---

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

              Tuesday, May 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 104

                             Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Calif. Judge Dismisses "Bishop" Misbranding Suit
APPLE INC: Settlement of Suit Over iTunes Gift Cards Approved
APPLE INC: Investors Sue Company Officials Over Illegal Deals
APPLE INC: E-Book Plaintiffs' Compensation Delayed
ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement in Labor Suit

AT&T MOBILITY: Sept. 18 Fairness Hearing on Sales Staff Accord
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
BARCLAYS BANK: Judge Revives Class Action on Libor Complaint
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Suit Over Refusing Reconstructive Surgery
BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Overtime Class Action in Newark

CATERPILLAR: Faces Class Action Over Defective MY2007 CAT Engines
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Aug. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Faces Suit Over Sharing of Video Poker Money
COAST TO COAST: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
COINTERRA: Faces Class Action Over "BitCoin Mining Machine"

CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Employee Complaints
DELUXE CORP: Accused of Using Invasive Telemarketing Practices
DFC GLOBAL: Being Sold to Lone Star for Too Little, Suit Claims
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued by Reclassified Former Employees of Medco
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Judge Dismisses 2nd Amended Suit Over Washers

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Defective Chevy
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Wrong Estimate of Deaths
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Android's Monopoly
GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Seeks to Dismiss Ill. Securities Litigation

GROUPON INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Ill. Securities Suit
GROUPON INC: Objections Filed to Accord in Marketing-Related Suit
HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: 2nd Cir. Revives Royalties Class Action
HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Texas
HULU: July 28 Trial in User Privacy Class Suit

IT'S JUST LUNCH: Clients Can Pursue Fraud Class Action
JOHN ASHCROFT: May Face Suit Over FBI Policy on Sept. 11 Attack
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Powder's Ovarian Cancer Risk
KELLOGG: Class Counsel to Get Maximum of $1.25MM in Fees
KKR & CO: Gets Partial Judgment in Lawsuit Over Primedia Sale

KKR & CO: Nov. 3 Trial Date Set in Massachusetts Securities Suit
KKR & CO: Files Motion to Junk Delaware Suit by KFN Shareholders
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: No Deposition Yet in Gainesville Plant Lawsuit
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Briefing Over Class in "Fosbre-Combs" Deferred
LAWCASH: Faces Class Action Over Charging Illegal Rates on Loans

LOWE'S HOME: Faces Class Action Over Gift Cards
MICHIGAN: Corrections Dept Sued Over Lack of Dental Care Services
MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Col. Securities Suit Pending
MOLYCORP INC: New York Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
MT. GOX: Plaintiffs Agree on Sunlot Settlement

MTC LIMOUSINE: Driver Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Request July 14 Settlement Deadline
NATIONAL SECURITY: Given Time to Review Classification of Docs
NEC CORP: Aug. 14 Fairness Hearing on $6-Mil. ODD Settlement
NIELSEN: Faces Overtime Class Action in Oakland California

OASIS PETROLEUM: Faces Suit Over Derailment of MMA-Operated Train
ORCHIDMAN LANDSCAPE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OZ MINERALS: Launches Defense Against Shareholder Class Action
PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Suit Over Serving Hepa-A Contaminated Pizzas
PCJ: Injured Passengers Mull Class Action

PEGATRON: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Gamers
PEP BOYS: Employees May Pursue Wage Violations Claims
PETER LUGER: Settles FLSA Class Action for $250,000
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement in Regions Funds Lawsuit Approved
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Certification of Securities Suit Under Review

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Buyers of Morgan Keegan-Issued Bonds File Suit
SAMSUNG: Aug. 22 Fairness Hearing on $33 Million Settlement
SAN FRANCISCO: Judge Remands Officers' Case for Certification
SERVICE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Burial Practices
SOLARCITY CORP: Motions in Employee Suit to be Heard by Summer

SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Litigation in California
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July Hearing in Millennium Funds Suit Accord
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action
TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Gaucho Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Scions with 2AZ-FE Engines

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Petition v. Accord in Macondo Well Suit Pending
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Closure of Securities Suit in New York Appealed
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces 199 Group Suits Over Macondo Well Incident
TRANSTAR TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Suit Over Phone Access Has Class Status

VALLS GROUP: Removed "Martin" Suit to S.D. Florida
VERIS GOLD: Has $3.6 Million Settlement in Labor Litigation
WAL-MART STORES: Removed "German" Suit to C.D. Calif.
WAL-MART STORES: Removed "Miranda" Class Suit to C.D. California
WARNER MUSIC: Settles Ex-Interns' Class Action for $450,000

XEROX CORP: Launches New Class Action over Insurance Coverage


                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Calif. Judge Dismisses "Bishop" Misbranding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose, Calif., granted
the request of 7-Eleven's to dismiss Scott Bishop's Second Amended
Complaint.  The Plaintiff filed the putative class action against
the Defendant alleging that several of the Defendant's products
have been improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and
deception in violation of several California and federal laws.

The Plaintiff is a California consumer who, since May 21, 2008,
purchased 7-Select Cheddar & Sour Cream Chips.  He argues that the
following representations on the packaging of this and other of
the Defendant's food products were unlawful and/or misleading: (1)
"0g trans fat" and (2) "no cholesterol."  The Plaintiff argues
that the following "substantially similar" products bear the
identical unlawful and/or misleading statements and should be
included in the "class products": 7-Select Kettle Style Chips in
barbeque, jalapeno, original, salt & vinegar, and sour cream &
onion flavors; 7-Select barbeque potato chips; 7-Select big bite
hot dog chips; 7-Select original potato chips; and 7-Select sour
cream & onion chips.

The case is, SCOTT BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:12-CV-02621-EJD (N.D. Calif.).


APPLE INC: Settlement of Suit Over iTunes Gift Cards Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in April approved a settlement of a class
action accusing Apple and Best Buy of deactivating iTunes gift
cards before they were redeemed, without issuing refunds.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken found the settlement fair and
reasonable, in a 7-page preliminary order approving the settlement
and settlement class.  Wilken wrote "that there is reasonable
cause to submit the proposed settlement agreement to settlement
class members and to hold a hearing concerning final approval of
the proposed settlement, and ultimately approve the settlement."

A hearing will determine if a class should be certified consisting
of all U.S. residents who bought iTunes gift cards between Sept.
1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2009 that were deactivated between Aug. 1 and
Oct. 31, 2010 and not redeemed by the cardholder.

Lead plaintiff Barbara Fafard claimed that the gift cards did not
list an expiration date and that neither Best Buy nor Apple
informed customers of one.

Co-defendant InComm Holdings provided activation and deactivation
services for the gift cards.

"Neither Best Buy nor Apple provides the purchaser with any
reasons why, or an example of any circumstance under which, a gift
card would be deactivated after purchase," the complaint stated.

Fafard said she received gift cards from her daughter, but the
cards were canceled less than a year after purchase.

"Apple made it clear to plaintiff that Apple had not canceled the
gift cards, but rather the gift cards had been cancelled by Best
Buy . . . and that Apple would not accept the gift cards," the
complaint stated.

Wilken appointed Marcus & Auerbach LLC of Jenkintown, Penn., and
Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff LLP of Sacramento as class counsel.

Defendants are represented by David Michael Walsh --
dwalsh@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster and Matthew McKenna
Wrenshall of Reed Smith LLP in Los Angeles.


APPLE INC: Investors Sue Company Officials Over Illegal Deals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that various officials let Apple
enter into illegal agreements with Silicon Valley companies like
Google and Intel to eliminate hiring competition and drive down
employee wages, a class of investors claims in a suit filed in
April in Santa Clara County Superior Court.  The case is Sean
Duggan v. Scott Cook; Elizabeth Axelrod; Fred Anderson; Thomas
Tierney; Pierre Omidyar.

                           *     *     *

Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
tech giants including Apple and Google have agreed to pay
disgruntled tech workers as much as $324 million to settle a
contentious wage dispute, weeks before the class action headed to
trial.

Documentation of the proposed settlement is to be submitted for
consideration by May 27.

Software engineers in 2010 claimed Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel and
Intuit, and Walt Disney subsidiaries LucasFilm and Pixar, made
illegal "no cold-call agreements" to restrict or eliminate
competition for high-tech employees, which "disrupted the normal
price-setting mechanism that apply in the labor setting."

The poaching ban maintained internal salary structures at the
companies from 2005 to 2009, workers in the class action claimed,
and involved "gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails
between the late Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs.

The conspiracy violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and
was revealed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2010.

However, because the federal government was unable to compensate
victims of the conspiracy, the plaintiffs filed the action
privately and on behalf of a proposed class.

"Defendants' joint course of conduct included a web of bilateral
agreements not to compete for each other's employees.  The
agreements all prohibited the companies' solicitation of any of
their employees, regardless of geography, job description, or time
period," according to a 2012 motion for class certification.

"The defendants memorialized these agreements in CEO-to-CEO emails
and other documents, including 'do not call' lists putting each
firm's employees off-limits to other defendants.  These
'gentleman's agreements,' as defendants called them, centered
around three of the most important figures in Silicon Valley:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Intuit Chairman
Bill Campbell, all of whom served together on Apple's board of
directors throughout the conspiracy."

Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed in 2013 to pay $20 million to
settle the claims, leaving Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel in a
back-and-forth with their former workers involving heavily
scrutinized expert testimony.

The initial settlement covered a class of employees working in the
technical, creative, or research and development fields who were
employed on a salaried basis by the seven companies from varying
dates up until December 2009, and cut the class in half.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh scolded workers for attempting to
"sandbag" the defense with new analysis by economist-statistician
Edward Leamer.

The workers had touted a new theory by Leamer, who said the
agreements had a widespread, adverse effect on pay, months after
his initial report, Koh said while rejecting a motion by the
defendants for summary judgment.

"This court already concluded, when ruling on plaintiffs' first
class certification motion, that Dr. Leamer's conduct regression
was a reasonable methodology capable of showing that the anti-
solicitation agreements caused 'generalized harm to the class,'"
Koh wrote.

On April 25, 2014, the four remaining companies notified Koh by
letter of their intent to settle the lawsuit, claiming the parties
"reached an agreement to settle all individual and class claims
alleged in the consolidated amended complaint."

Co-lead class counsel and the defendants' counsel -- Kelly
Dermondy with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Robert Van Nest
-- rvannest@kvn.com -- and Joseph Saveri -- signed the letter.

Reuters reported the companies agreed to pay a total of $324
million to settle the lawsuit.

The letter did not specify the amount.

A trial was slated to begin at the end of May on behalf of roughly
64,000 workers in the civil antitrust class action.

"The parties are available to arrange a telephone conference with
the court if the court would like additional information," the
letter states.  "The terms of the settlement are currently
nonpublic."


APPLE INC: E-Book Plaintiffs' Compensation Delayed
--------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
consumers who paid too much for ebooks because of Apple's price-
fixing scheme with five publishers will get notices until the
company tries to decertify their class, the 2nd Circuit ruled in
April.

The development spells further delay in litigation that began
three years ago with the first of several antitrust class actions
against Apple and publishers Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Penguin,
Hachette and HarperCollins.

The proceedings coincided with separate antitrust lawsuits by the
Department of Justice and a slew of states and U.S. territories
that accused Apple and the same five publishers of colluding to
fix ebook prices.

The publishers settled those claims for a total of $166 million.
Ebook customers have begun to receive account credits from those
settlements, Amazon says in an FAQ section on its website.
(Amazon was not a party to the lawsuits.)

Amazon says customers will receive $3.17 for each New York Times
bestseller bought between April 1, 2010, and May 21, 2012, and 73
cents for other ebooks.  Minnesota customers will receive slightly
more per ebook because their settlement was negotiated separately.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote presided over the case of the lone
holdout, Apple, which she found had played a central role in
orchestrating the price-fixing conspiracy following a bench trial
last year.  Cote granted class-action status to the plaintiffs
last month, and Apple sought to delay trial this summer until it
exhausted its appeal.

Rejecting that bid, Cote wrote: "Delaying the trial would also
delay any recovery due plaintiffs, should they prevail.  Apple
argues that class members have already been partially compensated
by the Publisher Defendants' settlements, but class members have a
strong interest in being fully compensated for any losses they
have suffered.  Likewise, the public interest favors a speedy
trial and resolution of this matter."

With class-action notification set to hit the mail, the 2nd
Circuit posted an order calling off the postman and tasking a
three-judge panel with deciding whether to postpone the trial and
decertify the class.

Attorneys did not immediately comment on the development.


ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Court Approval of Settlement in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARC Document Solutions, Inc. awaits court approval of a settlement
reached in a suit filed by a former employee in the Superior Court
of California for the County of Orange, according to the company's
May 7, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed an action
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Orange. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i)
provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof,
(ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems proper. On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in
a private mediation session with claimants' counsel which did not
result in resolution of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation
session, the mediator issued a proposal that was accepted by both
parties. The Company awaits court approval of the settlement. The
Company recorded a liability of $0.9 million as of March 31, 2014
related to the claim, which represents management's best estimate
of the probable outcome based on information available. The case
remains unresolved as of March 31, 2014. As such, the ultimate
resolution of the claim could result in a loss different than the
estimated loss recorded.


AT&T MOBILITY: Sept. 18 Fairness Hearing on Sales Staff Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California, has issued
an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement in the
class action captioned, GEORGE GALLARDO, et al, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T
MOBILITY, LLC, a limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendant, No. 4:11-cv-04749 CW (N.D. Calif.).

The Court also approved the Plaintiffs' amended motion for
conditional certification of a settlement class, an order
preliminarily approving a class action settlement, an order
directing distribution of class notice, and a request to set a
final approval hearing.

The Court said the Settlement Class will consist of: "All
individuals who worked for AT&T Mobility LLC in the positions of
Retail Sales Consultant or Sales Support Representative in
California at any time from July 7, 2010 through January 13,
2014."

Courthouse News Service report reported that the settlement amount
is $1.1 million.

The Court conditionally certified the proposed class for
settlement purposes only.  The Court held that there are a
sufficient number of current and former employees working in the
position of Retail Sales Consultant or Sales Support
Representative for this matter to proceed as a class action, and
said the seating policy in effect in AT&T retail locations raises
common questions of law and fact applicable to all class members.
These common questions predominate over any questions that may
affect only individual class members.

Plaintiffs George Gallardo, Carlos Barrigan, Kyle Binns, Carlos
Cruz, Jennifer DeWitt, Hector Rodriguez, and Denise Roman are
approved as class representatives.

David Rosenfeld, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, and Miles Locker,
Locker Folberg, are appointed as Class Counsel.

Gilardi & Co. LLC is hereby appointed as the Settlement
Administrator.

Any Class member who wishes to object to the settlement must
submit a written notice of their objections not later than
September 4, 2014 (i.e., 14 days before the date on which the
final approval hearing is scheduled).

The final approval hearing shall be held in Courtroom 2 of the
Federal District Court for the Northern District of California at
2:00 p.m. on September 18, 2014, to consider the fairness,
adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement/

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
     WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation
     1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
     Alameda, CA 94501
     Tel: (510) 337-1001
     Fax: (510) 337-1023
     E-Mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
             rperkins@unioncounsel.net

          - and -

     Miles E. Locker, Esq.
     LOCKER FOLBERG LLP
     235 Montgomery Street, Suite 835
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-962-1626
     Fax: 415-962-1628
     E-Mail: mlocker@lockerfolberg.com


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according
to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain present and former officers and members of the Company's
board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul
Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-
JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine
Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-
JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District
Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an
amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and
May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
phase 3 trial design and results for the company's TIVO-1 study in
an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive
approval from the FDA. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On April 4,
2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint with prejudice.


