---

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

            Monday, December 15, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 248


                             Headlines

AEROTEK INC: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Actions
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for January 20
AMAZON.COM INC: Accused in Cal. of Misrepresenting Discounts
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Elvin" Suit Claims

APPLE INC: Sued for Using Crippleware to Stop Unlicensed Versions
APPLE INC: New Plaintiff to Serve as Class Rep in iPod Suit
ARIAD PHARMA: District Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Dismissal Bid
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis B Drug
AVIATION SAFEGUARDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide Loan Modification, Suit Says
BANKSIA SECURITIES: O'Bryan, Elliot Can't Represent Plaintiffs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Falsely Marketed Dietary Products, Suit Claims
BELL: Class Actions Over Misleading Rounding Up Practice Certified
BIOLASE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Action

CARSON SMITHFIELD: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
CBIZ INC: Appeal Pending in Facciola Case
CHANG GUANN: Faces Class Action Over Adulterated Cooking Oil
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Hearing Set on Bid to Strike Causes of Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitrating Collective Actions

CHINA GERUI: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued Over Sunroof Defects of Chrysler Vehicles
CLIFFS NATURAL: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Treasury Dept Suit
COBALT MORTGAGE: Faces "Wheeler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COMCAST CORPORATION: Illegally Connects Wifi Routers, Suit Claims

CYNOSURE INC: 2nd Circuit to Decide on Case Based on Briefs
CYNOSURE INC: Massachusetts Federal Action Dismissed
DAUTERIVE CONTRACTORS: "Busby" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DYNAMIC INTERACTIVE: Sued in California Over Violation of TCPA
E. W. SCRIPPS: Wisconsin Court Expected to Rule on Dismissal Bid

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Discovery Continue Through 2015
FIZA INVESTMENTS: "Joseph" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Shareholder Can't Stop Merger With TowneBank
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Prez Faces Charges in Chemical Spill Suit
FSAS LLC: Faces "Diaz-Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GOLD CLUB: Faces "Houle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HAIN CELESTIAL: Consolidated Class Action in Discovery Phase
HAIN CELESTIAL: Records Pre-Tax Costs Totaling $22,844 on Recall
HARRIS & HARRIS: Has Invaded Plaintiff's Privacy, Action Claims
HEALTHFIRST INC: Faces "Thind" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Protective Order Entered in "Frater" Case
HIGHVELD SYNDICATIONS: 6,000+ Investors Support Class Action
HOMEGOODS INC: Sued Over Failure to Design POS Devices for Blinds
HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement

IHS ASSOCIATION: Faces Suit Over Sports-Related Head Injuries
J & M INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JONES FINANCIAL: No Briefing Schedule Entered in Appeal
JONES FINANCIAL: Final Compliance Hearing Set for January 8
KENNETH COLE: Ex-Intern Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

KMAX IT: Faces "Blotzer" Suit for Making Unsolicited Calls
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Trial in NY Class Action Begins
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Willing to Resolve Consumer Class Action
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Haverhill Settlement Papers Being Drafted
LEVEL 3: Approval of Deal in Rights-of-Way Litigation Pending

LEVEL 3: Defending Against Severance, Contractor Termination Case
LIVINGSTON ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MAKER'S MARK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
MF GLOBAL: Feb. 13 Futures Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MF GLOBAL: Feb. 13 Physical Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

MICHAEL KORS: Sued Over Failure to Design POS Devices for Blinds
NATIONWIDE COLLECTIONS: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD: Faces "Showers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NCS INC: Sued Over Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
NEW YORK: Faces "Lusero" Suit Over Gravesite Visit Policies

NEW ZEALAND: Seeka Kiwifruit Is Second Plaintiff in Class Suit
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Recorded $13.8 Million of Costs for Recalls
OCEAN FIVE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OGLETHORPE POWER: Faces Patronage Capital Litigation in Georgia
OGLETHORPE POWER: Faces 2nd Patronage Capital Litigation in Ga.

