. Ellis and Katherine F. Murray
of Paul Hastings LLP.

The case is Allen Adjamian v. L'Oreal USA Inc. et al., case
number BC504368, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that Laboratory
Corporation of America and others were hit with a proposed class
action in a California court on April 30, accusing the laboratory
test centers of forcing employees to work long hours without meal
breaks or overtime wages as required by state law.

Rachel Rabanes brought the suit on behalf of herself and other
current and former employees who worked at stand-alone patient
service centers and short term assessment and treatment labs in
Los Angeles County operated by companies acquired by LabCorp, as
well as California Laboratory Sciences LLC and West Pacific
Medical Laboratory LLC.

"Defendants require these employees to clock out and keep working
until production and testing goals are met while off the clock
and to work through lawful meal and rest breaks without receiving
statutory compensation," the suit said.

Ms. Rabanes alleged she regularly worked in excess of eight hours
per day without receiving meal breaks or rest periods or being
paid overtime.  She alleges a total of 10 causes of action under
the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.

Timecards showed that in one pay period, she worked 88 hours with
no overtime and in another pay period, worked 100.75 hours while
only receiving 0.75 hours of overtime pay, her suit said.  When
she was paid overtime it was on a weekly basis rather than a
daily basis.

Ms. Rabanes alleged employees are often forced to work "off the
clock" to meet project goals and were not even paid for all of
the hours worked.

"Said overtime and regular hours were worked by plaintiff and the
class and not paid and defendants intentionally failed to pay for
those hours even though they were actually worked and recorded on
their time keeping system," the suit said.

Employees were also not reimbursed for necessary business
expenses such as mileage, the suit said.

Ms. Rabanes said the defendants made it difficult to keep
accurate track of meal and rest period compensation owed because
they did "not implement and preserve a record-keeping method" as
required by California law.

"Defendants, and each of them, acted intentionally, oppressively
and maliciously toward plaintiff and similarly situated non
exempt, hourly employees with a conscious disregard of the
plaintiff and plaintiff classes' rights, or the consequences
suffered by plaintiff and plaintiff classes, with the intent of
depriving . . . property and legal rights and otherwise causing
. . . injury," the suit said.

Attorney Richard Allen Jorgensen -- rjorgensen@jslawgroup.com --
of Jorgensen & Salberg LLP told Law360 on May 1 this case is a
straightforward example of a violation of the state labor laws.

"Rabanes is a phlebotomist who was assigned to a specific spot to
draw blood and was the only person scheduled for that spot,"
Mr. Jorgensen said.  "She could not leave or get a break as
people continually came in to have blood drawn. The defendants
knew they were violating the law."

Ms. Rabanes is represented by Richard E. Quintilone II and Alis
M. Rabet of Quintilone & Associates and Richard Allen Jorgensen
and Jeffrey Salberg -- jsalberg@jslawgroup.com -- of Jorgensen &
Salberg LLP.

The case is Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences et al.,
case number BC544095, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Still Faces Suit by Lessors, Royalty Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company continues to face a suit filed on
behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004 to the present
who allege Layne allocated the market for mineral leasing rights
and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of
Kansas, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2014.

On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present. The plaintiff essentially alleges that
Layne and two other companies allocated the market for mineral
leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the
state of Kansas.  The plaintiff's suit was initially filed in the
District Court of Wilson County, Kansas.  On July 3, 2013, the
case was removed by a co-defendant to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Pays $14.4MM in "Molina" Labor Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $14.4 million payment related to the Molina v. Lexmark
litigation was made by the Company in February 2014 and is
subject to final approval by the California Superior Court,
according to Lexmark International, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 31, 2005 former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200
current and former California employees of the Company. The trial
was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May
1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a
conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal
choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated
California law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the
Company on August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the
class members approximately $8.3 million in damages which
included waiting time penalties and interest. The class had
sought up to $16.7 million in such damages. On November 17, 2010,
the trial court Judge partially granted the Company's motion for
a new trial solely as to the argument that current employees are
not entitled to any damages. On March 7, 2011 the trial court
Judge reduced the original award to $7.8 million. On October 28,
2011, the trial court Judge awarded the class members $5.7
million in attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees. On September 19, 2013, the California Court of
Appeals upheld the rulings of the trial court Judge except for
the use of gross pay rather than base rate of pay in the
calculation of damages. The matter was remanded back to the trial
court Judge to recalculate damages using the base rate of pay.
The award of $5.7 million in attorneys' fees was unchanged by the
California Court of Appeals. The Company filed a petition for
review with the California Supreme Court on certain issues that
were upheld by the California Court of Appeals. Acceptance of
review by the California Supreme Court was discretionary and on
December 11, 2013 the California Supreme Court denied Lexmark's
petition.

In February 2014, the Company and the class reached agreement on
a stipulation for damages and attorneys' fees. Under the terms of
the stipulation, the Company agreed to pay $5.5 million in
damages, which included forfeited vacation and personal choice
days, waiting time penalties and interest, to former California
based employees of the Company. The Company also agreed to pay
class counsel $8.9 million in cost and attorneys' fees which
includes interest. The agreed upon stipulation requires approval
by the California Superior Court.

The Company regularly evaluates the probability of a potential
loss of its material litigation to determine whether a liability
has been incurred and whether it is probable that one or more
future events will occur confirming the loss. As a potential loss
was determined by the Company to be probable and the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated, based on the terms of the
stipulation described, the Company increased the accrual in 2013
from $1.8 million to $14.4 million for the Molina matter. The
$14.4 million payment related to the Molina litigation was made
by the Company in February 2014 and is subject to final approval
by the California Superior Court.


LIFELOCK INC: Expects Consolidation of Shareholder Suits in Ariz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. anticipates that the lawsuits separately filed by
Joseph F. Scesny and Dawn B. Bien will be consolidated into one
action, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing herself and seeking
to represent a class of persons who acquired the company's
securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014,
inclusive, or the Class Period, filed a complaint in United
States District Court for the District of Arizona against the
company, Todd Davis, and Chris Power.  The company refers to this
complaint as the Bien Complaint.  The Bien Complaint alleges that
the company and Messrs. Davis and Power, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act,  disseminated materially false or
misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts
during the Class Period in connection with the company's business
and the company's operational and compliance policies, including
the company's and Mr. Davis's compliance with the  Stipulated
Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction and Other
Equitable Relief entered into in March 2010 with the Federal
Trade Commission, or the FTC Order, wherein the company settled
allegations by the Federal Trade Commission challenging certain
of the company's advertising and marketing.  The Bien Complaint
also contends that as a result of alleged violations of
governmental laws, regulations, and the FTC Order, the company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.  The Bien Complaint seeks certification as a
class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 10, 2014, Joseph F. Scesny, representing himself and
seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired the
company's securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014,
inclusive, filed a complaint in United States District Court for
the District of Arizona against the company, Todd Davis, and
Chris Power.  The company refers to this complaint as the Scesny
Complaint. The Scesny Complaint is substantially similar to the
Bien Complaint and seeks substantially similar relief. The
company anticipates that the Bien Complaint and Scesny Complaint
will be consolidated into one action and that the court will
select a lead plaintiff as provided by the federal securities
laws governing purported class action cases.


LILY BLOOM'S: Kitchen Poparoons Contain Undeclared Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture is notifying consumers
that Lily Bloom's Kitchen of Fridley, Minnesota, has issued an
allergy alert for undeclared allergens in five flavors of
Poparoons, a macaroon-type confection. The label did not declare
milk as an ingredient.

State officials are not aware of any illnesses associated with
these products, but people who have a sensitivity to milk should
be aware of the inclusion of milk in the flavored coating of
these products.

The Lily Bloom's Kitchen Poparoon flavors that contained milk
which was not listed on the label include lemon, key lime,
strawberry, blueberry and chocolate dipped in a white chocolate
coating. Lily Bloom's Kitchen is voluntarily recalling the
affected products which were distributed in Minnesota prior to
May 3, 2014. Poparoons sold on or after May 3, 2014 have been
properly labeled.

Consumers may discard the product or return it to the store where
purchased.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Expects Court to Rule on "Bezich" Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation expects a ruling this summer on
class certification issue in the suit filed against The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company over cost-of-insurance fee,
according to Lincoln National Corporation's May 1, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County,
Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was
charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the applicable
mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the
insurance contract.  The company disputes the allegations and are
vigorously defending this matter.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for class certification.  The company expects a ruling on class
certification this summer.


LSI CORP: June 10 Fairness Hearing in Settlement of Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to approve a settlement reached in a suit filed against
LSI Corporation over its merger is currently scheduled for June
10, 2014, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2014.

Sixteen purported class action complaints have been filed by
alleged stockholders of LSI against the company, the company's
individual directors, and, in fifteen of the cases, against
Avago. These actions generally allege that the members of the
company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the merger because the merger was not in the best
interest of the company, the merger consideration is unfair, and
certain other terms of the merger agreement are unfair. Among
other remedies, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the merger, or in the
event that an injunction is not entered and the merger closes, to
rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages, costs and
attorneys' fees. After arm's-length negotiations, on March 7,
2014, the parties, through their respective counsel, reached a
settlement, which was filed with the state court in Delaware on
April 15, 2014. A hearing to approve the settlement is currently
scheduled for June 10, 2014.


M+W US: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Owed But Never Paid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent E. Boice, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. M+W U.S., Inc., Total Facility Solutions,
Inc., and M+W Zander NY Architects, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-00505-
GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., April 30, 2014) is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover overtime pay owed, but never paid,
to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.

Plano, Texas-based M+W U.S., Inc., is a foreign business
corporation authorized to do business in New York.  Total
Facility Solutions, Inc., and M+W Zander NY Architects, P.C., are
subsidiaries of M+W U.S.  The Defendants provide structural,
architectural, electrical and mechanical engineering services to
high-technology, electronics and related industries in various
locations throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlo Alexandre C. de Oliveira, Esq.
          COOPER, ERVING & SAVAGE, LLP
          39 North Pearl Street, 4th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 449-3900
          Facsimile: (518) 432-3111
          E-mail: cdeoliveira@coopererving.com


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Rules in Suit v. Sheriff
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated; et al. Plaintiffs,
v. Joseph M. Arpaio, in his individual and official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ; et al. Defendants, NO. CV-07-
2513-PHX-GMS, (D. Ariz.), a Defendants' Notice of Lodging the
Parties' Counsels' Agreed Upon Draft Corrective Statement and
Defendants' Amended Notice and New Revised Unilateral Draft
Corrective Statement has been filed before the court.

As a result of these filings, the Court made its Findings of Fact
and entered an Enforcement Order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/sWMAUGfrom Leagle.com

The April 17, 2014 Enforcement Order entered by District Judge G.
Murray Snow, relates that over the past month, the Court has
become aware of and investigated the extent to which Defendants
have been misinforming MCSO employees regarding the Court's
Orders in this case. The Court reviewed the video of the training
held in October before the Significant Operation and held a
hearing at which Chief Deputy Sheridan addressed the Court about
the erroneous training he provided. The Court also reviewed the
video of the community meeting in March and held a hearing at
which Deputy Chief Trombi testified about his comments there and
the communications he observed and participated in at the MCSO.

Judge Snow ruled the Sheriff need not sign, but will immediately
disseminate the summary attached as Exhibit A to the Order to all
MCSO personnel.  No other communication of any kind will be
disseminated to MCSO personnel with that summary, except to
indicate that the Court requires them to read and report on their
understanding as explained in the order, he said. The Sheriff
will further undertake measures to ensure that all MCSO personnel
read and understand the Court's orders, he added.

A Status Conference was set for May 7, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401
W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. If the Order has
not been fully implemented, Sheriff Arpaio's attendance will be
required and he may be subject to questioning by the Court,
according to Judge Snow.

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Duff
Lyall -- jlyall@acluaz.org -- ACLU, Nancy Anne Ramirez --
nramirez@maldef.org -- MALDEF, Andre Segura -- asegura@aclu.org -
- ACLU, Anne Lai -- annie.lai@yale.edu -- Cecillia D Wang --
cwang@aclu.org -- ACLU, Daniel Joseph Pochoda --
dpochoda@acluaz.org -- ACLU, David Hults -- dhults@cov.com --
Covington & Burling LLP, Lesli Rawles Gallagher --
lgallagher@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Stanley Young --
syoung@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran --
talbarran@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.

Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Duff
Lyall, ACLU, Andre Segura, ACLU, Anne Lai, Cecillia D Wang, ACLU,
David Hults, Covington & Burling LLP, Lesli Rawles Gallagher,
Covington & Burling LLP, Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP,
Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP, Daniel Joseph Pochoda,
ACLU & Nancy Anne Ramirez, MALDEF.

David Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Duff Lyall, ACLU, Andre
Segura, ACLU, Anne Lai, Cecillia D Wang, Daniel Joseph Pochoda,
ACLU, David Hults, Covington & Burling LLP, Lesli Rawles
Gallagher, Covington & Burling LLP, Nancy Anne Ramirez, MALDEF,
Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Velia Meraz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Duff Lyall, ACLU, Andre
Segura, ACLU, Anne Lai, Cecillia D Wang, ACLU, Daniel Joseph
Pochoda, ACLU, David Hults, Covington & Burling LLP, Lesli Rawles
Gallagher, Covington & Burling LLP, Nancy Anne Ramirez, MALDEF,
Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Manuel Nieto, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Duff Lyall,
ACLU, Andre Segura, ACLU, Anne Lai, Cecillia D Wang, ACLU, Daniel
Joseph Pochoda, ACLU, David Hults, Covington & Burling LLP, Lesli
Rawles Gallagher, Covington & Burling LLP, Nancy Anne Ramirez,
MALDEF, Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Somos America, Plaintiff, represented by James Duff Lyall, ACLU,
Andre Segura, ACLU, Anne Lai, Cecillia D Wang, ACLU, Daniel
Joseph Pochoda, ACLU, David Hults, Covington & Burling LLP, Lesli
Rawles Gallagher, Covington & Burling LLP, Nancy Anne Ramirez,
MALDEF, Stanley Young, Covington & Burling LLP & Tammy Albarran,
Covington & Burling LLP.

Joseph M Arpaio, Defendant, represented by Ann Thompson Uglietta
-- uglietta@mcao.maricopa.gov -- Maricopa County Attorneys Office
-- Civil Services Division, James Lawrence Williams --
james@azbarristers.com -- Schmitt Schneck Smyth & Herrod PC, Alec
R Hillbo -- alec.hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Eileen Dennis GilBride --
egilbride@jshfirm.com -- Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC, Kerry Scott
Martin -- kerry.martin@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Leigh Eric Dowell --
eric.dowell@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC, Thomas P Liddy -- liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov --
Maricopa County Attorneys Office - Civil Services Division &
Timothy James Casey, Schmitt Schneck Smyth Casey & Even PC.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Defendant, represented by Ann
Thompson Uglietta, Maricopa County Attorneys Office - Civil
Services Division, James Lawrence Williams, Schmitt Schneck Smyth
& Herrod PC, Alec R Hillbo, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart
PC, Eileen Dennis GilBride, Jones Skelton & Hochuli PLC, Julie A
Pace, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP, Kerry Scott Martin,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC - Tucson, AZ, Leigh Eric
Dowell, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Timothy James
Casey, Schmitt Schneck Smyth Casey & Even PC.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Edward G Caspar,
US Dept of Justice - Civil Rights.

United States of America, Amicus, represented by Edward G Caspar,
US Dept of Justice - Civil Rights & Elizabeth A Strange, US
Attorneys Office.


MASIMO CORP: Motion to Stay "Unsolicited" Fax Ad Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Masimo Corporation to stay a suit filed by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. is pending, according to Masimo's May 1, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of
2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each
alleged violation, treble damages if the court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the
case pending a decision on a related petition filed by the
Company with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The
motion to stay is pending.


MASIMO CORP: Faces Amended Complaint in Ala. Over Pulse Oximeters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation faces an amended putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama alleging product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters, according to the company's May
1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2014.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A
previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death
claim, which the court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney
fees, and injunctive and other relief.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Dismisses Amended Calif. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Northern California
dismissed the amended complaint in In re Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04909-JST for its
failure to allege adequately falsity or scienter, according to
the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate legal complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and them each as defendants and
respectively entitled, Patrick Barnicle, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal
Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CIV 925,
David R. Ryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael
Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1047 and Valentin Petrov,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman,
Case No. 13 CV 1225. The complaints were filed by Patrick
Barnacle, David R. Ryan and Valentin Petrov, respectively, each
for himself as a plaintiff and, purportedly, on behalf of persons
purchasing the Company's ordinary shares between April 19, 2012
and January 2, 2013 (the "Class Period").

On May 14, 2013, the Court consolidated the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On July 12, 2013, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed
against the same defendants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants made false or misleading
statements (or failed to disclose certain facts) regarding the
Company's business and outlook.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by
the court. On October 11, 2013, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York transferred the
consolidated action to the United States District Court for
Northern California ("the Court").  The consolidated action is
captioned, In re Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04909-JST.  On March 31, 2014, the
Court dismissed the amended complaint for its failure to allege
adequately falsity or scienter.  Plaintiffs have until April 30,
2014 to file a second amended complaint.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Weinberger Case in Israel Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint filed in the Economic Division of the District Court
of Tel Aviv-Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. remains
stayed, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action
was filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel
Aviv-Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's
President and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the
Company's board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli
Claim was filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant").  The
Israeli Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the
Company's President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO
are responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court. On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the
Company filed a procedural agreement with the court to stay the
Israeli Claim pending the completion of the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov cases disclosed herein. On April 24, 2013, the Israeli
court approved this procedural agreement and stayed the Israeli
proceedings.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Withdrawal of TASE Delisting Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli Court approved the Withdrawal Petition in Mordechay
Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13) and
dismissed the case, according to Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.'s
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 6, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Tel-Aviv District
court (the "Israeli Court") in Tel Aviv, Israel (Mordechay
Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13)), in which
the plaintiff alleged that the Company's decision to delist from
the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange ("TASE") was a breach of the duty of
loyalty of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"), as
well as a breach of the duty of care and the duty of loyalty by
the Company's president and chief executive officer (the
"Claim"). In addition, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify
the complaint as a class action. The Company was served with the
complaint on June 16, 2013. On December 22, 2013, the Company and
the Board filed their Response to the motion to certify the
complaint as a class action (the "Response").

On January 7, 2014 the plaintiff, with the consent of the
Company, filed a request to withdraw the Claim (and related class
action claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the facts and
arguments presented in the Response, reached the conclusion that
it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Claim and
have the complaint approved as a class action. Neither the
plaintiff nor its attorneys have received or will receive any
benefit in return for their withdrawal.

On January 8, 2014, the Israeli Court ordered that a notice
should be published in two newspapers in Israel in which
potential class members, the Israeli attorney general, the
director of Israeli courts and the Israeli Securities Authority
were notified that any such party has 45 days from the date of
the notice to present its position to the Israeli Court objecting
to or relating to the Withdrawal Petition. On January 9, 2014 the
Israeli court approved the form of the notice, and the notice was
published on Sunday, January 12, 2014.

During the 45 day period, which expired on February 26, 2014, no
objection to the Withdrawal Petition was filed with the Israeli
Court. As a result, on March 6, 2014, the Israeli Court approved
the Withdrawal Petition and dismissed the Claim.


METROPOLITAN HEALTH: Fails to Give 60-Day WARN Notice, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gladys Tello, Individually & on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. Metropolitan Health Community Services Corporation
d/b/a Metropolitan Hospital of Miami, Case No. 1:14-cv-21566-KMM
(S.D. Fla., April 30, 2014) alleges that the Defendant did not
give its employees 60 days notice for its plant closing, in
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

Metropolitan Hospital is a Florida Profit Corporation doing
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


MF GLOBAL: J.C. Flowers Defeats Sapere's Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that J.C. Flowers & Co. was the primary beneficiary of an
opinion by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero winnowing away part
of a lawsuit against Jon Corzine and other former officers and
directors of MF Global Inc., the commodity brokerage liquidated
in bankruptcy after mishandling $1.6 billion in customer funds.

On April 16, Judge Marrero dismissed every claim that Sapere
Wealth Management LLC attempted to bring against Flowers, a New
York-based private-equity investor. Marrero, in Manhattan federal
court, said that Matthews, North Carolina-based Sapere stated no
facts to show that Flowers could be either directly or
vicariously liable for Corzine's misdeeds.

Judge Marrero did give Flower three weeks to file an amended
complaint to fill the gaps pointed out in the judge's 35-page
decision pinpointing insufficiencies in Sapere's complaint, the
report related.

Judge Marrero was designated to handle multiple civil suits
against MF Global executives like Corzine, a former U.S. senator
and New Jersey governor and onetime co-chairman of Goldman Sachs
Group Inc., the report further related.  In four previous lengthy
opinions since November, Judge Marrero allowed the larger part of
lawsuits to proceed on behalf of MF Global customers.  Sapere was
one customer that filed its own suit.

Sapere contended that Flowers, an investor in MF Global, should
be
liable because it negligently selected or controlled Corzine by
persuading him to lead the commodity broker, the report added.

The lawsuit is In re MF Global Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation, 11-cv-07866, U.S. District Court, Southern District
of New York (Manhattan).

New York-based MF Global -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- was one
of
the world's leading brokers of commodities and listed
derivatives.
MF Global provides access to more than 70 exchanges around the
world.  The firm also was one of 22 primary dealers authorized to
trade U.S. government securities with the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.  MF Global's roots go back nearly 230 years to a sugar
brokerage on the banks of the Thames River in London.

On Oct. 31, 2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. and MF Global Finance
USA Inc. filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Case Nos. 11-15059 and 11-5058), after a planned sale to
Interactive Brokers Group collapsed.  As of Sept. 30, 2011, MF
Global had $41,046,594,000 in total assets and $39,683,915,000 in
total liabilities.

On Nov. 7, 2011, the United States Trustee appointed the
statutory
creditors' committee in the Debtors' cases.  At the behest of the
Statutory Creditor's Committee, the Court directed the U.S.
Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee.  On Nov. 28, 2011, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the appointment of
Louis J. Freeh, Esq., of Freeh Group International Solutions,
LLC,
as Chapter 11 trustee.

On Dec. 19, 2011, MF Global Capital LLC, MF Global Market
Services
LLC and MF Global FX Clear LLC filed voluntary Chapter 11
petitions (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 11-15808, 11-15809 and
11-15810).  On Dec. 27, the Court entered an order installing
Mr. Freeh as Chapter 11 Trustee of the New Debtors.

On March 2, 2012, MF Global Holdings USA Inc. filed a voluntary
Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-10863), and
Mr. Freeh also was installed as its Chapter 11 Trustee.

Judge Honorable Martin Glenn presides over the Chapter 11 case.
J. Gregory Milmoe, Esq., Kenneth S. Ziman, Esq., and J. Eric
Ivester, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, serve
as bankruptcy counsel.  The Garden City Group, Inc., serves as
claims and noticing agent.  The petition was signed by Bradley I.
Abelow, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of
MF
Global Finance USA Inc.

The Chapter 11 Trustee has tapped (i) Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan
LLP, as investigative counsel; (ii) FTI Consulting Inc., as
restructuring advisors; (iii) Morrison & Foerster LLP, as
bankruptcy counsel; and (iv) Pepper Hamilton as special counsel.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors retained Capstone
Advisory Group LLC as financial advisor, while lawyers at
Proskauer Rose LLP serve as counsel.

The Securities Investor Protection Corporation commenced
liquidation proceedings against MF Global Inc. to protect
customers.  James W. Giddens was appointed as trustee pursuant to
the Securities Investor Protection Act.  He is a partner at
Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP in New York.

Jon Corzine, the former New Jersey governor and co-CEO of
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., stepped down as chairman and chief
executive officer of MF Global just days after the bankruptcy
filing.