BARCLAYS BANK: Judge Revives Class Action on Libor Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
after understating borrowing costs in connection with the Libor
scandal, Barclays Bank may be liable to shareholders, the 2nd
Circuit ruled.

Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond apologized in announcing two
years ago a $452 million settlement to resolve his bank's
attempted manipulation amid the ongoing financial crisis.

The London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) and the European
Interbank Offered (Euribor) are based on the interest rates
leading banks charge when loaning money to other banks overnight.

Although the rates should represent the cost of a bank's lending
activities, Barclays admitted that it submitted artificially low
rates to the British Banker's Association, which publishes Libor,
to hide rising loan costs and to benefit derivatives positions its
traders took based on the benchmark rates.

The bank's American depository shares dropped 12 percent the next
day.

Pensions and retirement funds claimed in ensuing class actions
that Diamond lied to them in 2008 conference call with market
analysts by promising that Barclays was "categorically not paying
higher rates in any currency."

Roughly a year ago, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin said that
the plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation and dismissed all of
the claims.

A three-judge panel found April 25, 2014, that she reached that
conclusion too soon.

"While expressing no view on the ultimate merits of plaintiffs'
theory of loss causation, we hold that the court below reached
these conclusions prematurely," Judge Richard Berman wrote for the
panel in the 22-page opinion.  "The assumption that Barclays's
false 2007-2009 submission rates were somehow corrected after
January 2009 (but before June 27, 2012) is inconsistent with the
complaint's allegations and defendants' concession at oral
argument that the misrepresentations were not brought to light
until the disclosure of the settlement agreements."

The appellate court upheld Scheindlin's findings that Barclays'
statements about the bank's internal controls were not materially
false.


BLUE SHIELD: Faces Suit Over Refusing Reconstructive Surgery
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Blue Shield of California refuses to cover reconstructive
surgeries despite "normal appearance" tests that permit the
procedures, a woman seeking breast and eyelid treatment claims in
a federal class action.

Lisa Burton claims California Physicians' Service dba Blue Shield
of California violates California Health & Safety Code section
1367.63 by refusing to cover surgeries to return disfigured
patients to a normal appearance.

The statute requires that health plans cover reconstructive
surgeries "when a physical deformity will either resolve a
functional problem or create a normal appearance," and orders that
decisions regarding normal appearance to be made by a
reconstructive surgeon, Burton says in the lawsuit.

But Blue Shield opposed the statute and denied valid surgery
requests, she claims.

"Blue Shield has engaged in a pattern and practice of denying
requests for reconstructive surgery on the basis they are not
'medically necessary' -- they do not present significant
functional problems -- and has refused to consider whether the
statute's alternative 'normal appearance' test has been met," the
9-page complaint states.  "Blue Shield has also denied certain
reconstructive surgery requests regardless of whether they meet
either test and has failed to have the question of normal
appearance decided by a reconstructive surgeon."

Blue Shield opposed the law upon its introduction in 1998,
claiming "language in AB [Assembly Bill] 1621, which allows the
treating physician to determine the need for reconstructive
surgery without obtaining authorization from the plan, might
encourage some physicians to claim they are providing
reconstructive surgery for procedures that are purely cosmetic in
nature," according to the complaint.

Burton says she was covered by Blue Cross under her private
employer's group policy.  She requested a mammoplasty and
blepharoplasty, through her medical group, Palo Alto Medical
Foundation, which she says were denied.  Burton did not specify
why she needed the treatments.

Blue Shield, on appeal, told Burton the requests "did not meet the
medically necessary criteria," she says.

The insurer's decisions were not made by a reconstructive surgeon
or a reconstructive surgeon who was not advised of the statutory
criteria, Burton says.

"Blue Shield's practices violate section 1367.63 because Blue
Shield: a) disregards the normal appearance standard and does not
have requests for reconstructive surgery considered by a
reconstructive surgeon under the normal appearance prong; b)
allows its medical group's to deny requests without considering
the normal appearance standard and without review by a
reconstructive surgeon; and c) does not consider certain forms of
reconstructive surgery to be covered under either the normal
appearance or functional standards," the complaint states.

Burton seeks the denied benefits, a clarification of class
members' rights to benefits, and an accounting.

She is represented by:

     Robert Gianelli, Esq.
     GIANELLI & MORRIS
     550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 489-1600


BURLINGTON COAT: Faces Overtime Class Action in Newark
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Burlington Coat Factory
stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal
Court in Newark.


CATERPILLAR: Faces Class Action Over Defective MY2007 CAT Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Caterpillar sold vehicles
with defective, polluting MY2007 CAT engines, a class action
claims in Federal Court in Minneapolis.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Aug. 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 15 disclosed that the United
States District Court Southern District of Florida has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of securities of Chanticleer
Holdings, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS, INC.
SECURITIES EITHER (I) PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S
JUNE 21, 2012 PUBLIC OFFERING OR (II) ON THE OPEN MARKET BETWEEN
JUNE 21, 2012 AND FEBRUARY 19, 2013, INCLUSIVE.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, that Lead Plaintiffs,
Francis Howard and Ja'Marr Comer, represented by The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class,
have reached a proposed Settlement of the above-captioned
securities class litigation, with Defendants Chanticleer Holdings,
Inc., Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael Carroll, Paul I.
Moskowitz, and Keith Johnson, and Creason & Associates, P.L.L.C.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Chanticleer
Defendants' insurer shall pay eight hundred thirty seven thousand
five hundred dollars ($837,500) and Creason shall pay twelve
thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500), for a total Settlement
Amount of $850,000.(1) These payments, if approved, will settle
Plaintiffs' claim in this litigation.

A Fairness Hearing will be held on August 14, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.,
in Courtroom 203E at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division, 299 East
Broward Blvd, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether all settled
Claims should be dismissed with prejudice; (3) whether an order
approving the Settlement should be entered; (4) whether the
allocation of the Qualified Settlement Fund should be approved;
(5) whether the Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Application should be
approved; and (6) other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.
The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing
additional notice to the Settlement Class Members.

If you purchased Chanticleer securities either (i) pursuant or
traceable to the Company's June 21, 2012 public offering or (ii)
on the open market between June 21, 2013 and February 19, 2013,
inclusive, you may be a member of the Class described above, and
your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Litigation.

If you have not received a detailed Individual Notice and a copy
of the Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at:

Chanticleer Securities Litigation
Settlement Administrator
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 North Jackson Street--Suite 3
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063

Or by visiting the Settlement Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net, or by phone toll-free at (866) 274-4004.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Cash Settlement Amount, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked no later than July 24, 2014, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery, in the manner and form explained in the
Individual Notice.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the
litigation, whether or not you submit a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than July 24,
2014, in the manner and form explained in the Notice.  All members
of the Settlement Class who do not request exclusion will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Litigation.

Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be postmarked and mailed to the
addresses below by no later than July 24, 2014:

COURT

United States District Court Southern District of
Florida
299 East Broward Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff

DEFENSE COUNSEL
Stanley H. Wakshlag, Esq.
Kenny Nachwalter P.A.
1100 Miami Center
201 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131

Counsel for Chanticleer Holdings, Inc.
Michael Pruitt, Eric Lederer, Paul Moskowitz,
Michael Carroll, Keith Johnson

Mark D. Hunter, Esq.
Hunter Taubman Weiss LLP
255 University Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33134

James D. Sallah
Sallah & Cox LLC
One Boca Place
2255 Glades Road, Suite
300E Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Counsel for Creason & Associates, P.L.L.C.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Settlement Administrator at the contact information
identified above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: APRIL 22, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(1) All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated March 17, 2014.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Faces Suit Over Sharing of Video Poker Money
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Quarter horse owners, jockeys
and trainers deserve a share of "other money" won through video
poker at Churchill Downs Louisiana, just as thoroughbred horsemen
get, a class action claims in Orleans Parish Court in New Orleans.


COAST TO COAST: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Coast to Coast Manpower
stiffs workers for minimum wage and violates other labor laws, a
class action claims in Superior Court in Los Angeles.


COINTERRA: Faces Class Action Over "BitCoin Mining Machine"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cointerra misrepresented the
speed of its "BitCoin mining machine," a class action claims in
Federal Court in Oakland, California.


CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Employee Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
payroll fraud, death threats and vile epithets by upper management
rule the day at an East Bay Lexus dealership, former employees
claim in a scathing federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Robert Brock Jr., six others and two of their wives
sued Concord Automobile Dealership, Lexus of Concord and Toyota
Motor Sales.  Also named as defendants are dealership owner Hank
Torian, general sales manager Patrick Miliano and general manager
Greg James.

According to the 78-page lawsuit, Brock and co-plaintiff Jeffery
Lao discovered in February that their paychecks indicated higher
bonus amounts -- and higher payroll taxes -- than they actually
received.  Lao claims that he signed a voucher acknowledging
receipt of a cash bonus of $875, but that the business office had
a copy of a different voucher for the same transaction in the
amount of $1,375. Someone forged Lao's signature, and increased
his tax liability, by $500, the complaint states.

Brock says he complained to James, the general manager, in early
February.  Then after discovering that the same thing had happened
to several employees -- and repeatedly to each of them -- Brock
says, he went to James again.  At the second meeting, Brock says,
he told James he had discovered that general sales manager Miliano
was behind the payroll scheme. He also alerted James to Miliano's
increasingly hostile behavior toward staff and customers,
according to the complaint.

The defendants responded by changing Brock's schedule and demoting
him to used car manager, the complaint states.  In mid-March, an
anonymous email to the dealership's human resources department
implicated Miliano with turning in fake bonus vouchers and
pocketing the cash, it states.

"On or about March 13, 2014, Miliano stormed into Brock's office
and slammed a piece of paper on the desk, his face contorted and
flushed in anger and fury," the complaint states.  "I know you
sent this fucking email to management,'" Miliano allegedly told
Brock.  "I'm going to kill you, I am going to hunt you down, and
I'm going to kill your wife, and I'm going to kill your kids.'
Shocked, frightened, and terrified, Brock made an effort to reduce
the tension because he was afraid and apprehensive that Miliano
was going to attack him.  Brock responded calmly that he did not
know who had sent the email.  Miliano snatched the email from the
desk and stormed out of the office.  Brock learned shortly
thereafter that Miliano had gone over to plaintiff [Kamal]
Dayekh's office and threatened to kill Dayekh and his family as
well," the complaint states.

Brock says he became terrified that Miliano would make good on his
promises.  He told James that he and Dayekh planned to file a
police report; James responded by saying that that would be like
"stabbing me in the back because I am up for partnership in this
dealership" and changed Brock's schedule again, the complaint
states.

Lao says he felt threatened by Miliano the day he reported the
bonus discrepancies to James, when Miliano allegedly said "Jeff,
let's go for a ride" according to the complaint.

"Defendant Miliano escorted Lao to his car, parked next to the
general manager's parking space which is adjacent to a ravine and
dense shrubs," Lao says in the complaint.  "While standing next to
the car, Miliano smirked and stated, 'If I cut you up into little
pieces and throw you down the ravine, no one will ever find you.'
Apprehensively, Lao got into the car and they went to a nearby
Jamba Juice store.

"As Miliano drove Lao to Jamba Juice, he said: 'Jeff, you make a
lot of money here, right? You would not want to jeopardize this,
would you? I will pay you back the money, but do not tell anyone
about this,'" according to the complaint.

"Defendant Miliano continued: 'I give people money in the store
that I can't turn in vouchers for, like Jenn, so this is why I
turned vouchers in on you.'  Defendant Miliano then grabbed all of
Mr. Lao's wage vouchers, held on to them and shredded them when
they got back to the store, then told him to tell Dori Sosa in HR
that 'everything was OK.'  Lao was extremely distressed and
fearful about the Catch-22 situation in which he was placed.  He
had one choice: to give up his rights to his wages or give up his
job.  It was illegal and a violation of federal and state laws for
defendants to place Lao in this stressful predicament.  Miliano's
first explanation to Lao for the increased taxes and decreased net
income reflected on his pay stub was Obamacare.  Then he stated
that taxes are always higher in January, February and March."

(Sosa is not a party to the complaint, nor is anyone named Jenn,
or Jennifer.)

Lao says he remains unsure of how much extra taxes he's paid
because of Miliano's alleged scheme.  He describes the process of
verifying his bonus vouchers as "like pulling teeth."

Miliano also allegedly threatened to kill Dayekh and his family
for his part in exposing the fraud, and James told him that the
importance of becoming partner in the dealership trumped handling
Miliano, according to the lawsuit.

"James sent sales manager Efrain Moreno to Dayekh's office,
requesting to talk," Dayekh says in the complaint. "Dayekh went to
James' office with Moreno present.  James informed Dayekh that he
was going to fire him and asked him to quit voluntarily.  Dayekh
stated, 'Why do you want me to lie? You are firing me and you want
me to sign a statement that you filled out saying I voluntarily
quit.'  Dayekh continued: 'Enough lies. I will not sign that
statement because it is your lie.'  Then James demanded that
Dayekh sign a statement that he had been paid all the dealership
owed him.  James then stated, 'The reason why I am letting you go
is because I had a complaint about you from a customer.' Dayekh
asked,  'What customer?' James responded,  'The Korean guy.'
Dayekh replied, 'The Korean customer from about two months ago,
and you just remembered that now after two months? Show me the
complaint.' James responded,  'I don't have it.' Dayekh said,  'I
know why you are firing me, it's because I exposed the theft that
you covered for Miliano.'"

(Moreno is not a party to the complaint.)

Dayekh claims that minutes after he was fired, Miliano called him,
laughing.

"'How does it feel, you little fucker? Enjoy it, you just got
fired, you motherfucker,'" according to the complaint. (89)

Plaintiff Amanda Bo Denton claims that her troubles with Miliano
began when he told other salespeople at the dealership that he'd
had sex with her, after she had turned him down for a date.

"Denton became aware of the rumor during the second week of
October 2013, when she overheard a salesperson discussing it
outside of the used car department," Denton says in the complaint.
"She confronted Miliano, insisting that he immediately stop the
false rumors.  Following this incident, Miliano on numerous
occasions belligerently screamed and yelled not only at Denton but
numerous other employees, telling them 'Pack your shit and leave
if you don't like it.  My job is to torture you! Get the fuck out
of my office.'"

Miliano also took to calling Denton "a fucking cunt" and "fucking
bitch," and James did nothing about her woman's complaints,
according to the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Christopher Montoya claims James did nothing to protect
the employees from Miliano's attacks.

"Miliano singled out Montoya and [plaintiff Wilson] Woo in
particular, calling Woo a cyborg, homo, faggot or little bitch,"
Montoya says in the complaint.  "He taunted Montoya and Woo,
calling them 'little pecker,' unzipping his pants, sticking his
hand in and wiggling his finger through the open front, laughing
that they had little penises.  He made fun of Montoya because he
had five children, belittling him constantly.  When Montoya asked
James about the shortages in his paycheck, James belligerently
responded that it was not his fault that Montoya had so many kids
and had to pay high taxes.  Miliano called Montoya, who is
Mexican-American, a spic, a beaner, faggot, little bitch and other
offensive names.  This happened virtually every day, and during
the last six months of his employment he became so anxious and
distraught that he hardly slept at night.  He did not want to have
sexual relations with his wife, did not play with his kids, but
went home from work and went to bed, completely miserable.  He
dreaded every day and felt humiliated and diminished all the
time."