OPKO HEALTH: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Class Action Dismissal
ORANGECREST SELF: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Smith" Suit Says
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss SEPTA Class Action Pending
PACKAGING CORP: Kleen Products Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
PORSCHE SE: Faces Class Action Over Volkswagen Acquisition

PROTEIN SCIENCES: "McEvoy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL: Doesn't Provide Handicap Parking, Suit Says
SANOFI: Faces "Mofsenson" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SENTINEL OFFENDER: Cannot Extend Sentences to Collect More Fees

SHEA HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Rotting Redmond Homes
SHREE SHAYMAJI: Faces "Peets" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Investigates Claims in 4 Hawaii Cases
SOUTHERN CROSS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valladares" Suit Claims
STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery

STERICYCLE INC: Discovery in Junk Fax Lawsuit Proceeding
SUNTRUST BANKS: Parties Await Ruling in Class Cert. Denial Appeal
SUNTRUST BANKS: Still Faces Company Stock Class Action
SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Consolidate Appeals Remains Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Brown, et al. Case Transferred to Georgia

SUNTRUST BANKS: Accord in Lender-Placed Insurance Actions Okayed
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Case Stayed Pending 3rd Cir. Decision
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Illegal Corn Sale
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Teisl" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Ritter" Suit Over Defective Airbags

UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit Over Logan Massport Surcharge & Toll
UBER TECH: Judge Orders CEO to Hand Over Emails in Class Action
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Faces "Alexander" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
UNITED STATES: Air Force, DOD Don't Pay Proper OT Wage, Suit Says
US CENTURY: 3rd Circuit Stays Shareholder Class Action

VCA INC: To Defend Against Remaining Claims in "Duran" Case
VCA INC: Expects 2 Class Actions Consolidated With "Duran" Action
VCA INC: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Lopez" Case
VCA INC: "Graham" Lawsuit in Early Procedural Stage
VIRGINIA MARBLE: "Banegos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

VIVINT SOLAR: January 20 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
WARNER/CHAPPELL: Class Action Over Happy Birthday Rights Ongoing
WIS HOLDINGS: Faces "Hose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime


                            *********


AEROTEK INC: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spencer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Aerotek, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01997 (S.D. Ind.,
December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Aerotek, Inc. is a staffing agency doing business in the Southern
District of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, PC
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com

         - and -

      Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq.
      GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
      3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280
      Indianapolis, IN 46280
      Telephone: (317) 706-1100
      Facsimile: (317) 623-8503
      E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com


ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle Corporation filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, pursuant
to a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of
certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of July 15, 2014, by and among
Albemarle Corporation, a Virginia corporation ("Albemarle"),
Rockwood Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Rockwood"), and
Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the
merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into Rockwood.

As disclosed on page 94 of the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by
Albemarle on October 1, 2014 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"),
five putative class action complaints were filed in New Jersey and
Delaware naming Rockwood, its directors and Albemarle as
defendants. In addition, four of the five complaints also named
Merger Sub as a defendant.  The lawsuits filed in New Jersey,
Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), and
Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and
the lawsuits filed in Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al.,
and North Miami Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement
Plan v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., (collectively the
"Actions"), include substantially similar allegations that
Rockwood's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood's
shareholders will receive the maximum value for their shares,
failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their
own interests ahead of Rockwood's shareholders. Rockwood and
Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites
I filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to
all defendants.  On August 27, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery ordered the three Delaware cases consolidated and
appointed co-lead counsel. The Court also ordered that no response
to the complaints shall be due until after plaintiffs in the cases
filed in Delaware file an amended consolidated complaint.
Plaintiffs in the cases filed in Delaware have yet to file an
amended consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2014, the
plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended complaint including
additional allegations that the registration statement failed to
disclose material information.  On October 6, 2014, the parties in
Thwaites II filed a stipulation whereby the plaintiff agreed to
extend the time for defendants to answer or otherwise move to
dismiss the amended complaint to December 8, 2014, and the
defendants agreed to provide certain limited discovery without
prejudice to any and all defenses prior to answering or otherwise
moving to dismiss the amended complaint.