In April 2013, the Bankruptcy Court approved MF Global Holdings'
plan to liquidate its assets.  Bloomberg News reported that the
court-approved disclosure statement initially told
creditors with $1.134 billion in unsecured claims against the
parent holding company why they could expect a recovery of 13.4%
to 39.1% from the plan.  As a consequence of a settlement with
JPMorgan, supplemental materials informed unsecured creditors
their recovery was reduced to the range of 11.4% to 34.4%.  Bank
lenders will have the same recovery on their $1.174 billion claim
against the holding company.  As a consequence of the settlement,
the predicted recovery became 18% to 41.5% for holders of $1.19
billion in unsecured claims against the finance subsidiary,
one of the companies under the umbrella of the holding company
trustee.  Previously, the predicted recovery was 14.7% to 34% on
bank lenders' claims against the finance subsidiary.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Partial Summ. Judgment Granted in "Grochowski"
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA GROCHOWSKI, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL N. GORDON, P.C., and MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, NO. C13-343 TSZ, (W.D. Wash.) is before
the Court on motions for summary judgment brought by defendant
Daniel N. Gordon, P.C., and defendant Midland Funding, LLC.

District Judge Thomas S. Zilly, in an order dated April 17, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FU7qlAfrom
Leagle.com, ruled that:

(1) Midland Funding, LLC's motion for summary judgment is granted
    in part as to vicarious liability, and plaintiff's claims
    against Midland Funding, LLC are dismissed with prejudice;

(2) Daniel N. Gordon, P.C.'s motion for summary judgment is
    deferred and renoted to May 16, 2014; the parties must file
    supplemental briefs on or before the new noting date; and

(3) Plaintiff's motion to certify class is renoted to May 16,
    2014.

Lisa Grochowski, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron D Radbil, GREENWALD
DAVIDSON PLLC, Mathew J. Cunanan, DC LAW GROUP NW LLC & Jon N
Robbins, THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC.

Daniel N. Gordon, P.C, Defendant, represented by J Kurt Kraemer -
- kurtk@mcewengisvold.com -- MCEWEN GISVOLD LLP.

Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by David A. Perez --
DPerez@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Frederick B Rivera --
FRivera@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.


MIFINCA FRESH: Removed "Angulo" FLSA Class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit styled Angulo, et al. v.
Mifinca Fresh Produce, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-21551-FAM,
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-21551-FAM to the
proceeding.

On March 18, 2014, Plaintiffs Raul Angulo and Maria Elisa Moros
filed a complaint in the Circuit Court asserting, among other
things, wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          1600 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


MIRAVALLE FOODS: Ground Annato Recalled Due to Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Miravalle Foods, Inc. of El Monte, CA, on April 23 conducted a
voluntarily recall on its 0.75 ounce packages of Miravalle brand
Achiote Molido Ground Annato spice because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The recalled packages of Ground Annato 0.75 oz. were distributed
in California, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, Washington and
Oregon, in retail stores.

The product comes in a 0.75 ounce, clear plastic package marked
with lot # 0015 & #0018 on the top of the UPC number
(712810005020).

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

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by FDA revealed the presence of Salmonella in some 0.75 ounce
packages of "Ground Annato."

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA,
California Department of Public Health, and Miravalle Foods, Inc.
continue their investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased 0.75 ounce packages of Ground Annato
with Lot # 0015 & 0018 are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 626-575-7551, Monday through Friday 8AM to 4:30PM
Pacific.


NANO WELL-BEING: Recalls Super Arthgold Dietary Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------
La Mirada, CA-based Nano Well-being Health Inc. is voluntarily
recalling lot L1P1-6100/Expiration date June 25, 2016 and lot
L1P2-6000/Expiration date September 16, 2016 of Super Arthgold,
500 mg capsules to the consumer level. FDA laboratory analysis
has found the product to contain chlorzoxazone, diclofenac and
indomethacin, making it an unapproved new drug. To date, no
illness or injuries have been reported.

The product is used as a dietary supplement for joint pain and
arthritis and is packaged in bottles of 120 capsules. The product
was distributed nationwide to wholesalers.

Use of this product containing the undeclared drug ingredients
listed above, has a reasonable probability of resulting in fatal
adverse events in consumers and patients with underlying
illnesses, including known allergy to the hidden ingredients,
cardiac, gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal conditions as well
as patients who recently undergone cardiac bypass graft surgery.
Consumers would be unaware that the product contains Non-
Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) (and other
ingredients), may inadvertently overdose by taking another NSAID
concurrently, thus increasing the risk for NSAID associated
adverse events, which include but are not limited to, myocardial
infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, renal toxicity, and
bleeding, ulceration, or perforation of the stomach or
intestines.

Nano Well-being Health Inc. is notifying its distributors and
customers by letter and phone call and is arranging for
replacement of all recalled products.

Consumers/distributors/retailers that have product which is being
recalled should stop using and return to place of purchase.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Nano
Well-being Health Inc. by phone at 1-714-515-4600 or e-mail
address of at nanowellbeingh@gmail.com, Monday to Friday from
9:00 AM to 5 PM, Pacific Standard Time. Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking or using this product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

    Complete and submit the report Online:
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm

    Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088
to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the
address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-
0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.


OSI SYSTEMS: Cal. Court Names Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California appointed the Arkansas State Highway Employees
Retirement System as lead plaintiff in Roberti v. OSI Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-09174-MWF-VBK, according to the
company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 12, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
("Court"), captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:13-cv-09174-MWF-VBK (the "Roberti Action").  The Roberti
Action purports to be brought on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between January 24, 2012 and December
6, 2013.  The complaint generally asserts that defendants
violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and also that
the individual defendants violated section 20(a) of the Act by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose that the Company allegedly
manipulated operational testing of its Advanced Imaging
Technology by selectively picking the best sensors and thereby
causing the testing not to be representative of the scanners
already deployed at airports; that certain of the Company's
products allegedly raised strong privacy concerns and were
subject to disqualification for use in airport security
checkpoints; and that the Company allegedly manufactured its
products with parts that violated contracts with TSA, thereby
risking cancellation of the contracts.  Plaintiffs demand a jury
trial and seek class certification, unspecified damages, an award
of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' and
experts' fees, costs, and other unspecified relief.  On March 17,
2014, the Court appointed plaintiff Arkansas State Highway
Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiff.


OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Consumers Lose Bid to Certify Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court denied a plaintiff's petition for
leave to appeal a trial court's denial of class certification in
a suit alleging Redbox charges illegal and excessive late fees,
according to Outerwall Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a putative class action complaint against the company's
Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and
excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental
terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is
seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009,
Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District
Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class
certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court
denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification,
the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only
her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and
the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the
court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January
29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition
for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class
certification. The parties are currently briefing the viability
of Plaintiff's individual claims, including her damages claim,
with a hearing scheduled for July 16, 2014.


OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment in Favor of Redbox Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of an appeal against a summary judgment granted to
Redbox in a suit over its retention of personally identifiable
information of consumers is expected to be complete by June 17,
2014, according to Outerwall Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the company's Redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was
filed in the same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident,
Kevin Sterk. Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has
been replaced by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an
amended complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of
personally identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs'
claims of retention of such information. Plaintiffs are seeking
statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of
suit, and interest. The court has consolidated the cases. The
court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
upon interlocutory appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Redbox's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims involving retention of
information, holding that the plaintiffs could not maintain a
suit for damages under this theory. On April 25, 2012, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims under the Stored
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of
contract. On May 9, 2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On July 23, 2012, the court dismissed the added
retention claims, except to the extent that plaintiffs seek
injunctive, non-monetary relief. On August 16, 2013, the court
granted summary judgment in Redbox's favor on all remaining
claims, and entered a final judgment for Redbox. On September 16,
2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Briefing of the appeal
is expected to be complete by June 17, 2014.


OUTERWALL INC: DiSimone/Sinibaldi Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Redbox over alleged
violation of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 is
appealing the dismissal of the case and the denial of
certification to the class, according to Outerwall Inc.'s May 1,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a putative class action complaint against the company's
Redbox subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that,
among other things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the
collection and recording of consumer personal identification
information, and violated the California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-
Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly
and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, by
a California resident, John Sinibaldi.

A third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-
Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Diego, by a California
resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory
damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and interest. Redbox removed the Mehrens case to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case
was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, where the Mehrens case is
pending, and these two cases have been consolidated. At the same
time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle DiSimone as the named
plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox filed a motion to
dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Schiff
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In
January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot.

On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.
After a stay pending the California Supreme Court's decision in a
case presenting similar issues involving Song-Beverly in a case
to which Redbox is not a party, Plaintiffs filed their opening
brief on April 15, 2013. The matter is fully briefed, and oral
argument occurred on January 8, 2014.


PACIFIC ORGANIC: Listeria Risk Prompts Recalls of Mangos
--------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Organic Produce, San Francisco, CA is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of cases of organic Tommy Atkins
mangos (PLU numbers 94051 & 94959) that were sold under the
Purity Organic brand between the dates of April 14, 2014 and May
2, 2014 due to a possible health risk from Listeria
monocytogenes. No illnesses have been reported in association
with the recall and no other mangos or products under the Purity
Organic brand are being recalled.

No illnesses have been reported to date. However, the recall was
issued as a precaution because a single sample in a FDA sample
yielded a positive result for Listeria monocytogenes. Pacific
Organic Produce is coordinating closely with regulatory officials
and has contacted its customers to ensure that any remaining
recalled products are removed. Listeria monocytogenes is an
organism that can cause foodborne illness in a person who
consumes a food item contaminated with it. Symptoms of infection
may include fever, muscle aches and gastrointestinal symptoms
such as nausea or diarrhea. The illness primarily impacts
pregnant women and adults with weakened immune systems. Most
healthy adults and children rarely become seriously ill.

The PLU number is printed in the middle of the PLU sticker on the
fruit. The mangos were shipped to retailers and distributors in
limited quantities within five (5) U.S. states (Arizona,
California, Colorado, New Jersey and Texas).

Only the specific PLU numbers and sell dates identified above are
included in this recall. Consumers who have any remaining product
with these Product Codes purchased between the dates of April 14,
2014 and May 2, 2014 should not consume it, but rather should
discard it. Consumers should retain their store receipts, PLU
stickers or any other proof of purchase they may have. Retailers
and consumers with questions may call Amy Rosenoff at Pacific
Organic Produce customer service at 415-673-5555, which is open
8:00 am to 4:00 pm (PT) Monday - Friday.


PANTRY INC: Dismissed From Lawsuits Over Motor Fuel Temperature
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suits against The Pantry, Inc. alleging retail purchasers of fuel
received less than the company agreed to deliver because it used
non-temperature adjusted gallons, were dismissed, according to
the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
27, 2014.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
were filed in federal courts across the country against numerous
companies in the petroleum industry. Initially, the company was
named as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of which had
been dismissed without prejudice prior to the second quarter of
fiscal 2014. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally alleged
that they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than
the defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured
the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature
adjusted gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less
energy. In January 2014, plaintiffs offered to voluntarily
dismiss with prejudice the following five cases to which the
company was then a party without any payment or other
consideration from the Company: Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil
Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL, filed
3/7/07; Cook, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No.
2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed 8/22/07); Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy
Oil USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07;
Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-
00169, filed 7/13/07; and Korleski v. BP Corporation North
America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed
9/24/07. Dismissals with prejudice were filed and granted by the
court in February 2014, dismissing all claims against the Company
in all cases.


PANTRY INC: Fairness Hearing Set in FACTA Violation Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama granted preliminary approval for the proposed settlement
reached in a suit alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act by The Pantry Inc., and a fairness
hearing has been scheduled for July 2, 2014, according to the
company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.
Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-9-P-2117-W). On
September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding
Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs seek class action
status and allege that The Pantry included more information than
is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card
receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g). The
amended complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason
seeks to represent a subclass of those class members as to whom
the company printed receipts containing the first four and last
four digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii)
plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of those
class members as to whom the company printed receipts containing
all digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers. The
plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent
injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

On July 25, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' initial motion
for class certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to
file an amended motion. On October 3, 2011, plaintiff filed an
amended motion for class certification seeking to certify two
classes. The first purported class, represented by Mr. Amason,
consists of (A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit
card was used at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by
the company from June 4, 2009 through the date of the final
judgment in the action; (B) where the transaction was in a
Company store located in the State of Alabama; and (C) in
connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed by Retalix
software containing the first four and last four digits of the
credit/debit card number on the receipt provided to the customer.
The second purported class, represented by Ms. McConnell,
consists of (A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit
card was used at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by
the company from June 1, 2009 through the date of the final
judgment in the action; and (B) in connection with the
transaction, a receipt was printed containing all of the digits
of the credit/debit card numbers on the receipt provided to the
customer. The company opposed the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the
basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. On March 11, 2013, the
court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing
and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The company filed a
petition with the 11th Circuit to take up the appeal of the
company's Motion to Dismiss at this juncture, rather than at the
end of the case and on June 20, 2013, the 11th Circuit granted
the company's petition.