All the plaintiffs report that Miliano regularly referred to
people -- customers and staff alike -- using vile epithets
including "fishheads," "cyborgs," "chinks," dog-eaters,"
"towelheads," "faggots," "homo" "wetbacks," "spics," "cunt," and
"bitches."

Plaintiff Francisco Ubaldo, a Dominican-American of African
descent, says Miliano upped the ante with him.

"Miliano called Ubaldo 'nigger' on many occasions, and also
'coon,' 'faggot' and 'homo,'" Ubaldo says in the complaint.  "In
addition, he constantly told Ubaldo that he was too old, that he'd
never get another job anywhere, that he was an old geezer, that he
could beat him up, and to 'Eat my dickhole.'  In all of his years
of working, Ubaldo has never been so humiliated and disrespected."

Ubaldo adds that James "condoned and supported every racist,
discriminatory and retaliatory act Milano had committed, and it
was James' directive that 'I'm here to torture you,'" according to
the complaint.

The plaintiffs each seek $10 million in damages and punitive
damages on 24 causes of action, including state and federal labor
violations, wrongful termination and retaliation, fraud, assault,
discrimination, embezzlement, workplace violence and threat of
violence, conversion, conspiracy, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and loss of consortium.

They are represented by Charles Bonner -- charles@bonnerlaw.com --
with Bonner & Bonner in Sausalito, and Karan Gill in Walnut Creek.


DELUXE CORP: Accused of Using Invasive Telemarketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barron's Outfitters, Inc. and Marmer Construction, Inc. v. Deluxe
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-21720-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 9, 2014)
arises from the Company's violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act prohibiting privacy violations via invasive
telemarketing practices.

Deluxe Corporation is a publicly traded corporation with
headquarters in Shoreview, Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mmlaw.net


DFC GLOBAL: Being Sold to Lone Star for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports directors are selling DFC Global,
financial services, too cheaply through an unfair process to Lone
Star Funds, for $9.50 a share or $367 million, shareholders claim
in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Sued by Reclassified Former Employees of Medco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Henry, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Express Scripts Holding Company, Case No.
2:14-cv-02979-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., May 9, 2014) is brought on behalf
of similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendant, who were reclassified as non-exempt employees following
Express Scripts' acquisition of Medco Health Solutions, Inc., in
April 2012.

The Plaintiff contends that she and the proposed class members are
entitled to, inter alia: (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours
worked above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and (ii)
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Express Scripts Holding Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Boyan III, Esq.
          PASHMAN STEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          Court Plaza South
          21 Main Street, Suite 100
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 488-8200
          Facsimile: (201) 488-5556
          E-mail: jboyan@pashmanstein.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Judge Dismisses 2nd Amended Suit Over Washers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that consumers may amend nationwide class allegations that General
Electric's front-loading washers accumulate mold, mildew and foul
odors, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiffs Stanley Fishman, Suzanne Bowser and Vicki Plunkett
filed suit in New Jersey, hoping to represent a class whose GE
front-loading washer machines built up mold, mildew, so-called
biofilm and foul odors that permeate clothing because of an
alleged defect in the drums, doors, and door seals of the
products.  They claimed that GE knew about the defects but hid
them from consumers in its advertisements, product specifications,
and washing machine manuals.  Because the machines were Energy
Star-certified, Fishman, Bowser and Plunkett said they overpaid
from about $600 to more than $2,000.  The machines allegedly began
to mold within months.

After dismissing the unjust enrichment claims last year, U.S.
District Judge William Martini dismissed the plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.  The fraud claims fail because they "failed to
provide essential dates, such as the dates on which plaintiffs
contacted GE," the ruling states.  "Accordingly, the second
amended complaint does not sufficiently allege facts showing that
GE was aware of the alleged defects prior to the sales at issue in
this litigation. Plaintiffs have also failed to identify when
certain allegedly false representations were made.  For instance,
while plaintiffs allege that the washing machines do not 'self-
clean.' they cite to no representation from GE claiming that the
washing machines self-clean.  Thus, the allegations in the amended
complaint are not sufficient 'to place the defendant [or the
court] on notice of the precise misconduct . . . charged.'"

Though the plaintiffs alleged that GE dishonored an express one-
year factory warranty to replace any parts that fail because of a
defect in materials or workmanship, Martini found it unclear
whether the plaintiffs contacted GE within one year.

Fishman said GE ultimately gave him a $75 check for the
inconvenience.

Martini said the owner's manual disclaimer -- "your sole and
exclusive remedy is product repair as provided in this limited
warranty" -- sufficiently warned consumers.

"Here, each disclaimer is in bold, italicized, and set off from
the surrounding text," Martini wrote.  "Accordingly, the court
finds that the disclaimers, which limit any implied warranties to
a one-year period, are clear and conspicuous and, therefore,
enforceable."

The judge also noted that the plaintiffs have not shown "either
out-of-pocket loss or a demonstration of loss in value."  They
have 30 days to amend their complaint a third time, according to
the ruling.

In the earlier version, Bowser and Fishman said GE recommended
that they keep their machine doors open to prevent molding, and
even gave Bowser a box of Tide washing machine cleaner to remedy
the problem.

In addition to proving unsuccessful, the GE owner's manual
specifically warns that leaving the washer door open creates a
risk of injury to pets or children who might be enticed to hang on
the door or crawl inside the washer, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs had sought to certify a nationwide class and a
subclass of "all persons in Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
who own a washing machine for personal, family, or household
purposes."


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Phillips" Suit Over Defective Chevy
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that an outraged widow claims in court that General Motors
contrived a defense that her husband "was a murderer and intended
to kill himself and his children" when his Chevy Malibu veered
into a pole, and that GM concealed evidence that a "vehicle
malfunction" caused the wreck.

Doris Phillips fka Doris Powledge sued General Motors for herself
and the estates of her husband and their four late children, in
Galveston County Court.

"On October 18, 2005 a father and his four children were killed in
a fiery one-car accident," the complaint begins.  "That morning
Adam Powledge was taking his children to school.  As they drove
along I-45 in Houston, Adam lost control of his vehicle, a 2004
Chevy Malibu, and drove onto a grassy median.

"Unable to control the vehicle, the Malibu drove in an almost
perfectly straight line until it was cut into two parts, down the
middle, by a metal pole located at the center of the median.  The
car erupted in fire with Adam and the little children inside."

All five occupants died in the wreck.

Phillips sued GM in 2007, "alleging that an electrical malfunction
caused a loss of control of the vehicle."

But GM called her theory "implausible" as no recall had been
issued on the 2004 Chevy Malibu, Phillips says in the new lawsuit.

The new complaint states: "A cornerstone of GM's legal defense to
the 2007 lawsuit was a particularly nefarious accusation - that
Adam Powledge was not the victim of a GM defect, but was a
murderer and intended to kill himself and his children.  This
defense was used throughout the litigation as a means of
undermining Dori's case."

Doris Phillips is referred to as "Dori" in the complaint.  She
claims GM dragged out the litigation through its 2009 bankruptcy,
then with its assets stripped, forced her and other litigants to
"accept penny-on-the-dollar settlements."

GM became a poster child for putting the bottom line before
customer safety in February, when it announced it was recalling
Chevrolets, Saturns and Pontiacs dating back to model year 2004
due to a defective ignition switch that can cause a dangerous
sudden power loss.

According to a class action filed against GM, it knew about the
defect in 2004 but waited a decade to issue a recall, even as
evidence mounted that the defect was linked to dozens of fatal car
wrecks.

GM followed up the February recall with another on March 31,
affecting 1.3 million vehicles with defective power steering,
including the 2004 Chevy Malibu, the car in which Phillips'
husband and four children died.  The latest recall prompted
Phillips to sue GM on April 29, 2014, and ask the court to set
aside and vacate the final judgment in her previous lawsuit.

Phillips also wants up to $300 million in punitive damages for
fraud, conspiracy, infliction of emotional distress and
racketeering.

She is represented by Joshua Davis of Houston.

General Motors said it would not comment on the lawsuit unless it
got a request on company letterhead, sent to the proper GM
division, a procedure which could not be completed by press time.

The U.S. government earlier this month released a report that it
lost $11.2 billion on its bailout of GM.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Wrong Estimate of Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Motors admits that at
least 12 deaths were caused by its faulty ignition switch, "but
the actual number is believed to be much higher," a class action
claims in Federal Court in New Orleans.


GIANT INTERACTIVE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Giant
Interactive Group (online gaming) too cheaply through an unfair
process to Giant Merger Ltd., for $12 a share or $3 billion,
shareholders claim in Federal Court in Manhattan.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Android's Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google uses its Android
system to abuse its monopoly in search engines and handheld
wireless devices, a class action antitrust lawsuit claims in
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiffs Gary Feitelson, of Kentucky, and Daniel McKee, of
Iowa, sued Google under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the
California Cartwright Act and California's unfair competition law.
They claim Google is a monopolist in general search engines and in
handheld search devices, and that it restrains competition in
markets where there already are high barriers to entry.  It does
this in part by requiring distributors to "preload" Android phones
with Google suites, the class claims.

After describing Google as a monopolist in these two areas, the
complaint states:  "Having recognized that personal computing was
moving away from the desktop and that Internet searches
increasingly are being done on smartphones and tablets, Google
purchased the Android OS in 2005.  By giving away the Android OS
itself for free, Google rapidly built an enormous user base in the
United States.

"But Android itself only enables the basic functionality of a
handheld device; what brings mobile phones and tablets to life are
applications.  Some of the most popular handheld device
applications, including the YouTube video app and Google Play
(which enables shopping in Google's app store) also are Google
properties.  As Google well knows, customers expect to see these
apps on their Android devices.  So Google, by way of secret Mobile
Application Distribution Agreements ('MADA'), allows Android OS
device manufacturers to pre-load a suite of Google apps including
the YouTube app and Google Play client, among others, onto a phone
or tablet -- but only if the manufacturer pre-loads onto prime
screen real estate all of the apps in the suite, whether the
manufacturer wants them or not.  Because consumers want access to
Google's products, and due to Google's power in the U.S. market
for general handheld search, Google has unrivaled market power
over smartphone and tablet manufacturers.

"Among the suite of apps covered by Google's MADAs is the Google
Phone-top Search app -- a widget for conducting web searches via
Google's search engine.  This case arises because of recent
revelations that Google has restrained trade and abused its market
power by requiring distributors to install the Google Phone-top
Search app and to 'set' it 'as the default search provider for all
Web search access points,' including the Internet browser, on
phones or tablets subject to its MADAs.  As Google well knows,
consumers do not know how to switch, nor will they go to the
trouble of switching, the default search engine on their devices,
so this practice is a highly effective means of ensuring that
consumers will use Google search to conduct general Internet
queries rather than one of its competitors' search products.  And
Google badly wants default search engine status because it results
in more paid search-related advertisements, which are the source
of most of its billions and billions of dollars in annual profits.

"If device manufacturers bound by Google's distribution agreements
were free to choose a default search engine other than Google, the
quality of Internet search overall would improve because search
engines become more effective as they process more and more search
queries.  With default search engine status providing access to
more searches, Google's competitors in search would become more
effective as they processed more queries, and this competition
would push Google to improve as well.  Also, if Google's rivals
were allowed to compete for default status, they would do so in
part by offering to pay device manufacturers for that status on
various Android smartphones and tablets.  Such payments to device
manufacturers, maximized by way of competitive bidding, would
lower the bottom-line cost associated with production of the
covered devices, which in turn would lead to lower consumer prices
for smartphones and tablets.

"Google's MADAs are contracts in restraint of trade that are
designed to maintain and extend its monopolies in general search
and handheld general search.  Simply put, there is no lawful, pro-
competitive reason for Google to condition licenses to pre-load
popular Google apps on making its search product the default
search engine on covered devices.  By insisting on these contracts
with device manufacturers, to the detriment of competition and
consumers, Google has violated the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act,
California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Act.  Plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting Google from
forcing its unlawful distribution agreements on device
manufacturers, and they seek monetary relief to restore the
quantum of money they overpaid for their Android handheld devices
as a result of the competition foreclosed by these contracts."

Although Apple is not a defendant in this case, the plaintiffs
claim that "Google further forecloses competition in the market by
entering into exclusive contracts with Apple.

"As part of its strategy to maintain and extend its monopoly in
handheld general search, Google also has entered into exclusionary
agreements with the largest non-Android phone manufacturer, Apple
Inc. ('Apple').

"Google has paid Apple hundreds of millions of dollars, if not
billions of dollars over the years, to act as the default search
engine on Apple iPhones, iPads, and iPods.  It is estimated that
it will pay Apple over a billion dollars in 2014 to retain this
status. . . .  This arrangement forecloses competing search engine
companies from the best opportunity to break Google's stranglehold
on the handheld general search market.

"No pro-competition justification exists for the exclusion of
rival search engines from acting as the default search engine on
Apple mobile devices."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages and an
injunction.

They are represented by Jeff Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- with
Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro, of Berkeley.


GREAT LAKES DREDGE: Seeks to Dismiss Ill. Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation is seeking to dismiss In re
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:13-cv-02115, according to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional,
similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450,
were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013,
and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were
consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June
10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint
on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
October 8, 2013.


GROUPON INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Ill. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entered a scheduling order in the suit In re Groupon,
Inc. Securities Litigation, according to the company's May 7 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to
which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the
initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.
Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued financial statements.  The putative class
action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages,
reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection with the
actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other forms of
monetary and non-monetary relief.  The defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on January 18, 2013,
which the Court denied on September 19, 2013.

Defendants answered the consolidated amended class action
complaint on December 6, 2013. Plaintiff filed an amended motion
for class certification on December 4, 2013. On March 6, 2014,
defendants filed their response briefs in opposition to the
amended motion for class certification. On April 21, 2014, lead
plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his amended motion for
class certification.  On March 18, 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting deadlines for fact discovery by March 13,
2015, expert discovery by August 31, 2015, and dispositive motions
by October 30, 2015.


GROUPON INC: Objections Filed to Accord in Marketing-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation remains
pending in the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals where
the settlement of the case faces objections, according to the
company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

The Company was named as a defendant in a series of class actions
that came to be consolidated into a single case in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
consolidated case is referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the
parties agreed to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before
any determination had been made on the merits or with respect to
class certification.  Because the case had been filed as a class
action, the parties were required to provide proper notice and
obtain court approval for the settlement. During that process,
certain individuals asserted various objections to the settlement.
The parties to the case opposed the objections and on December 14,
2012, the district court approved the settlement over the various
objections.

Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain
of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the
settlement and appealing the matter to the Ninth Circuit of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.  The
Company believes that the settlement is valid and intends to
oppose the appeal.  Plaintiffs also maintain that the settlement
is valid and will be opposing the appeal.  The settlement,
however, is not effective during the pendency of the appeal.


HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: 2nd Cir. Revives Royalties Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
romance writers suing Harlequin "nudged" their case "across the
line from the conceivable to the plausible," the 2nd Circuit
ruled.  The 13-page opinion breathes new life into a contract
dispute that flat-lined a little more than one year ago in the
Southern District of New York.