On November 6, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of all claims in the Actions.  Under the MOU, and
subject to court approval and definitive documentation, the
plaintiffs and the putative class settle and release, against the
named defendants and their affiliates and agents, all claims in
the Actions and any potential claim related to (i) the Merger or
the Merger Agreement, (ii) any deliberations or negotiations in
connection with the Merger or the Merger Agreement, including the
process of deliberation or negotiation by the defendants, and any
of their respective officers, directors, principals, partners or
advisors, (iii) the consideration to be received by class members
in connection with the Merger, (iv) the Definitive Proxy
Statement, or any other disclosures made available or filed
relating to the Merger, (v) the statutory or fiduciary obligations
of the defendants and certain related persons in connection with
the Merger, (vi) the fees, expenses or costs incurred with
prosecuting, defending or settling the Actions, or (vii) any of
the allegations in any complaint or amendment(s) thereto filed in
the Actions.

While Albemarle and Rockwood believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid
the risk of the putative stockholder class actions delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such actions, Albemarle and Rockwood have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger, all of which are set
forth below.  The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter
into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement
will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Rockwood's stockholders.  In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County, will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy
of the settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the
court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Rockwood or its
successor.  The settlement, including the payment by Rockwood or
any successor thereto of any such attorneys' fees, is also
contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming effective
under Delaware law. There can be no assurance that the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, will approve the settlement
contemplated by the MOU.  In the event that the settlement is not
approved and such conditions are not satisfied, the defendants
will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the
Actions.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for January 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a settlement
hearing in a class action lawsuit has been scheduled for January
20, 2015.

The Company said, "A purported class action complaint was
originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments
et. al. v. AMAG Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-
10470-NMG, and was amended on September 15, 2010 and on December
17, 2010. The second amended complaint ("SAC"), filed on December
17, 2010 alleged that we and our former President and Chief
Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-
members of our Board, and certain underwriters in our January 2010
offering of common stock violated certain federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and that our former President and Chief
Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged
omissions in a registration statement filed in January 2010. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of our common stock pursuant to our common
stock offering on or about January 21, 2010."

"On August 11 and 15, 2011, respectively, the District Court
issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On
September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the "Court of
Appeals"). The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11,
2012. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part
and reversed in part the District Court's Opinion and Order and
remanded the case to the District Court.

"On February 19, 2013, we filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc, which was denied on March 15, 2013. On March
22, 2013, we filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the case
to the District Court pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court of
the Court of Appeals' February 4, 2013 decision. The Court of
Appeals granted the Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013.
On June 13, 2013, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
(the "Petition") with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Court of Appeal's decision and to have that decision overturned.
On October 7, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court denied our Petition,
resulting in the case's return to the District Court for further
proceedings relative to the SAC's surviving claims. On November 6,
2013, we filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss the SAC's surviving
claims. On December 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition to our Motion to Dismiss and we filed a reply brief in
support of our Motion on December 27, 2013.

"On April 7, 2014, the District Court denied our renewed Motion to
Dismiss. On May 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report
with the District Court in advance of a status conference held on
May 14, 2014. All defendants filed answers and affirmative
defenses to the pending complaint on May 19, 2014. On June 6,
2014, the parties requested the District Court to stay the
proceedings, which the Court allowed on June 9, 2014.

"On September 12, 2014, we and the other defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement that will resolve the class action
securities lawsuit. Pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, and
in exchange for a release of all claims by the class members,
among others, and dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, we have
agreed to cause our insurer to pay eligible class members and
their attorneys a total of $3.75 million.

"On October 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court preliminarily
approved the settlement, and potential class members have been
notified of the proposed settlement and the procedures by which
they can seek to recover from the settlement fund, object to the
settlement or request to be excluded from the settlement class. A
settlement hearing has been scheduled for January 20, 2015, at
which time the stipulation of settlement will be subject to final
approval by the U.S. District Court.

"We have recorded the $3.75 million settlement amount in prepaid
and other current assets and a corresponding amount in accrued
expenses on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2014, as the settlement amount will be fully covered
by our insurance carrier. There was no impact to our condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 2014."


AMAZON.COM INC: Accused in Cal. of Misrepresenting Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Reni Anguelova reports that a
class action accuses Amazon of defrauding consumers by
misrepresenting the "list price" of stuff it sells online.

Amazon is the largest online retailer in the United States, with
$44.5 billion in annual revenue, according to the complaint, lead
plaintiff Andrea Fagerstrom says in her Nov. 25 California
Superior Court complaint.