On October 8, 2013, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle with the plaintiffs which, if finalized in a definitive
agreement and approved by the court, will result in a dismissal
of this lawsuit. Under the proposed settlement, the company's
minimum liability would be $1.5 million plus the amount of
attorneys' fees awarded and the company's maximum liability,
including legal fees and expenses, would be $5.0 million.
Assuming that a definitive settlement agreement is executed and
approved by the court, the company estimates that its range of
liability, inclusive of attorneys' fees and expenses, will be
from $3.1 million to $5.0 million. The company accrued a reserve
of $3.1 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 relating to
the proposed settlement.

On February 6, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement and a fairness hearing has been scheduled
for July 2, 2014.


PFIZER INC: Faces "Smith" Suit in Kentucky Over Lipitor Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Smith and William Smith, 2324 Paragon Mill Drive,
Burlington, KY 41005 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New
York, New York 10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00090-DLB-JGW (E.D. Ky.,
April 30, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design,
testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as
Atorvastatin Calcium).

Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and
other fatty substances in the blood.  Lipitor is an HMG-CoA
reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as
statins.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. produces, manufactures, distributes,
advertises, promotes, supplies and sells Lipitor to distributors
and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies,
and medical practitioners.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq.
          SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C.
          909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 578-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: phendy@pschachter.com


PFIZER INC: Zoloft Is Defective & Dangerous, Minor's Parents Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
April Coronado and Martin Coronado, individually, and as the
natural parents of Alyssa Coronado v. Pfizer, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Pfizer International LLC, a New York Corporation;
J.B. Roerig & Company, a Division of Pfizer, Inc.; and
Greenstone, LLC, fka Greenstone, Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-02490-CMR
(E.D. Pa., April 30, 2014) alleges that the pharmaceutical drug
ZOLOFT(R) (or sertraline hydrochloride) is defective, dangerous
to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in
commerce and lacked proper warnings as to the dangers associated
with its use.

The Plaintiffs, April Coronado and Martin Coronado, are the
biological parents and guardians of Alyssa Coronado, who was born
on May 17, 1995.  The Minor Plaintiff was born with congenital
birth defects known as tetralogy of fallot, heart murmur, holes
in heart walls, and other related conditions as a result of the
Mother Plaintiff's alleged ingestion of Zoloft manufactured by
the Defendants.

Pfizer, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York
City.  Pfizer, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company involved in
research, development, testing, manufacture, production,
promotion, distribution and marketing of pharmaceuticals for
distribution, sale and use by the general public the drug
ZOLOFT(R), an antidepressant, throughout the United States.

Pfizer International LLC is a New York Corporation.  J.B. Roerig
& Company is a division of Pfizer Inc.  Greenstone, LLC, formerly
known as Greenstone, Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Pfizer, Inc., and a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Peapack, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth T. Fibich, Esq.
          Gregory Q. Fibich, Esq.
          FIBICH HAMPTON LEEBRON BRIGGS JOSEPHSON LLP
          1150 Bissonnet Street
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: tfibich@fhl-law.com
                  gfibich@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Salim, Esq.
          Barrett Beasley, Esq.
          SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
          1901 Texas Street
          Natchitoches, LA
          Telephone: (318) 352-5999
          Facsimile: (318) 352-5998
          E-mail: skeeter@cp-tel.net
                  bbeasley@salim-beasley.com

               - and -

          Jay H. Henderson, Esq.
          JAY HENDERSON, LLC
          5020 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 275-4050
          Facsimile: (713) 275-4046
          E-mail: jhenderson@hbelaw.com


PHOENIX LIFE: Judge Orders Trial in Class Action Over Rate Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that New York U.S.
District Judge Colleen McMahon on April 29 ordered a trial in a
class action accusing Phoenix Life Insurance Co. of breaching its
policies by improperly hiking "cost of insurance" rates on
policyholders, and potentially set a precedent limiting how
insurers in the state can raise such rates in the future.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: "Higgins" Suit Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An order was entered giving final approval to the settlement of
the suit John Higgins, et al, v. Pinnacle Financial Partners,
Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National Bank, according to the company's
May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et
al, v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against
Pinnacle Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well
as on behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers
within the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's
method of ordering debit card transactions had caused customers
of Pinnacle Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a
different method been used. On April 29, an order was entered
giving final approval to the settlement, and providing a release
of claims against Pinnacle Bank and Pinnacle Financial. The order
will become final absent the filing of an appeal on or about the
thirtieth day following its entry.


PPL CORP: Files Motion to Dismiss Cane Run Environmental Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation, LG&E and KU Energy LLC and Louisville Gas and
Electric Company have filed certain motions to dismiss complaint
for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, according to the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On December 16, 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA.
In addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of
nuisance, trespass, and negligence.  These plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and civil penalties that would accrue to
governmental agencies, plus costs and attorney fees, for the
alleged statutory violations.  Under the common law claims, these
plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for
property damage and diminished property values for a class
consisting of residents within four miles of the plant.  In their
individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation for
alleged adverse health effects.  During 2014, PPL, LKE and LG&E
have filed certain motions to dismiss that are pending before the
court.  PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this
matter or the potential impact on operations of the Cane Run
plant.  LG&E has previously announced that it anticipates
retiring the coal-fired units at Cane Run before the end of 2015.


PVF CAPITAL: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Merger Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Kliewer, writing for TheRacetotheBottom.org, reports
that in Kugelman v. PVF Capital Corp., CASE NO. 1:13 CV 1606,
2013 BL 241456 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2013), the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, affirmed the dismissal of a class action suit brought
against PVF Capital Corporation, PVFC's board of directors, and
F.N.B. Corporation by an individual investor, Sylvia Kugelman.

This securities fraud class action arose out of the proposed
merger between PVFC and FNB.  After several rounds of
negotiations, FNB submitted an indication of interest to acquire
the outstanding shares of PVFC in an all-stock transaction worth
approximately $106 million.  Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to
prevent the merger.

Plaintiff alleged multiple claims for relief. First, Plaintiff
asserted violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from alleged misrepresentations and
omissions in the proxy statement. Second, Plaintiff alleged that
the Directors breached their fiduciary duties through materially
inadequate disclosures and omissions in the proxy statement.
Last, Plaintiff alleged the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, good faith, and independence owed to the
shareholders.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, a complaint
must specify each statement alleged to have been misleading and
the reasons why the statement is misleading.  Further, an
omission violates Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act only if an
SEC regulation requires disclosure of the information or the
omission makes other statements materially false or misleading.
Here, Plaintiff's complaint made no argument that the omitted
material was required by the SEC.  Rather, the complaint alleged
the omitted material rendered other statements in the proxy
statement misleading.

The court faulted the complaint for failing to "identify any
specific statement" rendered misleading as a result of the
omissions.  Moreover, even with respect to broader sections of
the Proxy, the court viewed the complaint as alleging that the
omissions "are necessary to allow the shareholders . . . to
assess the quality of the information provided in the Proxy
Statement." While recognizing that shareholders "might want more
information," shareholders were only entitled to information
required by
Rule 14a-9.  The court found that Plaintiff failed to plead
sufficient facts to show a plausible violation of Section 14(a).

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act imposes joint and several
liability on directors who control any person liable for
securities fraud.  Therefore, to violate Section 20(a), there
must be a primary violation of federal securities laws.  Given
that Plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim was dismissed, there was no
primary violation on which a Section 20(a) claim could be
premised.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
state law claims of fiduciary duty because the federal claims
failed.

The court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss because Plaintiff
failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the Exchange
Act, and the court declined to exercise supplemental judgment
over Plaintiff's remaining state law claim.


RICH FOODS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Agramonte, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Richard Shrager and Rich Foods 37, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03074-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2014) alleges
that the Plaintiff was classified as a delivery person and worked
up to 44 hours per week at a regular rate of pay below minimum
wage and without being paid overtime.

Rich Foods 37, LLC is a New York limited liability company and
owns and operates a joint Papa John's Pizzeria/Subway Sandwich
Shop located in New York City.  Richard Shrager owns and operates
Rich Foods 37.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
          GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2743
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 300-5358
          Facsimile: (888) 265-7054
          E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com


SECURITY CREDIT: Faces "Weissmandl" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anchel Weissmandl, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Security Credit Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-02708-WFK-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


SIXDOG INVESTMENTS: Recalls Eggs Due to Salmonella Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Sixdog Investments, LLC is voluntarily recalling some cases of
their certified organic eggs, because of the potential they are
contaminated with Salmonella. This voluntary field action was
initiated because of routine testing results, and not because of
illness to date from consumption.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

Product was distributed in Colorado; some may have gone to Idaho,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Utah. These were distributed through
retail outlets.

The eggs are packed in dozen and half-dozen packages. The
products in question will have a packing date of 93, 94, 97, or
98; an expiration date of "051814", "051914", "052214", or
"052314"; they will also include a location code of 1 or 3. All
this information is on the package, located on a white sticker on
the end of each carton.

The company is confident that any and all products sent out with
any other packing codes or expiration dates are fully safe for
consumption. NO illnesses have been reported to date.

Routine testing, initiated by the firm, revealed that the
finished products from certain barns could potentially contain
the bacteria. The company immediately ceased production in these
areas, and began taking action to rectify the situation.

Consumers who have purchased these products may return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at (970) 286-0080; a representative will be
available 10:00-5:00 Monday through Friday.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Briefing in Suit v. Delta, AirTran Suspended
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in Atlanta suspended further briefing on several motions
filed in a suit against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran over
alleged monopoly of air travel until plaintiffs' motion for
discovery sanctions is resolved, according to Southwest Airlines
Co.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for
the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of
the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints
also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal
district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las
Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single
federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1,
2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta
and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes
and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage
fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended
Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of
alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed.
The parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and
AirTran filed a motion to exclude the class certification reports
of plaintiffs' expert. The Court has not yet ruled on the class
certification motion or the related motion to exclude plaintiffs'
expert. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, which was
extended due to discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta,
but discovery has now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta have
delayed further briefing on summary judgment. On December 2,
2013, plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions against Delta, and
the Court has suspended further briefing on (i) the motion for
summary judgment, (ii) the motion for class certification, and
(iii) the motion to strike plaintiffs' expert on class
certification, until the sanctions motion is resolved. AirTran
denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously
any and all such allegations.


SPECIALTY RETAILERS: Negligently Contacted Class Members' Phones
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Freeman, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. Specialty Retailers, Inc., a Texas Corporation d/b/a
"GOODY's"; Stage Stores, Inc., a Texas Corporation; Soundbite
Communications, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Velti, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00664 (D. Nev., April 30, 2014) arises from the
Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff through SMS or "text" messages on his
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Specialty Retailers is a Texas corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas, and doing business in Nevada, including through
goodysonline.com.  Stage Stores is a Texas corporation
headquartered in Houston, Texas, and doing business in Nevada,
including through StageStoresInc.com.  SoundBite is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, and doing
business in Nevada.  Velti is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in San Francisco, California, and doing business in
Nevada.  SoundBite and Velti are the vendors, who send text or
"SMS" messages on behalf of Defendants Specialty Retailers and
Stage Stores to customers and sent the text messages, or a
portion thereof, to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Doug J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Employee Complaints v. Boeing Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' claims in Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et
al. remain pending in the litigation, according to Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 3, 2014.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July
2007. The defendants included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.
Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita
Technical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the
Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals. The putative class consists of
approximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. The
parties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members who
asserted claims against the Spirit entities are those individuals
who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas,
were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10
years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs
represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55, and
who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to
determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early
retirement "bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical
benefits that were allegedly triggered by their separation from
employment by Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension
benefits were unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in
that their claimed early retirement "bridging rights" are not
being afforded these individuals as a result of their separation
from Boeing, thereby decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs
initially sought a declaration that they were entitled to the
early retirement pension benefits and retiree medical benefits,
an injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.