In a July 2012 class action, three Harlequin writers claimed that
the world's largest romance novel publisher improperly passed
their work to Swiss subsidiaries, Harlequin Books S.A. and
Harlequin Enterprises B.V., "for tax purposes," even though these
companies have no publishing functions.

This contracting relationship went on between 1990 and 2004,
according to the complaint led by Barbara Keiler, who wrote
"Blooming All Over" and "Right Place, Wrong Time."

The writers sought damages for breach of contract -- a potentially
large sum if the court had certified a class of more than 1,200
writers employed at Harlequin.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer spurned the lawsuit last year,
however, finding that the writers knew exactly what they were
getting into.

"Plaintiffs assert that because [Harlequin Enterprises Limited]
performed most publication duties and controlled the negotiation
and administration of the contracts in all respects, the
'publisher' for the purposes of these contracts is HEL," Baer
wrote.  "But here, each contract states expressly that [Harlequin
Books S.A.] will 'hereinafter [be] called the 'publisher.'"

Though a three-judge appellate panel agreed that the contract
explained the relationship between the subsidiaries, it revived
one count alleging that the subsidiaries entered into an
unreasonable licensing-fee arrangement depleting the writers'
take.

Although the District Court called that claim factually
unsupported, the panel noted simply that they "disagree."  The
writers "purported to have discovered a sublicense agreement
between Harlequin Enterprises and another subsidiary, Harlequin
Digital Sales Corporation, that showed a license rate of 40
percent of the cover price, significantly higher than the 6 to 8
percent license fee purportedly paid to Harlequin Switzerland,"
Judge Barrington Parker wrote for the court.

David Wolf, a lawyer for the writers, said in an interview: "We're
very happy that the case is going to be continuing in the District
Court."

Harlequin's spokeswoman did not return a request for comment by
press time.


HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Singh Sarabjeet, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hastings Entertainment, Inc., John H.
Marmaduke, Jeffrey G. Shrader, Ann S. Lieff, Frank O. Marrs, Danny
W. Gurr, Draw Another Circle, LLC, Hendrix Acquisition Corp., Joel
Weinshanker, and National Entertainment Collectibles Association,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00114-J (N.D. Tex., May 9, 2014) seeks to
enjoin the shareholder vote relating to the acquisition of the
publicly owned shares of Hastings common stock by Draw Another
Circle and its wholly owned subsidiary, Hendrix.

Hastings Entertainment, Inc., is a Texas corporation headquartered
in Amarillo, Texas.  The Individual Defendants, except Mr.
Weinshanker, are directors and officers of the Company.

Draw Another Circle, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
and is a holding company that, following the consummation of the
Proposed Merger, will hold all of the outstanding shares of the
Company.  Hendrix Acquisition Corp. is a Texas corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Draw Another Circle.  National
Entertainment Collectibles Association, Inc., is a New Jersey
corporation that operates as a media and entertainment company in
the U.S. and internationally, with divisions dedicated to consumer
products, filmed entertainment and online retailing/digital
distribution.  Joel Weinshanker is the owner of Parent, Merger Sub
and NECA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Kelly Puls, Esq.
          Mark A. Haney, Esq.
          PULS HANEY PLLC
          300 Burnett Street, Suite 160
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 338-1717
          Facsimile: (817) 332-1333
          E-mail: kelly@pulshaney.com
                  mhaney818@sbcglobal.net


HULU: July 28 Trial in User Privacy Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Hulu may have illegally disclosed viewer data via Facebook
"likes," a federal magistrate judge ruled in an ongoing class
action.

Joseph Garvey is lead plaintiff in "Hulu Privacy Litigation" which
claims Hulu "repurposed" its browser cache to let marketing-
analysis services store users' private data.

While U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler gutted the case in 2012,
she deferred ruling on the alleged violation of the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which was enacted in 1988 after a
Washington, D.C., newspaper published the video-rental history of
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

Hulu claimed the class could not prove injury to establish
standing, since that would require a recitation of watched videos,
and how third parties received this information.  The media-
streaming service also argued that the plaintiffs needed to prove
an additional injury besides violating the VPPA, and moved for a
judgment on that issue.

Beeler unraveled Hulu's argument in December 2013, finding that
the act "requires only injury in the form of a wrongful
disclosure."

"Hulu's main argument -- that the word 'aggrieved' in the statute
requires an additional injury -- does not change the outcome,"
Beeler wrote.

Illegally disclosing personal information is an "actual injury" in
this case, and the plaintiffs could recover damages if the court
finds Hulu violated the VPPA, according to the order.

In depositions, several plaintiffs said they felt their privacy
was violated by Hulu's disclosure of their personal data.

"I'm paying for a service, and I thought that I understood what
was involved in that transaction," plaintiff Paul Torre said in
his deposition.

"But now I understand more, and it's disturbing."

Hulu continues to dispute the class's claims that it used the
analytics service comScore and Facebook "like" buttons to store
user data; it moved for summary judgment.  Among other things,
Hulu argued that its Facebook users consented to the disclosure of
their information under Facebook's terms of use.

Beeler, referring to the case that gave rise to the VPPA, said the
issue at hand depends on whether Hulu's disclosure of information
was "knowing."

"Throwing Judge Bork's video watch list in the recycle bin is not
a disclosure.  Throwing it in the bin knowing that the Washington
Post searches your bin every evening for intelligence about local
luminaries might be," Beeler wrote in her ordering granting in
part and denying in part Hulu's request for summary judgment.

"Considering the statute's reach, the conclusion is that Hulu's
transmission of the Facebook user cookies needs to be the
equivalent of knowingly identifying a specific person as 'having
requested or obtained specific video materials or services."

She continued: "If Hulu did not know that it was transmitting both
an identifier and the person's video watching information, then
there is no violation of the VPPA.  By contrast, if it did know
what it was transmitting, then (depending on the facts) there
might be a VPPA violation."

Hulu's argument that transmitting website cookies is a normal way
that Facebook "likes" work "is not enough to negate knowledge or
show the absence of evidence about knowledge," Beeler wrote.

"If Hulu and Facebook negotiated the exchange of cookies so that
Facebook could track information (including watched videos) about
its users on Hulu's platform when the Like button loaded, or if
Hulu knew that it was transmitting Facebook ID cookies and video
watch pages, then there might be a VPPA violation.  The record
shows fact issues about Hulu's knowledge."

Beeler noted that the plaintiffs are still reviewing documents and
source code, and denied Hulu's motion for summary judgment on the
Facebook issue.  Regarding the metrics company comScore, Beeler
found the plaintiffs could not prove the company did anything with
their information, and found for Hulu on that issue.

"The evidence shows comScore's role in measuring whether users
watched the advertisements. It also demonstrates comScore's
interest in recognizing users and tracking their visits to other
websites where comScore collects data," Beeler wrote.

"That information is likely relevant to an advertiser's desire to
target ads to them.  It does not suggest any linking of a
specific, identified person and his video habits."

The trial is scheduled for July 28.


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Clients Can Pursue Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that It's Just
Lunch International, a matchmaking and dating service for single
professionals, was ordered by a U.S. judge to face a nationwide
class-action lawsuit by clients who claimed they were defrauded
into paying for its services.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan said the plaintiffs
had enough in common to pursue their fraud claims as a group.  He
also said a group of New York plaintiffs could pursue claims under
that state's law alleging deceptive business practices and unjust
enrichment.

The complaint accused It's Just Lunch of falsely promising
clients, including many affluent and highly educated women, that
its staff would "hand select" appropriate matches for dates.  It
also said the company would charge $1,000 or more per person per
year for services it did not deliver.

"In short, virtually all evidence in the record indicates that
during the period at issue, IJL staff relied on a uniform script
to inform prospective customers during initial interviews that IJL
already had at least two matches in mind for those customers'
first dates regardless of whether or not that was true," Stein
wrote.  The fraud case will "substantially rise or fall" on
whether this script was materially misleading, he added.

Stein refused to certify a nationwide class alleging unjust
enrichment, citing too many differences in state laws. The class
periods run from October 15, 2001 to the present. A class action
can make it easier to obtain a larger settlement at lower cost.

It's Just Lunch did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.  Peter Shapiro, a lawyer for the company, did not
immediately respond to similar requests.

John Balestriere, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the decision
means potentially tens of thousands of clients can now seek to
collectively try to recoup fees and recover damages.

"We consider this a complete victory," he said.

According to its website, It's Just Lunch was founded in 1991, has
"matched" tens of thousands of single professionals, and has
arranged more than 2 million first dates.

The company said the process involves an initial client interview;
the selection of a potential partner based on a client's desires,
goals and motivations; and the arranging of lunch at a restaurant,
an after-work drink or a weekend brunch.

It's Just Lunch is based in San Diego, but said it operates in
most U.S. states and Washington, D.C, as well as in Canada, Great
Britain, Ireland, Australia and Singapore.  The company has
trademarked the phrase "Dating for Busy Professionals," federal
records show.

The case is Rodriguez et al v. It's Just Lunch International et
al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.
07-09227


JOHN ASHCROFT: May Face Suit Over FBI Policy on Sept. 11 Attack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former Attorney General John Ashcroft might be pulled back into
the lawsuit about a blanket FBI policy after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks to treat all Arab and South-Asian immigration detainees as
potential terror suspects, an appellate judge ruled on May 1,
2014.

"You held people in segregation when your own people knew there
was no reason to do so," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Wesley said,
scolding a government lawyer.  "It seems to me that it is
plausible that Mr. Ashcroft may be right back in this litigation."

That remark ended the Department of Justice's turn at oral
arguments in the appeal of Turkmen v. Ashcroft, a class action
filed 12 years ago that blamed the highest levels of U.S.
government for a policy to treat hundreds of Arab and South-Asian
men held on immigration offenses as suspected terrorists based on
slim pretexts from the FBI tip line.

After simultaneous terrorist attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in
the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, the FBI set
up a phone number for citizens to report leads.  Its new policy
was to investigate every tip.

Wesley said that some of these "tips revealed an ugly side of
America, such as people are speaking Arabic in the room above me."

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the class
action, estimates that 475 men got roped into this post-9/11
"dragnet."

Four versions of the lawsuit have bounced between federal and
appellate courts for the last dozen years.

In two scathing reports, the FBI's inspector general detailed how
officials at New York's Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)
slammed detainees against the wall, kept them in lockdown 23 hours
a day, and placed them in solitary confinement.

Early last year, U.S. District Judge John Gleeson approved claims
against the prison wardens and personnel, but he dismissed the
allegations against Ashcroft, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller and
James Ziglar, one of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's
last commissioners before it dissolved in 2003.

On May 1, 2014, all parties gathered in the 2nd Circuit to reverse
the findings against them.  The three-judge panel vigorously
questioned both sides, but it appeared clear that at least two
believed the case should proceed.

Judge Reena Raggi, appointed by President George W. Bush, seemed
to take the opposite view.  Repeatedly invoking the destruction
wrought by 9/11, Raggi suggested at one point that officials may
have believed that the immigration detainees shared the "gross
characteristics" of terror plotters because they were "illegal
aliens, young and of Muslim descent."

Judge Rosemary Pooler, a President Bill Clinton appointee,
pointedly remarked later that those "characteristics were not a
good predictor."

Toward the start of the hearing, attorneys for the prison
officials immediately shifted the blame to the FBI, whose
directives they said their clients were following.

The plaintiffs' attorney Rachel Meeropol countered that prison
officials went farther than that by signing forms falsely stating
that they assessed each case on their own.

Seeking clarification, Pooler asked: "They signed documents saying
that they made individualized determinations of dangerousness and
they never did it?"

"Yes, Your Honor," Meeropol replied.

Justice Department attorney Thomas Byron, wearing a bowtie,
maintained that it was not plausible to allege that Ashcroft and
Mueller knew people had been wrongly held.

Skeptical, Pooler noted: "You heard the MDC defendants argue that
they were in the thrall of the FBI."

Byron replied: "Around the country, there were different ways of
implementing that policy as to who would be designated 'of
interest' and 'high interest.'"

Wesley grilled him on the findings of the inspector general's
report that undercut this position. Zigler, the former INS
commissioner, called the FBI's Mueller to warn him that detainees
had no connection to terrorism in late 2001, the report found.

Pooler pressed the Justice Department lawyer about the daily
meetings of the FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Center
held at the time.

"What do they talk about at the daily briefings?" she asked.
"That's what I want to know."

Chuckling, Byron replied, "That what I want to know, too."

Byron also pleaded ignorance earlier to a string of Wesley's
questions over who told the FBI to dictate holding immigration
detainees.

"Who made that decision?" Wesley asked. "Someone had to say, 'It's
the FBI's call.'"

During her final rebuttal, Meeropol said this policy "set [the
events] in motion."

"Once that is set in motion, it's going to stay in motion -
because it's set from the highest levels of government - until the
highest levels of government stop it," she said, shortly before
arguments recessed without an immediate ruling.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Powder's Ovarian Cancer Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that women who use Johnson &
Johnson's baby powder in the genital area have a 33 percent
increased risk of ovarian cancer, a woman claims in a federal
class action in Sacramento.


KELLOGG: Class Counsel to Get Maximum of $1.25MM in Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Kashi has
agreed to pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit claiming its products
contained unnaturally processed and synthetic ingredients.

Kellogg also says it will stop using "All Natural" or "Nothing
Artificial" labels on certain Kashi products as part of an
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.

Kashi will pay class counsel the court-approved fees and expenses
up to a maximum of $1.25 million, according to the settlement
document filed May 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The suit accused Kashi of misleading people by stamping the phrase
"All Natural" or "Nothing Artificial" on products that contained a
variety of synthetic and artificial ingredients.

Among the ingredients listed in the suit were pyridoxine
hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate, hexane-processed soy
ingredients, ascorbic acid, glycerin and sodium phosphate,
according to court documents.

Class members may seek reimbursement of $0.50 per package for
every product purchased between Aug. 24, 2007, and May 2, for
which they can present written proof of purchase in the form of a
receipt or a retail rewards submission.

Class members may make a claim for every package of the products
for which they submit a valid claim form.  For products for which
class members cannot present such proof of purchase, class members
may seek reimbursement of $0.50 per package, with a maximum
recovery of $25, according to the settlement document.

Kashi has also agreed to pay incentive awards to the class
representatives -- Skye Astiana, Milan Babic, Tamara Diaz, Tamar
Larsen and Kimberly S. Sethavanish -- not to exceed $4,000 per
representative plaintiff.

The settlement follows a growing number of food mislabeling class
action lawsuits filed mainly in federal courts in California that
focus on using labels that claim the products are all natural when
they are not.

Earlier this month, a lawsuit was filed against Marie Callender
for claiming its baking mixes were not all natural.

In March, Heinz was sued when a woman claimed its "all natural"
vinegar contained genetically modified corn.

Trader Joe's agreed to a $3.375 million settlement in February
over alleged mislabeling of products as "all natural" or "100%
natural" that actually contained synthetic ingredients.

Last year, PepsiCo Inc. agreed to remove the word "natural" from
its "Simply Natural" line of Frito-Lay chips.  It also changed the
name of its "Natural Quaker Granola" to "Simply Quaker Granola."

PepsiCo also agreed to remove the words "all natural" from its
Naked juices to settle a lawsuit in 2013.

The FDA is currently hearing comments regarding whether or not
food labels should be allowed to use these terms.