Amazon customarily displays it products with a list price,
followed by Amazon's discounted price, and then the purported
savings in both a dollar amount and percentage, Fagerstrom says.

But Amazon's "list price" is the highest manufacturer's suggested
retail price (MSRP) or the highest price at which the product has
ever been listed, according to the lawsuit.

This belies Amazon's claim, because the "list" price is not the
prevailing market price used by competitors and traditional brick-
and-mortar retailers, Fagerstrom's attorney Trenton Kashima told
Courthouse News.

California's False Advertising Law, quoted in the lawsuit,
requires retailers to determine list price based on data for the
prevailing market price over the past three months, or state the
date on which the list price was established.

Amazon fails to do either, but "cherry-picks" the highest price it
can find for a given product, Kashima said.

This marketing strategy "creates a false sense of urgency," making
costumers think they "should act quickly or lose a significant
savings," Kashima said.

Fagerstrom claims that she paid Amazon $299 for a blender that
Amazon claimed had a list price of $329. But the alleged 9 percent
savings was "illusory" because the genuine market price for the
blender was $299, including at Target.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an injunction,
and damages for business fraud, unfair trade practices,
misrepresentation, and deceptive advertising.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3579
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Elvin" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Elvin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Coradius International LLC and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07503 (D.N.J., December 3, 2014), seeks to
redress the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

American Coradius International LLC is a collection agency with
its principal office located at 2420 Sweet Home Road, Ste 150,
Amherst, NY 14228-2244.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Sued for Using Crippleware to Stop Unlicensed Versions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
class action accuses Apple of stifling competition by demanding
hefty royalties for its USB connectors and including "crippleware"
that prevents unlicensed versions from working on its devices.

Lead plaintiff Catherine Silas sued Apple for its Lightning USB
connectors on Nov. 26 in Superior Court, alleging violations of
consumer laws, unfair competition and breach of express warranty.

She claims that the Lightning USB connectors are "often poorly
manufactured and become frayed, break, or otherwise cease to
work," but affordable replacements are hard to come by.

Apple makes each cable for $3.50, and sells 1-meter Lightning
connectors for $19.99, according to the lawsuit.

Despite that high profit margin (571%), Apple charges a royalty of
$4 for third-party Lightning connectors made by the likes of
Belkin and Mophie, Silas says.

Apple includes encryption software in its products and
authentication components inside the connectors themselves to
prevent unlicensed connectors who don't pay royalties from working
on the iPhone, iPad, iPod and other Apple devices.

When users use unlicensed connectors, devices display the
following message: "'(!) This cable or accessory is not certified
and may not work reliably with this iPhone.'"

"As a result, consumers are unable to use the Lightning accessory
and forced to purchase an Apple-branded or Apple-licensed
Lightning accessory at a supracompetitive price," the lawsuit
states.

Apple never informed consumers that the connectors would not work
because of previously installed "crippleware," the complaint
states.

Silas seeks class certification, damages and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON LLP
          555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7380
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com


APPLE INC: New Plaintiff to Serve as Class Rep in iPod Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Bailey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
billion-dollar class-action lawsuit against Apple will likely
continue, after a 65-year-old Massachusetts business consultant
read about the plaintiffs' floundering case online and volunteered
to represent consumers in the suit.

A federal judge said she's tentatively satisfied with a proposal
to add Barbara Bennett as the new named plaintiff in the lawsuit
over Apple's iTunes software and the price of its iPods.  Ms.
Bennett, who sometimes used her iPod to listen to music while ice
skating, boarded a plane early Dec. 9 and flew to California at
the request of lawyers who are suing Apple Inc. on behalf of an
estimated 8 million consumers who purchased iPods between 2006 and
2009.

Ms. Bennett, who said she bought a special-edition iPod Nano in
2006 because she liked its striking red case, contacted the
lawyers and offered to help after reading an online news account
that said the case was close to collapsing for lack of a named
plaintiff.  The case actually started with three plaintiffs suing
Apple nearly 10 years ago, but two of them withdrew and the judge
disqualified the last one, Marianna Rosen, on Dec. 8 amid
indications that Rosen didn't herself purchase any of the affected
iPods during the time frame covered by the suit.