On June 20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing
all claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice.
Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the
litigation. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is
entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable
damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms
of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition
between Boeing and Spirit. Spirit disputes Boeing's position on
indemnity.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: New Defendants Named in Kan. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint by purchasers of Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc. securities names Vice President of the B787
Program and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
as additional defendants, according to Spirit's May 2, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 3, 2014.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.  The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J. George and
former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations Alexander K.
Kummant.  The amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged
in a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of the
Company's stock by making false statements and omissions about
certain programs' performance and costs.  It contends that the
alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's accrual of $590.0 in
forward loss charges on October 25, 2012.  The lead plaintiffs
seek certification of a class of all persons other than
defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011
and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified amount of damages
on behalf of the putative class.


STATE AUTO: Still Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over "ITV" Program
----------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation continues to face a suit
alleging that coverage limits and premiums of homeowners policies
were improperly increased as a result of an insurance to value
program, according to the company's May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto
P&C in Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that in
connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto
companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly
increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program
and Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of
that which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss.
Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court. The Company
intends to deny any and all liability to plaintiffs or the
alleged class and to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


STATE FARM: Has Suppressed Payment for Auto Repairs, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford's Auto Center, Inc., On Behalf Of Itself And All Others
Similarly Situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm
Indemnity Company, State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company, State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company, State Farm County Mutual
Insurance Company of Texas, Allstate Corporation, Allstate
Insurance Company, Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company,
Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity
Company, Allstate New Jersey Insurance, Allstate New Jersey
Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, Encompass Indemnity Company, Esurance
Insurance Company, Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance
Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO General
Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO Casualty
Company, GEICO Advantage Insurance Company, GEICO Choice
Insurance Company, GEICO Secure Insurance Company, GEICO County
Mutual Insurance Company, The Progressive Corporation,
Progressive American Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company, Progressive Gulf Insurance Company,
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, Progressive Classic
Insurance Company, Progressive Michigan Insurance Company,
Progressive Mountain Insurance Company, Progressive Northern
Insurance Company, Progressive Northwestern Insurance,
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Progressive Security
Insurance Company, Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company,
Progressive West Insurance Company, Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Progressive Choice Insurance Company,
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Progressive Garden State
Insurance, Progressive Marathon Insurance Company, Progressive
Paloverde Insurance Company, Progressive Select Insurance
Company, Progressive Premier Insurance of IL, Progressive
Universal Insurance Company, Progressive County Mutual Insurance
Company, Artisan & Truckers Casualty Company, United Financial
Casualty Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance
Exchange, Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, Farmers Insurance
Company of Oregon, Farmers Insurance Company of Washington,
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Texas County Mutual
Insurance Company, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Mid-
Century Insurance Company, Foremost County Mutual Insurance
Company, Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Bristol West
Insurance Company, Coast National Insurance Company, 21st Century
Centennial Insurance Company, 21st Century Indemnity Insurance
Company, 21st Century Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Holding
Co., Inc., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., The First Liberty
Insurance Corporation, Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company,
Texas, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, LM General Insurance Company, Peerless
Insurance Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Safeco
Insurance Company of Illinois, Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company, AMCO
Insurance Company, Depositors Insurance Company, Nationwide
Insurance Company of America, Colonial County Mutual Insurance
Company, Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America,
Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, Nationwide Property &
Casualty Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-03146 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2014) is a
nationwide class action that seeks damages and additional relief
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and
other state laws.

The case seeks to remedy the Defendant Insurers' alleged long-
running unlawful conduct to suppress compensation to repair
facilities for automotive collision repairs covered by insurance.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an Illinois
corporation, having its principal place of business in Illinois.
The Defendant Insurers State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Progressive,
Farmers, Liberty Mutual and Nationwide, together with their three
conspirator insurers, are the 10 largest private passenger auto
insurers in the United States, collectively holding 70% of the
market, and control all aspects of collision repairs, including
establishing the industry standards for compensation paid to
repair facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sbloch@bm.net

               - and -

          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          30 North LaSalle Street-Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com


STE FROMAGERE: Recalls Raclette and Montboissie Cheese
------------------------------------------------------
Ste Fromagere du Livradois of Fournols, France is recalling Haut
Livradois brand Raclette and Montboissie cheeses lot#350 because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella
often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The products were distributed nationwide in supermarkets and
gourmet stores between March 10th, 2014 and May 6th, 2014.

The recalled products are Raclette du Haut Livradois and
Montboissie du Haut Livradois, lot # 350. They both come as a
13lb wheel and are usually cut and wrapped. The Montboissie has a
vegetable ash line in the middle of the cheese. The Raclette does
not.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This voluntarily recall was initiated after the result of a
routine sampling program by the FDA which revealed the presence
of Salmonella in some products. The FDA and Ste Fromagere du
Livradois are investigating the source of the problem to fix it.

Each and every distributor and retailer are being contacted in an
effort to recall any and all remaining product in the
marketplace.

If you believe that you have purchased any of these cheeses
please contact your distributor or retailer for a full refund. If
you have any questions please call Ste Fromagere du Livradois
Monday-Friday from 9am to 5pm (EST) at +1 (201) 448 8787 and
mention recall.


STONYFIELD: 188 6-Packs of Yobaby Peach/Pear Yogurt Cups Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Organic yogurt maker Stonyfield on April 25 voluntarily recalled
188 6-packs of 4 oz YoBaby Peach/Pear cups with the code date
June 05 2014 (UPC 052159701161).

The 4 oz 6-packs were shipped to Target stores in Alabama,
Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South
Carolina and Walmart stores in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey
and Delaware. A full list of potentially affected stores can be
found at Stonyfield.com.

The recall comes in response to internal testing of the product
that revealed the possibility that some product shipped from its
Londonderry plant may be affected by coliform contamination.
Although the potential problem is not widespread, Stonyfield is
taking this measure to ensure the safety of its consumers.

Stonyfield advised its distribution network to immediately remove
these specific code-dated yogurts from retail shelves. No other
Stonyfield products were affected.

Consumers who purchased the potentially affected YoBaby yogurts
from Walmart or Target with this code date are asked to return
opened and unopened containers to their retailers to be
reimbursed for the full value of the purchase. Affected yogurts
were only available for purchase on or after April 23, 2014.

Consumers with questions should contact Stonyfield Consumer
Relations at 1-800-PRO-COWS or email at
crelations@Stonyfield.com.

"Our first priority has always been and always will be the
welfare of our consumers," says Esteve Torrens, Stonyfield CEO.
"While we continue to investigate this issue and believe that the
risk of injury is extremely remote, we feel that this voluntary
measure is the prudent and responsible step at this time."

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.


SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Privacy Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------
Before the court in JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v.
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, a California Corporation, Defendant, (CASE
NO. 13-CV-03376-LHK, (N.D. Cal.), is Successfulmatch.com's motion
to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, to strike class
allegations.

Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is a Canadian resident, and Plaintiff Jane
Doe 2 is a Washington resident.  Defendant Successfulmatch.com is
a California corporation that operates a variety of dating sites
including PositiveSingles.com, which is marketed to persons with
sexually transmitted diseases. Plaintiffs' critical allegation is
that Defendant fraudulently and deceptively failed to disclose
that profiles created through PositiveSingles.com could be viewed
on Defendant's affiliate dating sites.

District Judge Lucy H. Koh, in an order dated April 16, 2014, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/sjOqJHfrom
Leagle.com,
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and
denied the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations.

According to the ruling, the Court granted, with leave to amend,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, on the basis that Plaintiffs
failed to plead the reliance and injury necessary to state a
claim. If the Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint
addressing the deficiencies identified by the Court, the
Plaintiffs must do so within 21 days, said Judge Koh. Plaintiffs
may not add new claims or parties without seeking Defendant's
consent or leave of the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15. Plaintiffs' failure to file an amended complaint
within 21 days or failure to cure the deficiencies will result in
a dismissal of this case with prejudice, he added.

Jane Doe 1, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Robert S. Green, Esq.
   James Robert Noblin, Esq.
   Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq.
   Green & Noblin, P.C.
   700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
   Larkspur, California 94939
   Telephone: (415) 477-6700
   Facsimile: (415) 477-6710

Jane Doe 2, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C., James Robert Noblin, Green and Noblin, P.C. &
Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Green & Noblin, P.C..

Successfulmatch.com, a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Virginia Anne Sanderson -- ginny@KBInternetLaw.com
-- Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP.


TARGET INC: Calif. Supreme Court Tosses Coffee Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Singer and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that
a class of Target Inc. customers who say the retailer wrongly
collected tax on to-go coffee sales cannot continue their suit
because the tax code does not allow for a remedy via a consumer
protection suit, the California Supreme Court ruled on May 1.
The customers had asked the state's courts to revive their suit
after a state appeals court said it lacked the constitutional
power to address Target's alleged conduct.

The customers had argued that Article 13 of the California
Constitution doesn't bar consumers from suing retailers that
charge a sales tax reimbursement on sales that aren't taxable,
such as coffee.  But Target's attorney, David McDowell --
dmcdowell@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, argued the
plaintiffs must bring such issues before the State Board of
Equalization -- not the courts -- and that the taxpayer is
Target, not the consumer.

On May 1, the Supreme Court avoided addressing that
interpretation, instead upholding the dismissal because the
state's tax code does not allow for consumers to bring suit.

"An unfair competition law or Consumer Legal Remedies Act cause
of action such as plaintiffs' cannot be reconciled with the
primary decision-making role that the tax code vests in the board
with respect to tax issues," the court wrote.  "Moreover, [state
law] provides a safe harbor for a retailer/taxpayer who remits
reimbursement charges to the board.  For these reasons, the tax
code precludes claims such as plaintiffs'."

Target violated California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act when it told customers it was collecting sales
tax on takeout hot coffee drinks, which aren't taxable in
California, Leslie Bailey of Public Justice argued for the
customers.

"All we're saying that a retailer can't lie to a customer," she
said when arguing before the high court.

The California Supreme Court justices then challenged whether it
would be legal under other circumstances.

"They could just raise the price of coffee," Justice Goodwin Liu
said.  "The dispute is that they're representing it as a tax?"

"Yes," Bailey said.

In its opinion on May 1, the court explained why it drew the line
in this case.

"Although in the past we have permitted consumer intervention
into the sales tax scheme in limited circumstances and only by
means of a judicial proceeding to compel the retailer/taxpayer to
seek a refund from the board, such a remedy invokes, rather than
avoids, tax code procedures," the court wrote. "Plaintiffs in the
present case did not pursue that remedy."

The customers, led by Kimberly Loeffler, are represented by
Leslie A. Bailey and Arthur H. Bryant of Public Justice PC.

Target is represented by David F. McDowell, Miriam A. Vogel --
mvogel@mofo.com -- and Samantha P. Goodman of Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

The case is Kimberly Loeffler vs. Target Corp., case number
S173972, in the California Supreme Court.


TAYLOR CAPITAL: Has MoU to Settle MB Financial Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Capital Group, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding the settlement of a consolidated lawsuit
over its pending MB Financial/Taylor Capital merger, according to
Taylor Capital's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

On July 26, 2013, a class action complaint, captioned James
Sullivan v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et al., was filed under
Case No. 2013-CH-17751 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (the "Court"), against the Company, its directors and MB
Financial, Inc. ("MB Financial" and such parties collectively,
the "Defendants") challenging the pending MB Financial/Taylor
Capital merger. On August 8, 2013, a second class action
complaint, captioned Dennis Panozzo v Taylor Capital Group, Inc.,
et. al., was filed under Case No. 2013-CH-18546 in the Court
against the Defendants. Subsequently, the two cases were
consolidated pursuant to court order under the first-filed
Sullivan case number (as so consolidated, the "Action"). On
October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Action (the "Plaintiffs")
filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by agreeing
to the proposed merger at an unfair price pursuant to a flawed
sales process, by agreeing to terms with MB Financial that
discouraged other bidders and by issuing a preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus, included in the Form S-4 registration
statement filed with the SEC by MB Financial, that purportedly
omitted material information. Plaintiffs further alleged that
certain of the Company's directors and officers were not
independent or disinterested with respect to the proposed merger.