The plaintiffs were represented by Joseph N. Kravec Jr. --
jkravec@fdpklaw.com -- and Wyatt A. Lison -- wlison@fdpklaw.com --
of Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec LLC and Nadeem Faruqi --
nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Antonio Vozzolo -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
-- and Andrea Clisura -- aclisura@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi &
Faruqi LLP.

Kashi was represented by Kenneth K. Lee -- KLee@jenner.com --
Kate T. Spelman -- kspelman@jenner.com -- and Dean N. Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block LLP.

The case was assigned to District Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number: 3:11-cv-01967


KKR & CO: Gets Partial Judgment in Lawsuit Over Primedia Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted the motion
of KKR & CO. L.P. for judgment in a suit over the sale of
Primedia, according to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of
directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose
directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named
as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other
things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that
the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder
derivative claims included allegations concerning open market
purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR
affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's
redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004
and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates. With respect
to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia
merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion to
preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the Court of
Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class actions
and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011,
defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the
consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint
seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and
rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the
Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached
their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger
agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the
dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31,
2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May
10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and
certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that
plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On
December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in
part and denied the motion in part.

Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions
challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state
courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief
as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions.
Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware
action.


KKR & CO: Nov. 3 Trial Date Set in Massachusetts Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
is scheduled to hear the motion for class certification in a
shareholder suit against KKR & Co. LP on or after May 19, 2014 and
a trial date has been scheduled on or after November 3, 2014,
according to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that
from mid 2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly
conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity
financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low
levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity
services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to
any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and
specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of
discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On August 18,
2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed to a second
stage of discovery in part and denied it in part. Specifically,
the court granted a second stage of discovery as to eight
additional transactions but denied a second stage of discovery as
to any transactions beyond the additional eight specified
transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal
a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual allegations
concerning the additional eight transactions and the original nine
transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight
purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary
damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original
nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two
of the original nine challenged transactions. On January 13, 2011,
the court granted a motion filed by KKR and certain other
defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a putative damages sub
class in connection with the acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and
separate claims for relief related to the PanAmSat transaction.
The second phase of discovery permitted by the court is completed.
On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
a proposed fifth
amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional
transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the
previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion. On
September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third
stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions
identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but
denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, following the completion of
the third phase of discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended
complaint which, like their proposed fifth amended complaint,
seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the
transactions identified in the previous complaints. On June 22,
2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted
in the fifth amended complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss,
dismissing certain previously released claims against certain
defendants. On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court
denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count
involving KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an
alleged overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other
defendants' announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting
the case to a smaller number of transactions subject to
plaintiffs' claim. KKR filed a renewed motion for summary judgment
on April 16, 2013, which the court denied on July 18, 2013.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 21, 2013.
Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24,
2014. The Court is scheduled to hear the motion for class
certification on or after May 19, 2014. A trial date has been
scheduled on or after November 3, 2014.


KKR & CO: Files Motion to Junk Delaware Suit by KFN Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a suit by KFN shareholders in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware moved to dismiss a consolidated
complaint, according to KKR & Co. LP's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain
of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger
agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR.
The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014.  The
actions filed in California state court have been consolidated but
an operative complaint has not been filed or designated.  The
complaint filed in the California federal court action has not
been served on the defendants.  Two of the Delaware actions were
voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining Delaware actions were
consolidated.  On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was
filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants
moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014.

The complaints in these actions allege variously that the members
of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders; and failing
to disclose material information necessary for KFN shareholders to
make a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction. The
actions also allege variously that KKR, and certain of KKR's
affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means
of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors
LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in these actions includes,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and the proposed
transaction, rescission, an accounting by defendants, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: No Deposition Yet in Gainesville Plant Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Depositions relating to class certification of a suit related to
the operation of Koppers Inc.'s utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville have not yet commenced, according to Koppers Holdings
Inc.'s May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.
In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are
present record owners of residential real properties located in an
area within a two-mile radius of the former Gainesville wood
treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and
contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused
property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents
and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of
exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second
amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values,
the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and punitive
damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. In May 2013, the
Court entered a scheduling order for class certification, which
sets out discovery deadlines leading up to motions for class
certification and opposition to those motions. Under the terms of
the order, depositions relating to class certification will not
commence until the court has disposed of all pending motions to
dismiss. The district court dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in
September 2013 on the ground that there was no personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of Koppers
Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013. However, the court
has not yet ruled on all pending motions to dismiss filed by other
defendants. Therefore, depositions relating to class certification
have not yet commenced.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Briefing Over Class in "Fosbre-Combs" Deferred
---------------------------------------------------------------
The judge handling the consolidated cases of Frank J. Fosbre, Jr.
and Wendell and Shirley Combs against Las Vegas Sands Corp. agreed
to the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on the issue of
expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a
decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc., according to Las Vegas' May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21,
2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint,
which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint,
discussed, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31,
2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the
Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one
consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action
amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against
LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended
complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants,
disseminated or approved materially false and misleading
information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press
releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2,
2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among
other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August
24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the
dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the
defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the
amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's
Order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations
back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to
2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar
matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District
Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to
the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed
their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new
judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion
to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7,
2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants
motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed
their answer to the second amended complaint. Discovery in the
matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion to expand the certified class period. On February 3, 2014,
the judge agreed to the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on
the issue of expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme
Court issues a decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P.
John Fund, Inc.


LAWCASH: Faces Class Action Over Charging Illegal Rates on Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that LawCash charges illegal,
usurious rates for payday loans, a $100 million class action
claims in New York County Supreme Court.


LOWE'S HOME: Faces Class Action Over Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lowe's Home Centers does not
redeem the full value of its gift cards, but sweeps the change
into its coffers as revenue, a class action claims in Alameda
County Court in Oakland, California.


MICHIGAN: Corrections Dept Sued Over Lack of Dental Care Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Michigan's Department of
Corrections violates the Eight Amendment's prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishment by refusing to administer dental care to
prisoners, a class action claims in Federal Court in Detroit.


MOLYCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Col. Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Molycorp, Inc. to dismiss a securities complaint filed
against its current and former executive officers is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to
the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the
company and certain of the company's current and former executive
officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The
Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also
names most of the company's Board members and some of the
company's stockholders as defendants, along with other persons and
entities. That Complaint alleges 18 claims for relief arising out
of alleged: (1) securities fraud in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, during the proposed
class period from February 11, 2011 through November 10, 2011; and
(2) materially untrue or misleading statements in registration
statements and prospectuses for the company's public offering of
preferred stock in February 2011 and of common stock in June 2011,
in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The company's motion
to dismiss that Complaint was filed in October 2012 and is
pending. The company believes that this lawsuit is without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend ourselves against these
claims.


MOLYCORP INC: New York Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated two purported class action lawsuits against Molycorp,
Inc., according to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

In August 2013, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of the company's current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. The purported class action lawsuits allege claims
for relief arising out of alleged securities fraud in violation of
the Exchange Act during the proposed class period from August 2,
2012 through August 7, 2013. Pursuant to stipulations and orders
of the court dated September 25, 2013 and September 27, 2013,
among other things, the deadlines for the company and the
company's current and former executive officers to respond to the
lawsuits were stayed pending appointment of a lead plaintiff under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Pursuant to an order
dated April 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the two purported class action
lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff has
until May 19, 2014 to file its consolidated amended complaint in
its consolidated claims.


MT. GOX: Plaintiffs Agree on Sunlot Settlement
----------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Americans and Canadians burned by Mt. Gox's collapse have agreed
to settle class-action claims that the bitcoin exchange defrauded
them out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The plaintiffs of two class actions -- filed in the United States
and Canada -- said they would support a plan for Sunlot Holdings
to buy the defunct bitcoin exchange, once the world's largest.

Bitcoin is a digital currency introduced in early 2009, the same
year Mt. Gox launched its online trading platform.  The Tokyo-
based exchange shut down on Feb. 24, after announcing it had lost
about 850,000 bitcoins, worth more than $400 million, in a
security breach.  It later claimed to have found 200,000 bitcoins.

Gregory Greene, lead plaintiff of the U.S. lawsuit, accused Mt.
Gox of taking customers' money despite knowing that hackers had
infiltrated the system.  The exchange froze withdrawals in early
February while it purportedly investigated a "bug" or "technical
glitch."

CEO Mark Karpeles knew about the security problems underlying the
hackers' theft, according to the lawsuit, and "was and is aware
that he and his co-defendants were wrongfully obtaining bitcoins
for fiat currency by shutting down the Mt. Gox exchange and
capturing its users' property."

Mt. Gox has since filed for bankruptcy in the United States and
Japan, and was given temporary protection from U.S. lawsuits in
March.  Bitcoin founder Jed McCaleb, former marketing chief
Gonzague Gay-Bouchery and Sunlot agreed to the settlement proposed
April 28, 2014, without acknowledging any wrongdoing.

McCaleb and Gay-Bouchery will reportedly help the plaintiffs
pursue claims against the remaining defendants, including MtGox
Inc., Mt. Gox KK, Tibanne KK and Karpeles.

In return, the U.S. and Canadian plaintiffs agreed to a 16.5
percent stake in the exchange after it's reopened by Sunlot, an
investment firm partially owned by former child actor Brock
Pierce.

Sunlot reportedly offered to buy the exchange for one bitcoin, or
less than $500.  The settlement would also divvy up the 200,000
bitcoins that Mt. Gox says it found and would give plaintiffs up
to $20 million in fiat currency held by the exchange's
administrator.

"This is the customers' best option and the only chance they have
for full restitution," Jay Edelson, lead attorney in the U.S.
case, told Reuters.

The settlement still needs the approval of the judges overseeing
the cases in the United States and Canada.


MTC LIMOUSINE: Driver Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Tutsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MTC Limousine & Corporate Coach, Inc., and Trevor
Franklin, James Rubin, Matthew Hitchcock, and Greg Lacasky, each
in their professional and individual capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-
03408 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2014) seeks to recover from the Defendants
his full payment of all unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and liquidated damages, pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants as a driver.

MTC is a New York corporation headquartered in Bedford Hills, New
York, located in Westchester County.  The Individual Defendants
are the principals of MTC, who all own, operate and make
managerial decisions for MTC.  The Defendants operate a limousine
and private car service that provides clients with transportation
to and from various points throughout New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly A. Magnuson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516)248-5550
          E-mail: kam@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs Request July 14 Settlement Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that lawyers for
the NCAA and nearly all of the class-action plaintiffs attached to
the Adrian Arrington concussion litigation have requested until
July 14 to finalize a settlement.

In a federal court filing on May 13, the parties asked for a 60-
day stay on court deadlines "due to the complexity of the issues
and need for client approval."  The stay would also delay the
court's pending decision to approve the proposed structure of
attorneys for the plaintiffs that was recently filed.

The May 13 filings initially said that one set of plaintiffs
raising concerns about the settlement negotiations signed off on
the 60-day stay.  A later filing amended that and said it did not
include the Anthony Nichols plaintiffs represented by Jay Edelson.

Mr. Edelson has expressed concern about the potential outcome of a
settlement with the NCAA.  Mr. Edelson is attempting to maintain
personal-injury claims for the class that he says could be waived
"with no corresponding relief given in exchange."

Recent court filings showed that the NCAA reached a term sheet
with the Arrington plaintiffs for a settlement in February.
Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com reported on May 13 that the
settlement is expected to include a medical monitoring fund of at
least $70 million that would encompass all past and current
college athletes.

Securing a class-action settlement that's agreeable to numerous
plaintiffs and the court can be a difficult task.

Last fall, the NFL reached a proposed $765 million settlement in
its concussion litigation.  But U.S. District Judge Adrian Brody
rejected the proposed settlement, expressing doubts about whether
the amount is enough and sought documentation supporting the plan.
Earlier this month, seven retired NFL players sought to intervene
in the concussion litigation because they claim the proposed
settlement doesn't sufficiently represent the interests of all
former players.

NCAA concussion litigation may be headed on a similar path as
lawyers attempt to gain support for a settlement.  The NCAA and
the majority of the Arrington case's plaintiffs want to reset a
May 29 case management conference to a status conference.

Arrington attorney Steve Berman has said in court that Mr. Edelson
is wrong and the law is "absolutely clear" that a personal-injury
case cannot be certified as a class action. He cited a 1990s
asbestos case that reached the Supreme Court.

Mr. Edelson contends that the Arrington lawsuit's goals have
changed in recent years.  The initial suit filed in 2011 sought
damages against the NCAA for concussion-related personal injuries,
such as past medical expenses, lost earnings and compensatory
damages.

According to filings, the NCAA informed the court on Feb. 5 that
it was negotiating a broader settlement that would include a
waiver of class members' rights to pursue personal-injury claims
as a group.

Mr. Edelson wrote that his initial discussions with the NCAA "have
lead to more broad discussions regarding potential relief to be
made available to any personal injury class."  Since Mr. Edelson's
update, another mediation session was held on May 12.

Mr. Edelson lists eight other law firms supporting his efforts to
negotiate over personal-injury claims.  Among those on Mr.
Edelson's side is high-profile, personal-injury attorney Bob
Clifford, whose Clifford Law Office has represented plane crash
victims or families from nearly every major commercial airline
crash in the U.S. over the past 30 years.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Given Time to Review Classification of Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge ruled April 15, 2014, that the U.S.
government has two more weeks to finish reviewing the
classification of certain documents filed in a challenge to its
telephone surveillance program.  In so ruling, U.S. District Judge
Jeffrey White appended a short paragraph to the stipulation filed
a day earlier by Justice Department attorney James Gilligan.

"The government has not -- despite significant efforts -- been
able to comply with the court's order to complete its
classification review of these ten declarations by April 21,
2014," Gilligan had said.  "Significant information in the
declarations remains highly classified, which must be separated
from any information that no longer remains classified.  Each
declaration must undergo several layers of careful line-by-line
review before public versions can be produced.  These reviews also
require inter-agency consultation and coordination, which takes
additional time and resources from various governmental components
that have a limited number of individuals who have the experience
and clearances necessary to perform these reviews.  These
individuals must conduct these reviews in addition to other
classification-review tasks such as complying with Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests and court-ordered deadlines in
related FOIA litigation.  For these reasons, the government
respectfully requests, and plaintiffs do not oppose, a two-week
extension until May 5, 2014, for the government to complete its
classification-review, processing, and (as appropriate) public
filing of the ten declarations that the government has identified
as subject to the court's March 19 order."

The government was given until May 5 to file its certification
regarding preservation of evidence.

Any telephone metadata that the government has collected likely
falls under the preservation orders it faces in Jewel v.  NSA and
First Unitarian Church v. NSA, two civil challenges over which
White is presiding in San Francisco.

In that vein, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has
removed a restriction that would have the government destroy more-
than-5-year-old metadata records in the interest of privacy.

Jewel's class action challenges the National Security
Administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program as an abuse of
executive privilege that monitors law-abiding customers.

The class claims that the NSA's implementation of the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, signed into law after the Sept. 11, 2011,
terrorist attacks, violates the Constitution and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  It is represented by the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy rights
organization.

Jewel's case had been slogging along for years when in June 2013
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing
that the NSA had forced Verizon to hand over "all call detail
records or 'telephony metadata'" of U.S. customers placing
international domestic and local calls."