Attorneys suing Apple have alleged that its use of restrictive
software, which kept iPods from playing music purchased from
competitors of Apple's iTunes store, effectively blocked rivals
from the market and allowed the Cupertino, California, company to
sell iPods at inflated prices.  Apple says the software was
necessary to prevent unauthorized copying.  The plaintiffs are
seeking $350 million in damages, which could be tripled if the
jury finds violations of federal antitrust law.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has repeatedly shown
impatience with the plaintiffs' attorneys for not doing a better
job of vetting the original named plaintiffs in the case, who are
supposed to represent the class of affected consumers.

"We shouldn't have been here in the first place," Judge Rogers
said as attorneys on both sides debated how to proceed on Dec. 9.
A moment later, the judge sharply disagreed when plaintiffs'
lawyer Patrick Coughlin suggested his side had suffered when Apple
provided an incorrect list -- which was later amended -- of
affected iPod models three years ago.

"You never checked" whether the last plaintiff had purchased the
right models, the judge told Mr. Coughlin.  "So don't talk to me"
about that, she added.

Ms. Bennett's answers to questions in court suggested she wasn't
fully up to speed on the complex allegations in the case, but
Judge Rogers said she was tentatively satisfied that Ms. Bennett
qualifies for the job of class representative.  The judge said she
won't rule until Apple attorneys have a chance to question Bennett
more closely in a deposition outside court.

The judge also said she'll wait to rule on a request by news
organizations to release a copy of a video showing late Apple CEO
Steve Jobs testifying outside court, a few months before he died
of cancer in 2011.  An attorney for The Associated Press,
Bloomberg News and CNN argued on Dec. 5 that the public has a
right to see the video, which was played in open court last week,
and that there is a benefit in letting the public see the same
depiction of the influential CEO that jurors were shown.

But an Apple attorney argued against releasing the video, saying
it would be comparable to releasing a video of testimony given
inside the courtroom, which is not allowed under federal court
rules.  Apple lawyer Jonathan Sherman also said releasing the
video would encourage news organizations or the public to request
other deposition videos in the future and discourage witnesses
from cooperating.


ARIAD PHARMA: District Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
District Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit but has not yet ruled on them.

On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and
December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled
Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch
v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits
allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for
Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December
12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order
of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class
period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30,
2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's
officers, directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the
Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common
stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10,
2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss but has not yet ruled on them.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Faces Class Action Over Hepatitis B Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a verified shareholder derivative
complaint recently filed against Arrowhead Research Corporation in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California claims
the biopharmaceutical company made false of statements about its
operations and financial prospects.

Based in Pasadena, Calif., Arrowhead develops RNA Interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. RNAi is Nobel Prize-winning discovery that
allows mechanisms in living cells to inhibit specific genes.
Arrowhead develops drugs that target the RNAi mechanism to
suppress disease-causing genes.

At the center of the Nov. 20 class action lawsuit -- filed on
behalf of plaintiff Harvey Weisman -- is the company's ARC-520, an
RNAi therapeutic that targets the hepatitis B virus.  Arrowhead
announced the completion of its first phase of study, which tested
the drug on non-human primates, mice and rats, on Oct. 8, 2013.
It began a second phase of human testing on March 24.

The lawsuit claims that during an earnings teleconference on
Aug. 12, Arrowhead CEO Christopher Anzalone and COO Bruce Given
allegedly failed to disclose the true effectiveness of ARC-520 on
humans.

When the company officially announced the final results of the
second phase on Oct. 8, the reduction level in humans was
allegedly far short of the suggestions made during the
teleconference.  That caused the company's stock to fall
approximately 44 percent, or $5.48 per share, from its previous
closing price.

Because of that decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the lawsuit claims Mr. Weisman and other class members
suffered significant losses and damages.

Attorneys Robert S. Green, James Robert Noblin and Lesley E.
Weaver of Green & Noblin are representing the plaintiff.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:14-cv-08982.