Plaintiffs also alleged that MB Financial aided and abetted the
Company's directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and experts'
fees and certain other damages.

On February 17, 2014, solely to eliminate the costs, risks,
burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted in the Action to
rest, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") with the Plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
Action pursuant to which the Company and MB Financial agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures concerning the proposed
merger, which each of the Company and MB Financial did in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by each of them on February 18,
2014 (the "Form 8-Ks"). Nothing in the MOU, any settlement
agreement or any public filing, including the Form 8-Ks, shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the
materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional
information contained therein or in any public filing associated
with the proposed settlement of the Action.

The MOU also provides that, solely for purposes of settlement,
the Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial stockholders of the Company when the
proposed merger was approved by the Company's Board or any time
thereafter (the "Class"). In addition, the MOU provides that,
subject to approval by the Court after notice to the members of
the Class (the "Class Members"), the Action will be dismissed
with prejudice and all claims that the Class Members may possess
with regard to the proposed merger, with the exception of claims
for statutory appraisal, will be released. In connection with the
settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel have expressed their
intention to seek an award by the Court of attorneys' fees and
expenses. The amount of the award to the Plaintiffs' counsel will
ultimately be determined by the Court. This payment will not
affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid by MB
Financial or that any stockholder of the Company will receive in
the proposed merger. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement agreement or
that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties
enter into such an agreement. In the absence of either event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.


TEMPUR SEALY: Bid to Dismiss "Dodson" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar denied a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned MICHAEL DODSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.TEMPUR-
SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-
04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action for violations of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, and various other states'
consumer protection laws, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants'
representation of their Tempur products as "formaldehyde free,"
"free of harmful (volatile organic compounds) VOCs," "allergen
resistant," and "hypoallergenic" are false and misleading,
because "reliable testing of Tempurpedic products reveals that
formaldehyde and other potentially harmful VOCs, that can trigger
allergy and asthma symptoms, are present in Tempur-pedic products
and in the chemicals offgassing from Tempur-pedic products."
Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
to dismiss the first amended complaint (FAC). Additionally,
Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' class allegations.

Juge Tigar denied the motion to dismiss for lack of standing
saying the Plaintiffs have shown that the New York statute of
limitations is subject to equitable tolling, as Plaintiffs have
alleged that Defendants misrepresented and omitted the chemical
content of its Tempur products and thus concealed the existence
of the claims they now bring. Plaintiffs have also alleged that
they filed this action soon after learning the true contents of
the Tempur products from tests taken in 2012 and 2013.
Accordingly, these claims are not time-barred.

In addition, Judge Tigar held that discovery has not yet
commenced and no motion for class certification has been filed.
Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to address issues as to
class certification at this stage of the proceedings. Defendants'
motion to strike the class allegations is, therefore, denied.

The Court is slated to conduct a case management conference on
May 14, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. A Joint Case Management Statement must
be filed at least ten court days beforehand.

A copy of the District Court's April 16, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/0medOkfrom Leagle.com

Michael Dodson, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Marie Isaac --
disaac@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP,
Jonas Palmer Mann -- jmann@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP,
Michael Andrew McShane -- MMcsShane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen -- sjensen@allenstewart.com
-- Allen Stewart, & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C., and:

   Angelique Adams, Esq.
   Gary K Shipman, Esq.
   William G Wright, Esq.
   SHIPMAN AND WRIGHT, LLP
   575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
   Wilmington, NC 28405
   Telephone: (910) 762-1990
   Facsimile: (910) 762-6752

       - and -

   John G Simon, Esq.
   Ryan Alexander Keane, Esq.
   THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
   800 Market Street, Suite 1700
   St. Louis, MO  63101
   Telephone: 314-241-2929
   Facsimile: 314-241-2029

Alvin Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Henry Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Mary Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Brian Stone, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Robbie Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Thomas Comiskey, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Toni Kibbee, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Rosemarie Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Louis Pace, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Tina White, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G
Wright, Shipman and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen
Stewart, P.C..

Johnny Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Keith Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams, Shipman
and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Gary K
Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet &
Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman and
Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Patricia Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by Angelique Adams,
Shipman and Wright, LLP, Dana Marie Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Gary K Shipman, Shipman and Wright, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet
& Partners LLP, Michael Andrew McShane, Audet & Partners LLP,
Steve Baughman Jensen, Allen Stewart, William G Wright, Shipman
and Wright, LLP & Allen Mark Stewart, Allen Stewart, P.C..

Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron
Lewis Renfro -- arenfro@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen, Mark
Lemar Eisenhut -- meisenhut@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen,
Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen, Daniel
Jay Gerber -- dgerber@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell,
P.A. & Douglas Bruce Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com -- Rumberger
Kirk & Caldwell, P.A..

Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron
Lewis Renfro, Call & Jensen, Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Call & Jensen,
Matthew Ryan Orr, Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Rumberger
Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. & Douglas Bruce Brown, Rumberger Kirk &
Caldwell, P.A..


TEMPUR SEALY: Kentucky Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky issued an Order granting a motion by Tempur Sealy
International, Inc. to dismiss a consolidated securities
complaint, according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On June 20 and 25, 2012, these suits were filed against the
Company and two named executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly
on behalf of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012:

Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed
June 20, 2012

Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc.,
Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and
misleading statements and concealment of material information
concerning the Company's competitive position, projected net
sales, earnings per diluted share and related financial
performance for the Company's 2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs
seek damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, expert fees and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. On November 2, 2012, the
Court consolidated the two lawsuits and on March 6, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2014, the
Court issued an Order granting the Company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint. Per the Order, the Company is
awaiting the Judge's memorandum of opinion. Should the plaintiffs
appeal, the Company would vigorously defend against the claims.


TEMPUR SEALY: Still Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Mattress, Pillow
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC continues
to face a securities suit filed by Michael Dodson, Alvin Todd,
and Henry and Mary Thompson, according to the company's May 2,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Section 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously.


TELEXFREE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Int'l Pyramid Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott O'Connell, writing for The Metrowest Daily News, reports
that a Framingham lawyer has filed a class action lawsuit against
the individuals accused of running TelexFREE, the Marlborough-
based company suspected by the government of being an
international pyramid scheme.

Filed by attorney Evans J. Carter in Middlesex Superior Court
last week, the suit is for Massachusetts residents only.  So far
he has six clients, although he said he expects more could join.
Mr. Carter said he will be seeking "whatever (amount) is
necessary" to repay former investors, who have lost millions to
TelexFREE.

The suit specifically names a dozen company executives and top
promoters, including the business's co-owners, James Merrill and
Carlos Wanzeler.

Both the Securities and Exchange Commission and Massachusetts
Secretary of State filed complaints against TelexFREE two weeks
ago, accusing it of running a billion-dollar, worldwide Ponzi
scheme.  Investigators say the scam worked by luring investors
with a pay-for-advertising system that promised high returns
regardless of whether they were able to sell the company's actual
product, an Internet-based phone service.

TelexFREE suspended that multi-marketing scheme in early March,
and has been embroiled in bankruptcy court since filing for
Chapter 11 protection in Nevada on April 13.

Late investors into the company have reported losses of tens of
thousands of dollars.  While the SEC has indicated it could
eventually create a fund with TelexFREE's recovered assets to pay
them back, Mr. Carter said that "rarely" is ever enough to fully
compensate victims.

"(Our clients) want us to have a judgment to go to Brazil or
wherever else we have to" to reclaim their investments, he said.
Carter said he was first contacted about a potential lawsuit by a
Brazilian tax preparers organization in Milford.  He has also
heard from several lawyers for other TelexFREE victims who could
join the action.

The only plaintiff named in the suit is Olavo F. Magalhaes of
Worcester, who claims to have invested more than $209,000 in the
company.

In total, Mr. Carter estimated the losses of the people he is
talking to in the case amount to around $5 million. Massachusetts
securities regulators reported the company raised more than $90
million from customers in the state over the past two years.
TelexFREE's scheme primarily targeted minority groups,
particularly Brazilians and Dominicans, according to authorities.
The class action suit accuses the company of civil conspiracy and
breach of contract.

In other news on May 2, a major hearing in TelexFREE's bankruptcy
case got underway in Nevada. The government was scheduled to
present its argument for moving the case to Massachusetts as well
as appointing a trustee to take over the company.


TEREX CORP: Files Motions to Dismiss ERISA, Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation filed motions to dismiss lawsuits alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violation and the Securities Act, according to the company's May
1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of
class action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit
and a stockholder derivative lawsuit as follows:

     (i) A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
Litigation.

    (ii) A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund
and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation,
et al.

   (iii) A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on
April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman,
Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A.
Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula
H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David
C. Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure
requirements. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges
waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the
Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result
of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The
complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable
to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these
lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks
amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in
addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual
defendants in its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are
without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives
will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company
believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance
with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, on November 19, 2010 the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011 the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the securities lawsuit. These
motions are currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in
the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to
put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to
dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit.


TOWER GROUP: Motions Filed to Consolidate Securities Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
A number of motions were filed seeking to consolidate shareholder
class actions filed against Tower Group International Ltd.,
according to the company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2014.

On August 20, 2013, Robert P. Lang, a purported shareholder of
Tower Group International Ltd. ("Tower"), filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Lang Complaint") against Tower and certain
of its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The Lang Complaint
purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased Tower stock between July 30, 2012 and August 8, 2013.
The Lang Complaint alleges that Tower and certain of its current
and former officers violated federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages. On September 3, 2013, a second purported
shareholder class action complaint was filed by Dennis Feighay,
another purported Tower shareholder, containing similar
allegations to those set forth in the Lang Complaint (the
"Feighay Complaint"). The Feighay Complaint purports to be
asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Tower
stock between May 9, 2011 and August 7, 2013. On October 4, 2013,
a third complaint was filed by Sanju Sharma (the "Sharma
Complaint"). The Sharma Complaint names as defendants Tower and
certain of its current and former officers, and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock
between May 10, 2011 and September 17, 2013. On October 18, 2013,
an amended complaint was filed in the Sharma case (the "Sharma
Amended Complaint"). The Sharma Amended Complaint alleges
additional false and misleading statements, and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock
between March 1, 2011 and October 7, 2013. On October 21, 2013, a
number of motions were filed seeking to consolidate the
shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of
a lead plaintiff.


TOWER GROUP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over ACP Re Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Group International Ltd. is facing lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York in
relation to the ACP Re Merger Agreement, according to the
company's May 2, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2014.

On January 14, 2014, Derek Wilson, a purported shareholder of
Tower, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Wilson
Complaint") against Tower, certain of its current and former
directors, ACP Re Ltd. ("ACP Re"), London Acquisition Company
Limited ("Merger Sub"), and AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.
("AmTrust") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Wilson Complaint alleges that the
members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of Tower under Bermuda
law by approving Tower's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement
and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Tower to its
public shareholders, and that Tower, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and
AmTrust aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Wilson Complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
proposed transaction undervalues Tower, that the process leading
up to the ACP Re Merger Agreement was flawed, and that certain
provisions of the ACP Re Merger Agreement improperly favor ACP Re
and discourage competing offers for the Company. The Wilson
Complaint further alleges oppressive conduct against Tower's
shareholders in violation of Bermuda law. The Wilson Complaint
seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to the
extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable relief.

On February 27, 2014, the same shareholder filed an amended
complaint alleging, in addition, that the defendants disseminated
a materially false and misleading preliminary proxy statement
regarding the ACP Re Merger Agreement in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder (the "Wilson Amended Complaint").

On March 3, 2014, another purported shareholder filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, ACP Re, Merger Sub,
and AmTrust, also in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Raul Complaint"). The Raul
Complaint alleges that the defendants disseminated a materially
false and misleading preliminary proxy statement regarding the
ACP Re Merger Agreement in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9.