Snowden's revelations led White to bar the government from trying
to keep a lid on surveillance information via the state secrets
defense.  The judge had said that the FISA procedural mechanism
prescribed under 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1806(f) pre-empts such privilege.

Citing Clapper, White then requested briefing as to whether
litigating claims for untargeted surveillance would reveal whose
"name was on the list of surveillance targets."

Jewel's attorneys recently slammed the government for using this
question "to assert that the state secrets privilege should govern
proceedings in this litigation."


NEC CORP: Aug. 14 Fairness Hearing on $6-Mil. ODD Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that accused of conspiring to fix the prices of optical-disc
drives, NEC Corp. can pay $6 million to settle a class action by
Acer and other computer makers, a federal judge ruled.

The multidistrict litigation in San Francisco arose in part from a
2010 class action filed by Acer Inc. and Gateway Inc.  They
alleged that an extensive group of companies had conspired to
"fix, raise, stabilize and maintain prices" for the multibillion-
dollar optical-disc drive, or ODD, industry.

"Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in a price-
fixing conspiracy from as early as Jan. 1, 2004 through, around,
Jan. 1, 2010," an amended complaint filed in 2014 states.  "These
anticompetitive acts included rigging bids for ODDs in procurement
events conducted by Original Equipment Manufacturers, sharing
confidential information including pricing, sales, production,
bidding strategies and rankings, pull rates and Total Available
Market in order to facilitate price coordination, entering
agreements to set prices for ODDs sold in the U.S. to OEMs
including Acer, and allocating customers and markets."

Acer and Gateway claimed that the noncompetitive market forced
direct purchasers like them to pay more for products.

NEC was named as a defendant alongside Philips & Lite-On Digital
Solutions Corp., Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Pioneer
Electronics, Toshiba Corp., and several subsidiaries and
affiliates.  The direct purchasers alleged violations of
California's Cartwright Act and unfair competition law, as well as
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg granted preliminary approval
April 25, 2014, of a settlement that requires NEC to pay the
direct-purchaser class $6 million.  Final approval of the
settlement will prevent all class members from filing any
antitrust claims against the company.

"The court finds that the settlement falls within the range of
possible final approval and that there is a sufficient basis for
notifying the settlement class and for setting a fairness
hearing," Seeborg wrote.

Saveri & Saveri can serve as class counsel, and Acer and Gateway
as class representatives, according to the 16-page ruling.

In their motion to have the deal approved last month, the
plaintiffs told the court that "the settlement was achieved after
extensive arms-length negotiations and represents an outstanding
recovery for the class."

Seeborg set the fairness hearing for Aug. 14.

Last year, the court let Panasonic join a $26 million settlement
with Hitachi-LG Data Storage in the same case.


NIELSEN: Faces Overtime Class Action in Oakland California
----------------------------------------------------------
The Nielsen Co. stiffs its field reps for overtime, a class action
claims in Federal Court in Oakland, California.


OASIS PETROLEUM: Faces Suit Over Derailment of MMA-Operated Train
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum Inc. and OP LLC were added to a group of
defendants in a motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize
a class action arising out of the derailment of a train
carrying crude oil in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, according to the
company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On July 6, 2013, a freight train operated by Montreal, Maine and
Atlantic Railway ("MMA") carrying crude oil (the "Train") derailed
in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. In March 2014, Oasis Petroleum Inc. and
OP LLC were added to a group of over fifty named defendants,
including other crude oil producers as well as the Canadian
Pacific Railway, MMA and certain of its affiliates, owners and
transloaders of the crude oil carried by the Train, several
lessors of tank cars, and the Attorney General of Canada, in a
motion filed in Quebec Superior Court to authorize a class-action
lawsuit seeking economic, compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as costs for claims arising out of the derailment of the
Train (Yannick Gagne, etc., et al. v. Rail World, Inc., etc., et
al., Case No. 48006000001132). The motion generally alleges
wrongful death and negligence in the failure to provide for the
proper and safe transportation of crude oil.
The Company believes that all claims against Oasis Petroleum Inc.
and OP LLC in connection with the derailment of the Train in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.


ORCHIDMAN LANDSCAPE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gusmaro Reyes, Jose Ortiz, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. Orchidman Landscape Artisans, Corp. and Jose Perez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-21723-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
May 9, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the laws of the United States.

Orchidman Landscape Artisans, Corp., is a Florida corporation with
its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where
the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant.  Jose Perez is a
director/owner of Orchidman.  The Defendants provide full
residential and commercial landscape services in the Miami Dade,
Broward, Monroe and West Palm Beach areas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


OZ MINERALS: Launches Defense Against Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian, citing Fairfax Media, reports that OZ Minerals has
put advisory firm Grant Samuel into the firing line as it looks to
beat a shareholder class action relating to the merger that
spawned the company in 2008.

The South Australian-based miner reportedly alleges that
Grant Samuel failed to include $US340 million of debt in its
analysis ahead of its recommendation that shareholders back the
merger of Zinifex and Oxiana six years ago.

According to Fairfax, the accusation has been tabled in a
Victorian Supreme Court writ and follows a similar claim OZ has
filed against law firm Clayton Utz.

OZ maintains that shareholders were not misled over the merger,
but should the miner's arguments fail to convince the courts, it
appears set to pin the blame on Grant Samuel.


PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Suit Over Serving Hepa-A Contaminated Pizzas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Papa John's pizzeria in Charlotte, N.C., negligently served as
many as 4,000 patrons food contaminated with the hepatitis A
virus, a class action claims.

Elishevia Graham claims in Mecklenburg County Court that she
bought food at the Papa John's outlet on Cambridge Commons Drive
in early April and shared it with four others, including a
grandchild.  Days earlier, an employee of that Papa John's had
become ill and was later hospitalized with what was later
diagnosed with hepatitis A, Graham says in the lawsuit.  All these
events occurred between March 24 and April 7, according to the
complaint.

Graham claims that the Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County Health
Departments set up vaccination clinics for people who were exposed
to the contaminated foods.

There is no vaccine for hepatitis A; gamma globulin injections can
increase one's resistance to the disease.

"While at least 2,400 food orders were purchased by members of the
consuming public during this period, it is estimated that as many
as 4,000 persons may have consumed contaminated foods manufactured
and sold by this Defendant," Graham says in the complaint.

"Plaintiff, as well as all other persons similarly situated as the
plaintiff, was forced to receive immune globulin (IG) shots after
being exposed to the Hepatitis A virus," she says.  "Additionally,
the plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated as the
plaintiff have and will continue to be concerned and scared for
their future health and well being as the result of the acts by
the defendant."

Graham says that despite receiving two vaccinations, she suffers
from anxiety, emotional distress, worry, frustration and fear of
illness.  She seeks $20,000 in damages for product liability,
breach of warranty, and negligence.

She is represented by Pamela Hunter --
Pamelahunterlaw@bellsouth.net -- of Charlotte.


PCJ: Injured Passengers Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------
NewsDay reports that the 18 passengers that were injured when a
PCJ bus they were travelling in overturned just after the Shangani
business centre on April 6 have instituted legal action against
the operator claiming damages which could run into hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

The bus was travelling from Francistown in Botswana and was
en-route to Harare when it overturned at around 1am just after
Shangani business centre about 102km along the Bulawayo-Harare
road.

However, the quantity of the damages has not been calculated as
the victims' degrees of injuries and medical expenses have not yet
been accessed.

Idah Kaitano (31), who lost her left arm and two fingers from her
right hand, is acting on behalf of the 17 other injured passengers
and has filed an application at the Bulawayo High Court through
her lawyer Vonani Majoko of Majoko and Majoko Legal Practitioners
for leave to institute a class action against the bus operator in
terms of the Class Actions Act.

The High Court is yet to decide whether to allow them to file a
class action case and to deal with their claims as one.

Section (3) of the Class Actions Act gives the High Court
permission to grant leave to any person to act on behalf of any
class of people like what Ms. Kaitano intends to do.

"(1) Subject to this section, the High Court may on application
grant leave for the institution of a class action on behalf of any
class of person. (2) (a) May be made by any person, whether or not
he is a member of the class of persons concerned , and (b) shall
be made in the form and manner prescribed in rules of court,"
reads the section.

Ms. Majoko has already written to PCJ proprietors in Botswana
advising them of the intention of claiming damages on behalf of
the 18 accident victims.

Ms. Kaitano lost her left arm on the scene.

Passengers on the PCJ bus said they suspected the driver fell
asleep.


PEGATRON: Faces Class Action Over Defrauding Gamers
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pegatron, ASRock and Fatallty
defraud gamers by claiming their motherboards will increase speed
and improve graphics quality, a class action claims in Federal
Court in San Francisco.


PEP BOYS: Employees May Pursue Wage Violations Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVE TOKOSHIMA, LUIS FLORES, and JAMES FABER, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
PEP BOYS - MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA, a California
Corporation; THE PEP BOYS - MANNY MOE & JACK, a Pennsylvania
Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. C-12-4810-CRB (N.D.
Calif.), alleges wage and hour violations and unfair business
practices in connection with their previous employment with
Defendants.

On April 28, 2014, District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San
Francisco, California, granted, in part, and denied, in part, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and denied the
Defendants' Motion to Strike Declaration of Plaintiffs' Expert
Witness.  Specifically, the Court granted class certification as
to the so-called Wage Class and denied class certification as to
the Tools Class.  As the Plaintiffs' proposed Tools Class will not
be certified, the Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike as
moot.

In their request, the Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes, both
of which are limited to those workers who were employed during the
period from August 6, 2008 through September 30, 2011, and whose
employment terminated on or before September 30, 2011.  The
Plaintiffs proposed two class definitions and three subclasses as
follows:

     (A) Wage Class: Non-exempt California employees identified in
Defendants' electronic business records who were employed in one
of the following classifications: Mechanic, Technician, Master
Technician, EP Technician, Technician A, Technician B, Smog
Technician, Express Service Technician ("EST"), Express Service
and Sales Technician ("ESST"), Installer, Service Advisor, and
Commercial Sales Manager ("CSM").

The Wage Class is subdivided into three Subclasses, each of which
was subject to a uniform compensation plan:

          (1) Mechanic Subclass: Non-exempt employees in the
following classifications: Mechanic, Technician, Master
Technician, EP Technician, Technician A, Technician B, and Smog
Technician.

         (2) EST Subclass: Non-exempt employees in the following
classifications: Express Service Technician ("EST"), Express
Service and Sales Technician ("ESST"), Installer, and Service
Advisor. Only those employees whose base hourly rate of pay was
less than $8.00 per hour during the class period as established
through Pep Boys' electronic payroll records are included in the
EST subclass.

          (3) CSM Subclass: Non-exempt Commercial Sales Managers
whose base hourly rate of pay was less than $8.00 per hour during
the class period as established through Pep Boys' electronic
payroll records.

     (B) Tools Class: All non-exempt California employees in the
following classifications during the class period: Mechanic,
Technician, Master Technician, EP Technician, Technician A,
Technician B, Smog Technician, Express Service Technician ("EST"),
Express Service and Sales Technician ("ESST"), Installer, and
Service Advisor.

The Defendants moved to strike the declaration of the Plaintiffs'
expert witness, Gerald Rosenbluth, filed in support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, because it is
inadmissible, unreliable, and improper pursuant to Federal Rules
of Evidence 702.


PETER LUGER: Settles FLSA Class Action for $250,000
---------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that famed upscale
steakhouse Peter Luger of Long Island Inc. will fork over $250,000
to settle a proposed class action claiming it ripped off wait
staff employees by withholding overtime pay and forcing them to
pool tips, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according
to a May 13 filing in New York federal court.

A proposed class of restaurant employees urged the judge to
approve the settlement agreement, which will resolve the suit
alleging Peter Luger failed to pay overtime and minimum wages, as
well as claims of unpaid spread-of-hours pay and illegal tip
pooling.

"By reaching a favorable settlement prior to dispositive motions
or trial, plaintiffs seek to avoid significant expense and delay,
and instead ensure recovery for the class," the proposed class
said in its memorandum in support of preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Filed in March 2013 by four wait staff employees at its Great
Neck, New York, location, the suit alleges Peter Luger failed to
compensate them for every hour worked, withheld overtime pay and
utilized an illegal tip pooling system in violation of the FLSA
and New York Labor Law.

The restaurant vehemently denied the claims in its April 2013
answer to the complaint.

"Except as expressly admitted and alleged, defendant denies each
and every allegation set forth in the complaint and deny
plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever," Peter Luger
said in its answer to the complaint.

The memorandum states that the settlement agreement came about
following a private mediation, conducted with the hopes of being
able to avoid the time and expenses that accompany a trial.

"A complicated trial would consume tremendous amounts of time and
resources for both sides," the memorandum said.

The proposed class said that the settlement amount is a good
value, though the class may have been able to get a larger award
at trial.  The settlement covers all individuals employed as
servers, wait staff, waiters and bartenders at the Great Neck
location between March 16, 2007, and February 27, 2014, according
to the filing.

At least 62 class members would be included in the settlement, the
memorandum says.

The memorandum also said that the class will also receive $83,000
in attorneys' fees in the settlement, and asked that the court
grant class certification.

Attorneys for the parties, respectively, told Law360 on May 14
that the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of all involved.

Peter Luger is represented by Glenn Sklaire Grindlinger --
ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com -- and Carolyn D Richmond --
crichmond@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild LLP.

The proposed class is represented by Douglas Brian Lipsky --
dl@bronsonlipsky.com -- of Bronson Lipsky LLP and Jeffrey M.
Gottlieb and Dana Lauren Gottlieb of Gottlieb & Associates.

The suit is Donnelly et al v. Peter Luger of Long Island, Inc.,
case number 2:13-cv-01377, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement in Regions Funds Lawsuit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has granted final approval of a settlement in the
closed-end Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds class action,
according to Regions Financial Corporation's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
were named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state
courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain
Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and stockholders
of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into class-actions
and stockholder derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end
Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment
Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management"). Regions
Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were
transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion")
in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by
Hyperion. The complaints contain various allegations, including
claims that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the
Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages. These cases are in various stages and no classes
have been certified. Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain
cases, and the Court has granted final approval of a settlement in
the closed-end Funds class-action and shareholder derivative case.
Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating
in the class actions. These lawsuits and proceedings are subject
to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Certification of Securities Suit Under Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Regions Financial Corporation's stockholders
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is
stayed pending a review of a class certification by the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 7 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of
Regions (the "2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim alleges violations of
the federal securities laws, including allegations that statements
that were materially false and misleading were included in filings
made with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The
plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages. On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions'
motion to dismiss the 2010 Claim. On June 14, 2012, the trial
court granted class certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals is reviewing the trial court's grant of class-action
certification. The case is now stayed pending that review.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Buyers of Morgan Keegan-Issued Bonds File Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the
municipal bonds underwritten and sold by Morgan Keegan, according
to Regions Financial Corporation's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014.

The SEC and states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged
securities law violations by Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and
sale of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was brought
by the Missouri Secretary of State on April 4, 2013, seeking
monetary penalties and other relief that was dismissed and refiled
on November 21, 2013. A civil action was brought by institutional
investors of the bonds on March 19, 2012, seeking a return of
their investment and unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. A class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers
of the bonds on September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. Several claims by individual
investors and investor groups are also pending. These actions are
in the early stages. These matters are also subject to the
indemnification agreement with Raymond James.