On March 24, 2014, two purported shareholders of the Company
filed a purported class action and shareholder derivative
complaint against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and Tower Group, Inc., in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the
"Bekkerman Complaint" and, together with the Wilson Amended
Complaint and the Raul Complaint, the "Merger Complaints"). The
Bekkerman Complaint alleges, among other things, that the members
of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the shareholders of the Company by failing to
exercise appropriate oversight over the conduct of the Company's
business, awarding Michael Lee excessive compensation, approving
the Company's entry into the ACP Re Merger Agreement, failing to
take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its public
shareholders, and misrepresenting or omitting material
information in connection with the proposed transaction, and that
the Company and Tower Group, Inc., aided and abetted such
breaches of fiduciary duties. The Bekkerman Complaint also
alleges, among other things, that Lee was unjustly enriched as a
result of the compensation he received while allegedly breaching
his fiduciary duties and by selling stock while in the possession
of material, adverse, non-public information. The Bekkerman
Complaint seeks, among other things, an award of money damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants
from consummating the proposed transaction, rescission of the ACP
Re Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented, and other
forms of equitable relief.


TOYO TIRE: Sued for Rigging Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Asken, Melissa Barron, Kimberly Bennett, David Bernstein,
Tenisha Burgos, Kent Busek, Jennifer Chase, Rita Cornish, Melissa
Croom, Lori Curtis, Jessica Decastro, Alena Farrell, Jane
Fitzgerald, Carroll Gibbs, Dori Gilels, Jason Grala, Paul
Gustafson, Tom Halverson, Curtis Harr, Andrew Hedlund, Gary
Arthur Herr, Carol Ann Kashishian, Elizabeth Kaufman, Robert
Klingler, Leonard Julian, James Marean, Nilsa Mercado, Rebecca
Lynn Morrow, Edward Muscara, Stacey Nickell, Sophie
O'Keefezelman, Roger Olson, William Picotte, Whitney Porter,
Cindy Prince, Janne Rice, Robert Rice, Jr., Frances Gammell-
Roach, Darrel Senior, Meetesh Shah, Darcy Sherman, Erica Shoaf,
Arthur Stukey, Kathleen Tawney, Keith Uehara, Michael Wick,
Thomas Wilson, Phillip Young, on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated v. Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., Toyo
Tire North America Manufacturing Inc., Toyo Tire North America OE
Sales LLC, and Toyo Automotive Parts (USA), Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-11721-GAD-MKM (E.D. Mich., April 30, 2014) is brought as a
proposed class action against the Defendants and unnamed co-
conspirators, manufacturers and suppliers of Automotive Constant-
Velocity-Joint Boot Products for engaging in a long-running
conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and
stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Automotive Constant-Velocity-
Joint Boot Products.

"Automotive Constant-Velocity-Joint Boot Products" are composed
of rubber or plastic, and are used to cover the constant-
velocity-joints of an automobile to protect the joints from
contaminants.

Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd. is a Japanese company with its
principal place of business in Osaka, Japan.  Toyo Tire North
America Manufacturing Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business in White, Georgia.  Toyo Tire North
America is a subsidiary of Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.  Toyo
Tire North America OE Sales LLC is a California company
headquartered in White, Georgia, and a subsidiary of Toyo Tire &
Rubber Co., Ltd.  Toyo Automotive Parts (USA), Inc. is a Kentucky
corporation with its principal place of business in Franklin,
Kentucky, and a subsidiary of Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.  The
Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Automotive Constant-
Velocity-Joint Boot Products throughout and into the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Adam T. Schnatz, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, Michigan 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ats@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
          601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: hsalzman@rkmc.com
                  bpersky@rkmc.com
                  wvreiss@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 754-1900
          Facsimile: (214)754-1933
          E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com
                  wburns@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Frank C. Damrell, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: fdamrell@cpmlegal.com
                  swilliams@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com
                  etran@cpmlegal.com


TOYS "R" US: Pays Penalty for Antitrust Suit v. Babies "R" Us
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" US paid $1 million as a civil penalty in a suit filed by
Internet retailers that allege Babies "R" Us agreed with certain
baby product manufacturers to impose, maintain and/or enforce
minimum price agreements in violation of antitrust laws,
according to Toys' May 2, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal years ended
February 1, 2014, February 2, 2013 and January 28, 2012.

On July 15, 2009, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court") granted
the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a
consumer class action commenced in January 2006, which was
consolidated with an action brought by two Internet retailers
that was commenced in December 2005. Both actions allege that
Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product manufacturers
(collectively, with the Company and the company's Parent, the
"Defendants") to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum price
agreements in violation of antitrust laws. In addition, in
December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a similar action
and another consumer class action was commenced making similar
allegations involving most of the same Defendants. In January
2011, the parties in the consumer class actions entered into a
settlement agreement, which was approved by the District Court in
a final approval order in December 2011. In January 2012, certain
parties who objected to the District Court's final approval of
the settlement filed Notices of Appeal with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. As part of the settlement, in March 2011, the
company made a payment of $17 million towards the overall
settlement. In February 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the District Court's final approval order and remanded
the case to the District Court. The company does not reasonably
believe that the company will need to make any further payments
in connection with any future settlement.

In addition, in January 2011, the plaintiffs, the Company and the
company's Parent and certain other Defendants in the Internet
retailer actions entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to
which the company made a payment of $5 million towards the
overall settlement. In addition, on or about November 23, 2010,
the company's Parent entered into a Stipulation with the Federal
Trade Commission ("FTC") ending the FTC's investigation related
to the company's Parent and its subsidiaries' compliance with a
1998 FTC Final Order and settling all claims in full. Pursuant to
the settlement, in May 2011, the company paid $1 million as a
civil penalty.


TRULIA INC: Settlement of Suit Over Market Leader Merger Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court approved a settlement reached in
In re Market Leader Inc. Shareholders' Litigation, No. 13-2-
20796-6 SEA, according to Trulia, Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Following the announcement that the company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to acquire Market Leader, purported
class action law suits brought on behalf of all Market Leader
shareholders contesting the merger were filed in King County
Superior Court and then consolidated under the caption In re
Market Leader Inc. Shareholders' Litigation, No. 13-2-20796-6 SEA
(the "Merger Litigation"). On July 15, 2013, a superseding
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"),
was filed, alleging that Market Leader's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder
value or to engage in a fair sale process before approving the
proposed acquisition of Market Leader by Trulia. The Consolidated
Complaint also alleged that the defendants, including the company
and Mariner Acquisition Corp., the company's wholly owned
subsidiary, failed to provide Market Leader shareholders with
material information regarding the merger in the proxy statement
and related public filings. The Consolidated Complaint further
alleged that Market Leader, Trulia, and Mariner Acquisition Corp.
aided and abetted the Market Leader directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty. The Consolidated Complaint sought 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 payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On August 5, 2013, the
parties entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the
Merger Litigation and resolve all allegations against Market
Leader and the other defendants. The settlement provided for the
release of all claims against the defendants relating to the
merger, including those alleged in the Consolidated Complaint.
Lead counsel for the consolidated action applied to the court for
an award of fees and reimbursement of costs incurred in
connection with the Merger Litigation. Market Leader agreed not
to oppose the application for an award of fees and reimbursement
of costs up to $350,000. On December 23, 2013, the court entered
an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and on March 7,
2014, a final order approving the settlement was issued.


TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Sued Over Unfair Means to Collect Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Good, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp., Case No.
3:14-cv-02755-AET-DEA (D.N.J., April 30, 2014) is brought on
behalf of a nationwide class seeking redress for the Defendant's
actions of using an alleged unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp. is headquartered in
White Plains, New York, and is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants-In-Part Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Seeley, Esq., at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, reports
that in Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., 2014 WL 1652338,
Case No. C-12-02646-RMW (N.D. Cal. April 24, 2014), the court
granted-in-part and denied-in-part a motion for class
certification in a false advertising case about tea labels.  The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant's tea was "misbranded"
because it advertised the tea as a "Natural Source of
Antioxidants."  The plaintiff claimed that this advertising was
misleading and violated California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiff contended that, although the tea indisputably contained
flavonoids (a type of antioxidant), the Food & Drug
Administration does not allow advertising about flavonoids
because it has not established a recommended daily dose.
Plaintiff sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) (for an
injunctive class) and Rule 23(b)(3) (for a damages class) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court rejected the plaintiff's proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class.
The court noted that, under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct.
1426 (2013), a plaintiff seeking certification must "present a
legally relevant damages model under Rule 23(b)(3)."  Lanovaz,
2014 WL 1652338 at *6.  The court determined that "The proper
measure of restitution in a mislabeling case is the amount
necessary to compensate the purchaser for the difference between
a product as labeled and the product as received."  Id.  This can
be determined by "taking the market price actually paid by
consumers and the true market price that reflects the unlawful,
unfair, or fraudulent business practice."  Id.

Applying Comcast, the court concluded that the three "models"
offered by the plaintiff's expert were incapable of calculating
the legally correct restitution award.  First, the plaintiff's
expert proposed that class-wide damages could be calculated by
"refunding the entire purchase or 'register' price of the tea."
The court rejected this immediately, as "this is not the proper
measure of damages."  Id.  Second, the plaintiff's expert
proposed a "benefit of the bargain" measure, which calculated the
differences in price between the defendant's tea (with the
antioxidant advertising) and other tea (without the antioxidant
advertising).  The court rejected this model because it failed to
link the price differences to the antioxidant label and was,
therefore, incapable of eliminating other explanations for the
price differences.  Id.  Third, the plaintiff's expert offered an
"econometric" model that would have determined the portion of the
defendant's sales that was caused by the misleading antioxidant
label.  Ultimately, the court rejected this model after
plaintiff's expert acknowledged that he could not use it due to
the lack of "any variable in sales or units sold attributed to
the antioxidant claims."  Id.  As none of these models could
calculate the "legally relevant damages" owed to the class, the
court denied certification under Rule 23(b)(3), effectively
eliminating the plaintiff's hope of securing monetary relief.

The court reached a different result under Rule 23(b)(2).  Unlike
Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff seeking to certify an "injunction
only" class does not need to demonstrate that common issues
"predominate" over individual issues, rendering Comcast
inapplicable.  Here, whether the class was misled by this label
was a common question.  Id. at *4-5.  Since the defendant was
still using the antioxidant labeling, an injunction could be
entered if the plaintiff prevailed.  Thus, the court reasoned
that an injunction-only class was appropriate to resolve the
common issues and determine whether the defendant must remove the
antioxidant label from its tea packaging.  Id.

Lanovaz continues the string of recent California district court
cases that apply Comcast to require the plaintiff to submit a
legally viable damages model as part of the plaintiff's motion
for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).  Like the courts in
In re Pom Wonderful LLC, 2014 WL 1225184, *2-3 (C.D. Cal. March
25, 2014) and Caldera v. J.M. Smucker Co., 2014 WL 1477400, *4
(C.D. Cal. April 15, 2014), the Lanovaz court unequivocally
rejected the argument that the class was entitled to a full
refund.  Just as importantly, the Lanovaz court indicated that
Comcast is not satisfied by just comparing the prices of two
products: one with the false advertising and one without.
Instead, before certification is granted, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that the price difference is linked to the allegedly
false advertising to show that the false statements caused the
class members to pay more.  Only by linking the false label to
the increased price will a damages expert satisfy Comcast and
support certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class.


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Suit vs. DHS and ICE
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned AUDLEY BARRINGTON LYON, JR., et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants, NO. C-13-5878 EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs in this putative class action are Audley Barrington
Lyon, Jr.; Edgar Cornelio; Jose Elizandro Astorga-Cervantes; and
Lourdes Hernandez-Trujillo. They have filed suit against the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and certain employees of both agencies on the
ground that their constitutional and statutory rights are being
violated while they are held in government custody pending
deportation proceedings. In particular, Plaintiffs assert that
there are certain policies and practices in the Northern
California immigration detention facilities (located in Contra
Costa County, Sacramento County, and Yuba County) that "deny and
severely restrict their ability to make telephone calls."  This
has impacted Plaintiffs' ability to obtain counsel, consult with
counsel, and gather information and evidence necessary for their
immigration cases. In addition, the denial and restriction of
telephone access has substantially prolonged their incarceration
because, e.g., they have been forced to ask for continuances to
retain counsel, consult with counsel, or prepare their cases.

Judge Chen certified class defined as: "All current and future
immigration detainees who are or will be held by ICE in Contra
Costa, Sacramento, and Yuba Counties."