SAMSUNG: Aug. 22 Fairness Hearing on $33 Million Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Samsung can pay $33 million to settle claims that it
participated in a global conspiracy to fix prices on cathode-ray
tubes, a federal judge ruled in April.

Cathode-ray tubes, or CRTs, are vacuum tubes that shoot rays onto
screens to form images.  They became obsolete as new technology
paved the way for flat-screen televisions and other electronic
devices.

Samsung SDI America Inc. and other subsidiaries of the Korean
technology company were part of a large class action complaint in
which direct purchasers alleged accused companies like Hitachi,
Sharp, Philips, Toshiba and Panasonic of conspiring to fix prices
in CRT industry when it was worth $19 billion between 1995 and
2007.

Hitachi agreed in January to settle claims over its role in the
alleged scheme for more than $13 million, and LG Electronics
agreed to a $25 million settlement in December 2013.

Samsung is the eighth company to settle, and U.S. District Judge
Samuel Conti in San Francisco granted the $33 million deal
preliminary approval April 18, 2014.

Conti set the fairness hearing for Aug. 22.

The settlement provides "for a complete release of all class
members' antitrust claims against Samsung SDI and related
entities," according to a motion for preliminary approval.

In the motion, interim lead counsel Guido Saveri, of Saveri &
Saveri in San Francisco, said the settlement involves the same
class of plaintiffs identified in previous settlements.

"The settlement class . . . is identical to five settlement
classes previously certified by the court in connection with its
preliminary and final approval of settlements with the Chungwa,
Philips, Panasonic, LG and Toshiba defendants," he said.  "In
addition, the court has granted preliminary approval of a
settlement with the Hitachi defendants.  The court has also
ordered that notice to the Hitachi settlement class be delayed so
that a joint notice may be given to both the Hitachi and the
Samsung SDI settlement classes."

Conti approved the motion the same day.

"The court finds that the settlement falls within the range of
possible final approval and that there is a sufficient basis for
notifying the class of the proposed settlement and for setting a
fairness hearing," the order states.


SAN FRANCISCO: Judge Remands Officers' Case for Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that San
Francisco police officers alleging age discrimination in the
department deserve another look at their motion for class
certification, the 9th Circuit ruled.

About 30 police officers sued the City and County of San Francisco
and the San Francisco Police Department in 2008 over a new
promotion policy that they claimed discriminated against officers
over the age of 40.  The officers argued a case for disparate
treatment after the department tossed the results of a promotion
test dating back to 1998, the Q-35, and began promoting based on a
new exam, the Q-50.  They moved to certify a class composed of
officers over 40 who had qualified for promotion on the Q-35 exam,
but U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton cited a lack of
commonality and shot them down.

An appellate panel unanimously reversed, finding that Hamilton
should have stuck to the narrower question of whether the officers
constituted a legal class rather than considering the merits of
their claims.

"The officers have identified a single, well-enunciated, uniform
policy that, allegedly, generated all the disparate impact of
which they complain: the SFPD's decision to make investigative
assignments using the Q-50 List instead of the Q-35 List," Judge
Marsha Berzon wrote for a three-judge panel.  "Each member of the
putative class was on the Q-35 List.  Each suffered the effects of
its elimination, whatever those were."

At a September hearing, San Francisco's Deputy City Attorney
Christine Van Aken argued that the plaintiffs had not been
specific enough in their claims for commonality.

"You have to look at everyone who was eligible for a particular
promotion, identify the number of people in a protected class in
that group and then look at the people who got the benefit that
they wanted," Van Aken said.

Berzon conceded that such defects in the plaintiffs' case may well
exist, but that "they go to the merits of this case."

"Given the interlocutory nature of this appeal, and its consequent
limitation to class certification factors only, we may not
consider the merits questions, even as an alternative ground for
affirmance," she added.

The panel remanded the case for a new look at the officers'
arguments for certification.


SERVICE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Burial Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel and Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, report that
Service Corporation International Inc., which bills itself as
Daniel Siegal North America's leading provider of death care
products and services, was hit with a putative class action in
Pennsylvania state court on May 12 alleging that it oversold
cemetery plots in a Philadelphia Jewish burial ground.

Plaintiff Maya Devinskaya accused SCI of burying her daughter in a
plot that already contained the remains of another individual at
its Shalom Memorial Park.  Ms. Devinskaya contends that she was
not placed there mistakenly, but instead, SCI pursued a deliberate
policy of selling more plots than it had land available.  She
emphasized that this strategy frequently created scenarios where
individuals had to be reburied at the cemetery.

"As ghastly and egregious as these policies are, they are
especially harmful in that Shalom is a Jewish cemetery and Jewish
law generally forbids disinterment and, even where it is allowed,
requires a new religious ceremony to be performed upon reburial,"
she said in the complaint.

In her complaint, Ms. Devinskaya detailed the events following the
burial of her daughter Ella after an unexpected death at 44.  She
said that after Ella was buried in June 2013, she and other
relatives noticed that the site was sinking on future visits.

Then, in March, after visiting the site to measure a headstone,
she tripped in a sinkhole then confronted a manager, who insisted
that Ella was buried in a different location.

Two weeks later, according to the complaint, Ms. Devinskaya was
contacted by a headstone installer who said that he had been hired
to install a headstone by another family but found Ella's
photograph on the site.  That family then spoke to the cemetery
management, who informed Ms. Devinskaya that it needed her consent
to disinter then transfer Ella's remains.

Ms. Devinskaya also pointed to a purported policy at the cemetery
of staff monitoring graves to determine which received guests
frequently and which did not, in order to determine targets for
"encroachment."

She also highlighted that SCI had been hit with similar
allegations at other sites across the country.  She noted an $65
million class settlement in 2001 for deceptive burial practices in
a suit filed in Florida state court and an $80 million settlement
in California state court in 2009.

SCI reached another settlement to a California class action
earlier this year, when it ended a jury trial after four weeks by
agreeing to pay $35 million to affected families and make $45
million in improvements to the Eden Memorial Park Jewish cemetery.

Ms. Devinskaya believes that her proposed class is composed of at
least 1,000 owners of the rights to burial plots at the cemetery.
She is suing for breach of contract and is also invoking the
state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Ms. Devinskaya is represented by Stephen DeNittis and Shane Prince
of DeNittis Osefchen PC and Gavin Lentz and Bryan Lentz of
Bochetto & Lentz PC.

The case is Devinskaya v. Service Corporation International Inc.
et al, case number 140501110, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County.


SOLARCITY CORP: Motions in Employee Suit to be Heard by Summer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles will hear motions
in a suit filed by a former outside sales employee of SolarCity
Corporation during the summer of 2014, according to the company's
May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On August 17, 2012, a former outside sales employee filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (Civil Action No.
BC490482). The former outside sales employee purports to represent
a class of certain current and former outside sales
representatives, and those with a similar title, who worked for
the Company in California in the four-year period prior to the
filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges causes of action
for failure to pay proper wages due under various commission pay
plans, failure to properly pay the wages of terminated or resigned
employees, failure to provide proper itemized wage statements
because of an alleged failure to specify requisite information,
failure to keep accurate time records and related claims for
unfair competition and a California statute permitting individuals
to pursue claims not pursued by a state agency. The former outside
sales employee seeks unspecified damages for himself and affected
class members, including all wages due and owing, applicable
statutory penalties (including waiting time penalties), interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. On January 24, 2013, the Company
answered the complaint and asserted a cross-complaint against the
former outside sales employee to recover commissions that he was
paid, but not entitled to, along with the Company's fees and costs
in the litigation. Discovery has commenced. On March 14, 2014, the
former outside sales employee filed a motion with the Superior
Court to seek to allow him to pursue his action on behalf of a
class. Also, on March 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion for a
summary judgment on its cross-complaint. The court will hear those
motions during the summer of 2014.


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation faces a securities lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of its
officers. The complaint alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's securities from March 6, 2013 to March
18, 2014.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July Hearing in Millennium Funds Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been scheduled for July 7, 2014 to consider final
approval of the settlement reached by GlobeOp Financial Services
S.A., SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc., the Managers of Millennium
Global Emerging Credit Fund, L.P. and Millennium Global Emerging
Credit Fund Ltd. and the plaintiff in a U.S. Class Action,
according to SS&C's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2014.

Several actions (the "Millennium Actions") have been filed in
various jurisdictions against GlobeOp alleging claims and damages
with respect to a valuation agent services agreement performed by
the Company's subsidiary, GlobeOp Financial Services S.A.
("GlobeOp"), for the Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund, L.P.
and Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund Ltd. (the "Millennium
Funds"). These actions include (i) a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"U.S. Class Action") on behalf of a putative class of investors in
the Millennium Funds filed in May 2012 asserting claims of $844
million (the alleged aggregate value of assets under management by
the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak valuation); (ii) an
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom (the "UK
Arbitration") on behalf of Millennium Global Investments Ltd. and
Millennium Asset Management Ltd., the Millennium Funds' investment
manager and administrative manager, respectively (together, the
"Millennium Managers"), which commenced with a request for
arbitration in July 2011, seeking an indemnity of $26.5 million
for sums paid by way of settlement to the Millennium Funds in a
separate arbitration to which GlobeOp was not a party, as well as
an indemnity for any losses that may be incurred by the Millennium
Managers in the U.S. Class Action; and (iii) a claim in the same
arbitration proceeding by the liquidators on behalf of the
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd. (the "Master
Fund") against GlobeOp for damages alleged to be in excess of $160
million. These actions allege that GlobeOp breached its
contractual obligations and/or negligently breached a duty of care
in the performance of services for the Millennium Fund and that,
inter alia, GlobeOp should have discovered and reported a
fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the portfolio manager employed by
the investment manager. The U.S. Class Action also asserts claims
against SS&C identical to the claims against GlobeOp in that
action. In the arbitration, GlobeOp has asserted counterclaims
against both the Millennium Managers and the Master Fund for
indemnity, including in respect of the U.S. Class Action.

A hearing on the merits of the claims asserted in the UK
Arbitration was conducted in London in July and August 2013. The
hearing has been adjourned and is not expected to be reconvened
until September 2014.

GlobeOp has secured insurance coverage that provides reimbursement
of various litigation costs up to pre-determined limits. In 2012
and 2013, GlobeOp was reimbursed for litigation costs under the
applicable insurance policy.

In January 2014, GlobeOp, SS&C, the Millennium Managers and the
plaintiff in the U.S. Class Action entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all disputes and claims between and among the
parties (including a separate mutual release between and among
GlobeOp and SS&C, on the one hand, and the Millennium Managers on
the other). The parties have presented the settlement agreement
for approval by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and a hearing has been scheduled for July 7,
2014 to consider final approval of the settlement. As part of the
settlement, GlobeOp and the Millennium Managers have agreed to
withdraw their claims against each other in the UK Arbitration
upon approval of the settlement agreement by the United States
District Court. Pending that approval, the UK Arbitration has been
stayed in relation to the claims between Millennium and GlobeOp.
The settlement agreement does not affect the claims counterclaims
and/or defenses as between GlobeOp and the Master Fund.

GlobeOp's insurers have agreed to fund the entirety of the
settlement amount contemplated to be contributed by GlobeOp.


SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Judge Dismisses Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that online daters failed to show that SuccessfulMatch.com misled
them into believing their HIV and STD statuses would remain
private, a federal judge ruled in April.

Jane Does 1 and 2, of Canada and Washington state, filed a federal
class action against SuccessfulMatch.com in 2013, claiming the
website preyed on the vulnerability of people who have tested
positive for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, which led them
to join its PositiveSingles.com dating site.  The women claimed
that PositiveSingles.com lured them in with empathetic statements
such as, "you feel like you're alone in the world, do you wish
there was a place where you didn't have to worry about being
rejected or discriminated," and promised that "we care about your
privacy more than other sites," according to the class action.

But unbeknownst to the women, while PositiveSingles.com promised a
free and "fully anonymous" profile, its parent SuccessfulMatch.com
allows its 732,000 users to scan the full profiles -- including
health information and HIV status -- of all its affiliates,
including PositiveSingles.com, according to the lawsuit.

SuccessfulMatch.com sought to dismiss the putative class action,
claiming the Jane Does failed to make the case that the website
had misrepresented the level of privacy they would enjoy under
unfair competition laws or the California Legal Remedies Act.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed and dismissed the case.

"The complaint lacks allegations of what, if any, purported
misrepresentations the two named plaintiffs, Jane Doe 1 and Jane
Doe 2, actually read," Koh wrote in a 15-page ruling filed April
16.

"Plaintiffs have failed to specifically allege that they saw any
of the statements that they claim are misleading, or how the
website statements impacted their decisions to register with
defendant's website.  Plaintiffs' generalized allegations that
defendants 'preyed on the vulnerability of the members of the
public that tested positive for STDs' and that defendants 'lured
members in with empathetic sounding statements' are insufficient
to meet the pleading requirement.  Rather, plaintiffs must, at a
minimum, allege that they actually viewed the representations that
they now contend are misleading.  Furthermore, plaintiffs have not
pleaded any facts to meet the 'but for' test for fraudulent
omissions, as they have failed to allege how knowledge of
defendant's omissions about affiliated sites would have impacted
plaintiffs' decision to register for PositiveSingles.com."

Koh also noted that the Does' complaint never states which woman
paid for subscriptions, if either did, and therefore cannot show
any economic injury.

Paid memberships disclose more information -- such as HIV or STD
status -- on affiliated websites, so the putative class members
would need to have paid memberships to be able to show injury, the
judge found.

The women have 21 days to file an amended complaint.


TEXAS DE BRAZIL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Gaucho Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Texas De Brazil (Tampa) Corporation, Texas De Brazil (Orlando)
Corporation, Texas De Brazil (Ft. Lauderdale) Corporation, Texas
De Brazil (Gulfstream) Corporation, Texas De Brazil (Miami)
Corporation, Texas De Brazil (South Beach) Corporation, Texas de
Brazil (Palm Beach) Corporation, and Texas de Brazil (Dadeland)
Corporation, Florida For Profit Corporations, Texas De Brazil
(Operating) Corporation, and Texas De Brazil Corp., Foreign For
Profit Corporations, Case No. 8:14-cv-01109-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
May 9, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay minimum
wages and overtime to all carvers, also known as "gauchos," who
worked in Florida.

The Defendants collectively own and operate eight "Texas De
Brazil" restaurants throughout the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Scions with 2AZ-FE Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota Scions with 2AZ-FE
engines consume dangerously inordinate amounts of oil, a class
action claims in Federal Court in San Francisco.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Petition v. Accord in Macondo Well Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by the objectors to the
settlement reached by BP plc and the Plaintiff's Steering
Committee in a suit over the Macondo well incident remain pending,
according to Transocean Ltd.'s May 7 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2014.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").

In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee (the
"PSC") announced that they had agreed to a partial settlement
related primarily to private party environmental and economic loss
claims as well as response effort related claims (the "BP/PSC
Settlement").  The BP/PSC Settlement agreement provides that (a)
to the extent permitted by law, BP will assign to the settlement
class certain of BP's claims, rights and recoveries against the
company for damages with protections such that the settlement
class is barred from collecting any amounts from the company
unless it is finally determined that the company cannot recover
such amounts from BP, and (b) the settlement class releases all
claims for compensatory damages against the company but purports
to retain claims for punitive damages against us.

On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the
economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the
PSC.  Various parties who objected to the BP/PSC Settlement have
filed appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging
the MDL Court's final approval of the BP/PSC Settlement.  BP filed
appeals in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the
manner in which the BP/PSC Settlement has been interpreted by the
MDL Court with respect to business economic loss claims ("BEL
Claims").  In these appeals, BP argues that, if the MDL Court's
interpretation of the settlement with respect to BEL Claims is not
overturned, the entire BP/PSC Settlement is invalid and should not
have been approved.  On October 2, 2013, a panel of the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion questioning the manner
in which the settlement had been interpreted with respect to BEL
Claims.  On December 24, 2013, the MDL Court issued an order
regarding the BEL claims in which it ruled that (a) variable
profits should be determined under the settlement agreement by
matching revenue with corresponding expenses; (b) BP was
judicially estopped from arguing that claimants were required to
submit evidence to prove causation and (c) as construed by the
court, the settlement was consistent with Article III of the U.S.
Constitution, Rule 23, and the U.S. Rules Enabling Act.  BP
appealed that order, but on March 3, 2014, the same panel of the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the MDL Court's ruling that claimants were
not required to submit evidence of causation.

On January 10, 2014, another panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the MDL Court's final approval of the BP/PSC
Settlement.  Thereafter, BP and certain plaintiffs who objected to
the settlement filed petitions seeking en banc review by the
entire Fifth Circuit of the legal validity of the BP/PSC
Settlement.  The PSC moved to dismiss BP's petition for rehearing
for lack of jurisdiction, and on February 20, 2014, the Fifth
Circuit granted that motion and dismissed BP's petition for
rehearing.  The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by the
objectors to the settlement remain pending.  The PSC filed its
response to these petitions for rehearing on February 6, 2014.

In December 2012, in response to the BP/PSC Settlement, the
company filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on
various claims, including punitive damages claims.  If successful,
these motions would eliminate or reduce the company's exposure to
punitive damages.  The MDL Court has not ruled on these motions.

In May 2013, the company filed a motion seeking partial summary
judgment on claims asserted by BP against the company seeking
damages from loss of the well and for source-control and cleanup
costs (the "Direct Damages" claims).  The Direct Damages claims
are included in the claims BP assigned to the economic and
property damages settlement class.  The motion argues that BP
released the Direct Damages claims in its contract with the
company and that the release is enforceable even if the company is
found grossly negligent. Some courts have held that such
agreements will not be enforced if the defendant is found grossly
negligent. The MDL Court has not ruled on this motion.

The first phase of the trial began on February 25, 2013 and
testimony concluded on April 17, 2013. This phase addressed fault
issues, including negligence, gross negligence, or other bases of
liability of the various defendants with respect to the cause of
the blowout and the initiation of the oil spill, as well as
limitation of liability issues.

In June and July 2013, the parties filed post-trial briefs and
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The MDL Court
has not yet ruled on the issues tried in the first phase of the
trial.

If the MDL Court finds in this phase of the trial that it is
grossly negligent, the company will be exposed to at least three
litigation risks: (1) the MDL Court could award punitive damages
under general maritime law to plaintiffs who own property damaged
by oil and to plaintiffs who are commercial fishermen; (2) the MDL
Court could find that the company's gross negligence voids the
release BP gave the company in the drilling contract for direct
claims by BP, which BP has assigned to the plaintiffs in the
BP/PSC settlement; and (3) the company could be liable for all
other oil pollution damages claims, including claims resulting
from NRDA, if the court of appeals were to reverse a prior ruling
that BP owes the company indemnity for these claims even in the
event of gross negligence.  This potential liability for all other
oil pollution damage claims could also arise regardless of a
finding as to the company's gross negligence, for which the
company believes it is owed indemnity, if the MDL Court were in
any event to find a core breach of the drilling contract, thereby
nullifying the company's indemnity.  The company's four pending
motions for partial judgment on the pleadings or partial summary
judgment, if successful, could reduce or eliminate the company's
exposure to these claims.  A finding of gross negligence against
the company or against BP or a finding that either the company or
BP violated certain safety regulations would also result in the
removal of the statutory liability caps under OPA.  Under the MDL
Court's present ruling, however, the company's liability for
damages under OPA is limited to damages caused by discharge on or
above the surface of the water.

The second phase of the trial began on September 30, 2013 and
concluded on October 17, 2013.  This phase addressed BP's conduct
related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons after April 22,
2010 and quantification of the amount of oil discharged.  In light
of BP's criminal plea agreement with the DOJ acknowledging that it
provided the government with false or misleading information
throughout the spill response, the company argued at trial that
BP's fraud delayed the final capping of the well and that the
company should not be liable for damages resulting from this
delay.  The parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law on December 20, 2013.  The parties
filed response briefs on January 24, 2014.  The MDL Court has not
yet ruled on the issues tried in the second phase of the trial.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Closure of Securities Suit in New York Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs is appealing the closure of a securities suit filed
against Transocean Ltd. in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, according to the company's May 7 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

On September 30, 2010, a federal securities proposed class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, naming the company and former chief executive officers of
Transocean Ltd. and one of the company's acquired companies as
defendants.  In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired
company alleged that the joint proxy statement related to the
company's shareholder meeting in connection with the company's
merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself and the proposed
class members.  In connection with that action, the company was
obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by the company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible.  On
October 4, 2012, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss
the action.  On June 27, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in the unrelated action on an issue that could be relevant
to the disposition of this case in a manner that supported the
company's position that the plaintiff's existing claims alleged in
the action are time-barred.  On August 30, 2013, the company filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-barred,
citing the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling.  On September
20, 2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion
to dismiss and on September 24, 2013, the company filed a reply to
that opposition.  On March 11, 2014, the court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the claims as time-barred.
Judgment was entered and the case was closed on March 13, 2014.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on March
19, 2014.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces 199 Group Suits Over Macondo Well Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. and subsidiaries are named in 199 putative class-
action complaints that are pending in the federal and state courts
in relation to environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo
well incident, according to the company's May 7 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2014.

As of March 31, 2014, the company and certain of the company's
subsidiaries were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants,
in 960 pending individual complaints as well as 199 putative
class-action complaints that were pending in the federal and state
courts in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and possibly other
courts.  The complaints generally allege, among other things,
potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution
arising out of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily
on the OPA and state OPA analogues.  The plaintiffs are generally
seeking awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as injunctive relief.  No classes have been
certified at this time.  Most of these actions have either been
transferred to or are the subject of motions to transfer to the
MDL.


TRANSTAR TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Pluviose, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Transtar Transportation Group, Inc., a Florida for profit
corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00735-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla., May 9,
2014) is brought by a former employer for unpaid overtime wages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Transtar Transportation Group, Inc., us a Florida for profit
corporation that operates and conducts business in Orange County,
Florida.  The Defendant runs a transportation service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


UNITED STATES: Immigrants Suit Over Phone Access Has Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge certified a class of immigrants being held in
U.S. custody while awaiting deportation proceedings who say they
have been denied phone access.

Audley Barrington Lyon Jr., Edgar Cornelio, Jose Elizandro
Astorga-Cervantes and Lourdes Hernandez-Trujillo filed the suit in
December.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, allegedly holds the aliens in
various facilities in California.  At least one of the plaintiffs
has been held for over a year and a half.

The plaintiffs say they are being deprived telephone access, which
is critical to their ability to "locate, retain and seek advice
from legal counsel," according to the complaint filed in San
Francisco.

"For those who cannot afford an attorney and are not able to
retain pro bono counsel, telephone contact with the outside world
is essential to gather the evidence and government documents
essential to defending removal charges, locate witnesses, and do
other things necessary to represent themselves in complex legal
proceedings," the complaint states.

ICE nevertheless routinely restricts telephone access, prolonging
detentions in alleged violation of the U.S. Constitution and the
Immigration and Nationality Act.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all current and
future immigration detainees who are, or will, be held by ICE in
Contra Costa, Sacramento and Yuba counties."

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen certified them as such on April
16, rejecting the government's arguments that the four plaintiffs
cannot "adequately represent any ICE detainee who alleges that his
or her detention has been prolonged by inadequate telephone
access" because none "can evidence any causation between their
detention and allegedly inadequate telephone access."

"To the extent part of the harm includes the lengthening of
detention because of telephone issues, plaintiffs have presented
evidence of such," Chen wrote.  "According to plaintiffs, 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."

A case-management conference was scheduled for May 22.


VALLS GROUP: Removed "Martin" Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Martin v. Valls Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-008889 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-21724-UU to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
for alleged unpaid wages and retaliation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Zascha Blanco Abbott, Esq.
          Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          100 S.E. 2 Street, Suite 2150
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808-2100
          Facsimile: (305) 808-2101
          E-mail: zabbott@fordharrison.com
                  rvelazquez@fordharrison.com


VERIS GOLD: Has $3.6 Million Settlement in Labor Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Veris Gold Corp. reached a $3.6 million settlement in a class
action suit initiated by former employees, according to the
company's May 7 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2013.


WAL-MART STORES: Removed "German" Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlos German, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1402025, was removed from the
San Bernardino County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Riverside).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00945-JGB-SP to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Tai Wootton, Esq.
          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Manu J. Elloie, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES APC
          555 West 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: awootton@hamnerlaw.com
                  chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  manujelloie@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anthony James Nunes, Esq.
          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
          THE NUNES LAW GROUP
          1 Sansome Street, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894
          Facsimile: (415) 946-8801
          E-mail: tony@nuneslawgroup.com
                  glenn@nuneslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
          Joedat H. Tuffaha, Esq.
          Kinh-Luan Tran, Esq.
          Steven C. Gonzalez, Esq.
          LEE TRAN AND LIANG LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-3737
          Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
          E-mail: chl@ltlcounsel.com
                  joe.tuffaha@ltlw.com
                  luan.tran@ltlattorneys.com
                  steven.gonzalez@ltlattorneys.com


WAL-MART STORES: Removed "Miranda" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Nadine Miranda v. Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., et al., Case No. BC542040, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
03584-FMO-RZ to the proceeding.

The case alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549-9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
          E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com
                  lander@kbarnes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer A. Awrey, Esq.
          John G. Yslas, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT AND JAWORSKI LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
          E-mail: jennifer.awrey@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  john.yslas@nortonrosefulbright.com


WARNER MUSIC: Settles Ex-Interns' Class Action for $450,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Billboard, reports that an internship
lawsuit against a modeling agency settles for $450,000 and an
important appellate battle heats up.

The ex-interns suing Warner Music over unpaid positions have been
given the green light to alert more than 3,000 others who might
wish to join a class action lawsuit.

The action is being spearheaded by attorneys at Virginia &
Ambinder and Leeds Brown.  The lead plaintiff is Kyle Grant, who
interned at WMG subsidiary Warner Bros. Records from August 2012
to April 2013.  A student at the time, Grant says he typically
worked five days a week from 9:30 am until 8:00 p.m. and did the
kind of routine office tasks that might have been handled by paid
employees.  Like others suing entertainment companies, he's
contending that the internship program violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The plaintiffs' lawyers have pushed for certification as well as a
notice to send out to other interns.

Warner Music responded by doubting the commonality of the
plaintiffs, saying that the plaintiffs' right to compensation
would turn on whether each of the plaintiffs was properly
classified as employees under the FLSA or fall within "trainee"
exceptions.  It's a defense that worked for Hearst in response to
claims from interns working at Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and
Marie Claire, but not so well for Fox Entertainment Group in a
separate class action.  Both of those cases are now on appeal at
the 2nd Circuit, and will likely impact the massive amount of
internship litigation, including the one filed by Grant on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated.

In the meantime, the interns suing Warner Music want to advance to
the next stage, and so U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe got the
opportunity to weigh in on a motion for a class notice.

In his opinion on May 13, the judge rules narrowly, carefully
noting that he's not addressing the merits of the claims and for
the purposes of deciding whether a notice should be sent out,
there's a low standard.

Nevertheless, the interns hear welcoming news from the judge that
could provide a reason for optimism as the case proceeds.

"Plaintiffs have made out a facie case of a common FLSA
violation," writes the judge.  "Plaintiffs allege that they
performed the same work-as non-exempt employees in their
respective departments, and that they received no compensation or
academic credit for their work.  Plaintiffs have also submitted
documentary evidence that supports their claims, including
internship position postings that uniformly state, 'Every Intern
is assigned a special project that will both assist them in
increasing their understanding of how each department operates,
and aid the department in addressing a business need.' The
evidence offered by Plaintiffs is sufficient to meet the 'low'
standard of proof for court-authorized notice."

As this lawsuit proceeds, the legality of internships is getting
feisty at the appeals court.  Recently in the Fox appeal, amicus
briefs were lodged by the American Association of State Colleges
and Universities as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Not everyone is waiting around to hear the outcome.  On May 13, a
class action filed by former unpaid interns at Elite Model
Management announced a settlement -- the largest to date over the
issue of internships.  According to the terms, participating
interns have been guaranteed a minimum payment of $700 up to $1750
for their time worked at Elite, one of the nation's most
prestigious modeling agencies.  In total, Elite is paying $450,000
to approximately 150 interns.


XEROX CORP: Launches New Class Action over Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqui Heinrich, writing for KTNV, reports that the attorney who
is already suing the state, the Silver State Health Insurance
Exchange, and Xerox in a class action suit is taking on a new
case.

Attorney Matthew Callister has launched a lawsuit for people with
life-threatening illness who need coverage immediately, and can't
wait for a class action suit to go through the court system.

There are three plaintiffs in the new suit, each is suffering from
a deadly condition.  Mr. Callister said he's spoken with about 10
people in similar situations, but believes there are more out
there.  "The bottom line is we need some urgent, urgent action by
the Nevada judiciary in the absence of action by the Board of
Examiners," Mr. Callister said.

Mr. Callister is asking for immediate coverage for people like
Aubry Domeikis, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.  She needs
daily blood infusions while doctors try to figure out if the bone
infection that's wracking her body is cancer.

Action News first reported on Ms. Domeikis two weeks ago, and
since then her broker said she got a call from the insurance
company promising coverage, but because of more glitches in the
system, had not been covered up to May 14.

Xerox explained the situation to Action News, saying there was a
problem processing Ms. Domekis' payment to get her into a new
insurance plan after she was incorrectly enrolled in, then dropped
from, her Medicaid plan.

Xerox representative Jennifer Wasmer told Action News, "Xerox
recently experienced a temporary delay in transferring files and
payments to the carriers.  We deployed a specialized team of IT
and financial experts to identify and address the issue, and we
worked with a tremendous sense of urgency so as many Nevadans as
possible can get access to health care through Nevada Health
Link."

After help from Governor Sandoval's office, Ms. Domekis finally
received coverage late on May 14 after weeks of paying for life-
saving infusions out of pocket, totaling thousands of dollars.

Tyler Klimas, press secretary at the Governor's office, wrote to
Action News, "The delay in her coverage and the hardship it
created was completely unacceptable.  The governor will continue
to hold Xerox accountable and make sure they fulfill their
obligation to the people of Nevada."

As of now, the two other plaintiffs in Mr. Callister's suit have
not received similar help, and continue to battle life-threatening
health problems all the while struggling to get insurance.

Mr. Callister said he's asking for the state to expedite the
process so lives like Aubry Domekis' can be saved.


                             *********

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  * * *