Because a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) class is being certified,
notice to the class is not required but may be appropriate
depending on the circumstances, ruled JudgeChen.  "If Plaintiffs
believe that notice is appropriate, then they should immediately
inform Defendants, and the parties should meet and confer (either
in person or by telephone) to determine whether they can reach
agreement as to whether notice should be given and, if so, what
the terms of that notice should be and how the notice should be
distributed to the class," he added.

A case management conference (CMC) will be held on May 22, 2014,
at 9:00 a.m. The parties must file a joint CMC statement one week
prior to the conference.

A copy of the District Court's April 16, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/NBdJIefrom Leagle.com.

Audley Barrington Lyon, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Carl Takei
-- ctakei@npp-aclu.org -- American Civil Liberties Union, Jingni
Zhao -- jzhao@aclunc.org -- ACLU Foundation of Northern
California, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq. -- jmass@aclunc.org --
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc.,
Michael Temple Risher -- mrisher@aclunc.org -- ACLU Foundation of
Northern California, Inc. & Robert P. Varian --
rvarian@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Edgar Cornelio, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Takei, American
Civil Liberties Union, Jingni Zhao, ACLU Foundation of Northern
California, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California, Inc., Michael Temple Risher, ACLU
Foundation of Northern California, Inc. & Robert P. Varian,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Jose Elizandro Astorga-Cervantes, Plaintiff, represented by Carl
Takei, American Civil Liberties Union, Jingni Zhao, ACLU
Foundation of Northern California, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq.,
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc.,
Michael Temple Risher, ACLU Foundation of Northern California,
Inc. & Robert P. Varian, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Lourdes Hernandez-Trujillo, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Takei,
American Civil Liberties Union, Jingni Zhao, ACLU Foundation of
Northern California, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc., Michael Temple
Risher, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. & Robert P.
Varian, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendant, represented
by Jennifer A. Bowen, U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division
& Katherine Ann Smith, United States Department of Justice.

John Sandweg, Defendant, represented by Jennifer A. Bowen, U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division & Katherine Ann Smith,
United States Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer A. Bowen, U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division &
Katherine Ann Smith, United States Department of Justice.

Jeh Charles Johnson, Defendant, represented by Jennifer A. Bowen,
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division & Katherine Ann
Smith, United States Department of Justice.

Timothy S. Aitken, Defendant, represented by Jennifer A. Bowen,
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division & Katherine Ann
Smith, United States Department of Justice.


VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Landau, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-02710-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2014) alleges violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Tosses Suit Over Defective Audi Brakes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge tossed a proposed class action alleging one of Volkswagen
AG's Audi models contains defective brakes and rotors, ruling
Wednesday that a vehicle lessee tried to flout the terms of a
warranty and that her claims were time-barred.

U.S. District Judge Federico A. Moreno found that plaintiff
Sandra Speier-Roche -- who leased an Audi Q7 in 2007 -- tried to
get around the terms of a limited warranty for the brakes and
rotors, by bringing defect claims after the warranty expired
without identifying any specific component of the brakes or
rotors that were defective.  The suit also named Volkswagen's
American subsidiary and its Audi AG unit as defendants.

"This court finds that [Speier-Roche] fails to adequately state a
valid cause of action in any of the counts of her amended
complaint," Judge Moreno said.  "All of her claims are time-
barred, and in addition, key elements of every claim are
missing."

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers or lessees of the Audi
Q7 from model-year 2007 until the present.  According to an
amended complaint filed in January, the braking system installed
in the vehicles suffers from defects that cause the vehicles'
brake pads and rotors to wear out prematurely and need replacing
approximately every 7,500 to 15,000 miles.

Judge Moreno ruled that Ms. Speier-Roche failed to meet the
statute of limitations for her claims, saying that her suit was
filed too long after the March 2008 date when she first became
aware of the alleged defect, and that Volkswagen didn't do
anything to actively conceal the alleged defect from consumers.

Ms. Speier-Roche leased the Audi in March 2007, when she also
received a limited warranty that covered the cost of all parts
and labor needed to repair any defective manufacturing up to 12
months and 12,000 miles, according to court documents.  The judge
said that Ms. Speier-Roche sought to invoke a longer, 48-month,
50,000-mile warranty period.

Judge Moreno also ruled that the brakes were specifically listed
in the warranty as being covered only by the 12-month limited
warranty because they are items subject to normal deterioration
from use.

Additionally, Judge Moreno noted that Volkswagen fully covered a
brake repair that fell during the limited warranty period and
never charged Ms. Speier-Roche for any work until the limited
warranty period expired.

The suit alleged violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and breach of written warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael S. Olin of Michael S.
Olin PA; Richard E. Norman -- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- and
R. Martin Weber Jr. -- mweber@crowleynorman.com -- of Crowley
Norman LLP; and Matthew R. Mendelsohn and Adam M. Slater --
aslater@mskf.net -- of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC.

Volkswagen is represented by Larry M. Roth and Michael D. Begey -
- mbegey@rumberger.com -- of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PA; and
Jeffrey L. Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- and Michael B.
Gallub -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- of Herzfeld & Rubin PC.

The case is Speier-Roche v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc. et
al., case number 1:14-cv-20107, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.


WEGMANS FOOD: Undeclared Egg Prompted Wegmans Easter Bread
----------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. on April 21 initiated a voluntary
recall of all Wegmans Easter Bread (braided loaf) 17 oz., UPC
77890 32431 (all code dates) because it contains egg, which is
not declared on the label. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Wegmans Easter Bread was produced and sold exclusively in 83
Wegmans stores located in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Virginia, and Maryland. Approximately 29,000 units
of the product are affected by the recall. The recall was
initiated when the label error was discovered by a Wegmans bakery
department employee, who noticed the absence of an allergen
advisory.

Wegmans Easter Bread is a braided loaf with drizzled white
frosting (some loaves also have colored sprinkles). The product
is packaged in clear plastic, and sold in Wegmans bakery
department.

There have been no reported injuries or illnesses associated with
this recall. The recall of this product is of concern only to
those individuals who have allergies to eggs.

Concerned customers should return the product to Wegmans for a
full refund. Customers who have consumed the product and feel
they are experiencing symptoms should contact their physician.

Wegmans' customers who have questions or concerns about this
recall should contact the consumer affairs department Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. toll free at 1-855-934-3663.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 83-store supermarket chain with
stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland,
and Massachusetts. The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is
recognized as an industry leader and innovator. Wegmans has been
named one of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' by FORTUNE
magazine for seventeen consecutive years. In 2014, Wegmans ranked
#12 on the list.


WELLS ENTERPRISES: Blue Bunny Bordeaux Choco Ice Cream Recalled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Enterprises, Inc., maker of Blue Bunny ice cream said it
has recalled Blue Bunny Premium Bordeaux Cherry Chocolate Ice
Cream sold at retail grocery stores in Kansas, Indiana and Iowa
because the product may contain egg not declared on the label.

People who are allergic to egg could have a severe reaction if
they consume this product. For consumers who are not allergic to
egg, there is no safety issue with this product. No customer
illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled Blue Bunny Premium Bordeaux Cherry Chocolate Ice
Cream, sold in 56 fluid ounce packages with LOT #40010 TTT 19115
18:00 4100 and a UPC 070640034123 with a Best Used By Date of
10/9/15, was distributed to a limited number of stores in Kansas,
Indiana and Iowa.

Customers in the impacted states should return the product to
stores for a full refund or replacement.


WHOLE FOODS: Undeclared Egg Prompts Mini Butter Croissants Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market Southwest Region recalled mini butter
croissants because they contain eggs, an undeclared allergen.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled mini butter croissants were sold with a Whole Foods
Market scale label reading "mini butter croissants" in six pack
plastic containers with a "best by" date of April 21 to April 23
and a UPC of 2 28719-00499-1, which is noted on the scale label.
The mini butter croissants were distributed to 26 Whole Foods
Market stores in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

The recall was initiated after product was distributed without
allergen declared on labeling. The issue was discovered when one
illness was reported.  Through April 18, one illness has been
reported.

Signage is posted in Whole Foods Market Southwest stores that
carried the product to notify customers of this recall. Customers
who have purchased this product should discard it, and may bring
in their receipt for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
call 512-477-5566, extension 20060, Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settles Suit Over Pacer International Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Pacer International, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, No. 14-39-IV have reached an agreement in principle
to settle all of claims in the suit, according to XPO Logistics,
Inc.'s May 2, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Between January 8 and January 16, 2014, five substantially
identical putative class actions were filed in the Tennessee
Chancery Court against the Company, Pacer and Pacer's directors
challenging the Company's acquisition of Pacer. By stipulation
and order dated February 18, 2014, the Chancery Court for
Davidson County consolidated these cases under the caption In re
Pacer International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-39-IV.
The operative complaint in the consolidated case alleges, among
other things, that the directors of Pacer breached their
fiduciary duties to Pacer's shareholders in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Pacer by XPO by agreeing to the proposed
merger at an allegedly unfair price pursuant to a purportedly
flawed and conflicted sales process, by including certain
allegedly preclusive deal-protection measures, and by
misrepresenting and/or omitting certain allegedly material
information in the proxy statement relating to the transaction.
The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle all
of these claims, which the Company continues to believe are
without merit. The settlement remains subject to Court approval.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a definitive settlement agreement or that the Court will
approve the settlement.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Bryant Securities Suit Accord Up for Approval Anew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Bryant Holdings Securities Litigation have
revised a settlement plan of allocation and filed a Second
Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval, according to YRC
Worldwide Inc.'s May 1, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2014.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC ("Bryant") in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking damages under the federal
securities laws for statements and/or omissions allegedly made by
the company and the individual defendants during the Class Period
which plaintiffs claimed to be false and misleading.

The individual defendants are former officers of the company's
Company. No current officers or directors were named in the
lawsuit. The parties participated in voluntary mediation between
March 11, 2013 and April 15, 2013. The mediation resulted in the
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement by the
parties, which agreement remains subject to approval by the
court. Court approval cannot be assured. Substantially all of the
payments contemplated by the settlement will be covered by the
company's liability insurance. The self-insured retention on this
matter has been accrued as of March 31, 2014.

The settlement agreement requires court approval.  On August 19,
2013, the Court entered an Order denying plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.  Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval and, on November 18,
2013, the Court denied that Motion.  Each denial was based
primarily on deficiencies that the Court perceived in the plan
that plaintiffs proposed for allocation of the settlement
proceeds among class members.  Plaintiffs have revised the plan
of allocation and, on February 18, 2014, filed a Second Amended
Motion for Preliminary Approval.


* Accounting Case Settlements in 2013 Up for Second Year
--------------------------------------------------------
According to Bloomberg BNA, although the number of accounting
class action filings in 2013 remained "relatively constant at
47," the number of accounting case settlements in 2013 increased
for the second year in a row to 44 -- albeit still relatively low
compared with the 10-year historical average -- according to an
April 29 report by Cornerstone Research.

Further, "in a reversal of the typical pattern," settlement
amounts in accounting cases were lower than for non-accounting
cases in 2013, according to Cornerstone's Accounting Class Action
Filings and Settlements -- 2013 Review and Analysis.

Report Findings

The report noted that the low number of accounting case filings
is "consistent" with overall trends in securities class action
filing activity.  Further, "at 28 percent of all cases filed," it
said, "the proportion of accounting cases" was at a 10-year low.

In terms of settlement amounts, unlike prior years in which
accounting cases represented as much as 97 percent of the value
of case settlements, in 2013, accounting cases represented only
25 percent of the total value of settled cases.  However, the
study noted that "this unusual result was due to the presence of
one non-accounting case that comprised more than 50 percent of
the total value of cases settled" and therefore, "this change is
not expected to indicate a future trend."

With regard to industries, the report said that in 2013,
accounting class actions were "more evenly distributed across
industry sectors" with no single industry sector accounting for a
majority of case filings.  However, the financial sector
comprised the largest portion of accounting case settlement
dollars --representing nearly 70 percent of the total settlement
amount.

In terms of claims, the report said that 40 percent of accounting
class actions involved restatements in 2013 -- higher than any of
the previous five years.  Similarly, the proportion of filings
involving internal control weakness allegations was at a five-
year high.  Further, "auditors were named as defendants in 12 out
of 44 accounting cases that settled in 2013," the report said.


                             *********

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  * * *