AVIATION SAFEGUARDS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Hampton, Michael Carey, Tasnin Ahmed, Mohammad Alam, Santo
Bonanno, Pedro Gamboabermudez, Curtis Latta, Gian Lopez, Michael
Maragh, and Jordany Bueno Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees similarly situated v. Aviation Safeguards, a
Division of Command Security Corporation; DOES 1-20, 1:14-cv-07041
(E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aviation Safeguards is a Division of Command Security Corporation
that provides security, baggage handling, and wheelchair escort
services at more than 25 airports in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allyson L. Belovin, Esq.
      LEVY RATNER, PC
      80 Eighth Avenue, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (212) 627-8100
      Facsimile: (212) 627-8182
      E-mail: abelovin@levyratner.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Provide Loan Modification, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Fennimore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC, and Does 1through10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06883 (E.D.
Pa., December 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide permanent mortgage loan modifications to
borrowers who entered into and complied with the term of the Trial
Period Plan Agreement.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is engaged in the business of debt
collection within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Bank of America, N.A. is a multinational banking and financial
services corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Read, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 36f-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@Kalraylaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WEJLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 812-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwg}law.com
              rgray@cwg-lrw.com


BANKSIA SECURITIES: O'Bryan, Elliot Can't Represent Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Australian, reports that a judge has
banned top barrister Norman O'Bryan SC and solicitor Mark Elliott
from continuing to represent victims of collapsed Victorian
finance company Banksia Securities in a AU$150 million class
action because of conflicts of interest.

Mr. Elliott, who is solicitor in six class actions before the
Victorian Supreme Court, directs and is a key investor in the
company funding the Banksia case, BSL Litigation Partners, where
Mr. O'Bryan's wife is also a significant shareholder.

Supreme Court judge Anne Ferguson on Nov. 26 found that a fair-
minded observer would "conclude that the proper administration of
justice requires that Mr. O'Bryan and Mr. Elliot should be
prevented from acting" in the case.

However, Mr. O'Bryan and Mr. Elliott both said the case would
continue, with Mr. Elliott vowing to take it all the way to trial
as he slammed the "reprehensible" conduct of defendants.

"The case has never been stronger.  The case has never been more
prospective," he said.

Banksia's directors, trustee The Trust Company and accountants RSD
are alleged to have breached their duties to either Banksia or
about 16,000 investors.

Mr. Elliott said that while hiring a new solicitor would put extra
pressure on BSL he would have one in place by the end of the week
because "there are solicitors on every corner at the moment".

Mr. O'Bryan, who is regarded as one of Melbourne's best commercial
silks, said he hoped to convince his wife to divest her stake in
BSL so he could continue as barrister on the case.

"She is in the jungle in Borneo on a study tour at the moment so I
can't reach her," he said.

"I will seek to resolve the issue as soon as possible but at the
moment I am between a rock and a hard place."

Investors poured AU$2 million into BSL, which is entitled to 30
per cent of any winnings.  Mr. O'Bryan's wife and Mr. Elliott each
own 45 per cent of the company.

Justice Ferguson's ruling touched on the controversial area of
"contingency fees" charged by solicitors for winning a case.  They
are banned in Australia but the Productivity Commission this year
recommended they should be allowed.

She said that it would be "inimical to the appearance of justice
for lawyers to skirt around the prohibition on contingency fees"
by owning a large chunk of the litigation funder.

It is the second time this year Justice Ferguson has ruled against
Mr. Elliott's class action practice.  In July, she found he could
not be both solicitor and, through his company Melbourne City
Investments, lead plaintiff in a class action against Treasury
Wine Estates.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Falsely Marketed Dietary Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liza Gershman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-05332 (N.D. Cal., December 4, 2014),
arises out of the Defendant's false, misleading and deceptive
representation of its Flintstones Healthy Brain Support, a gummy-
chewable Omega-3 DHA dietary supplement made with Life's DHA.

Bayer Healthcare, LLC is one of the world's leading, innovative
companies in the healthcare and medical products industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
              psyverson@bffb.com
              lgomez-gray@bffb.com

         - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-7748
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

         - and -

      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
      53 W. Jackson Suite 364
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 588-5033
      E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


BELL: Class Actions Over Misleading Rounding Up Practice Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on Nov. 27 disclosed that in a decision released
by The Honourable Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, two class proceedings were certified against
Bell and TELUS concerning the practice of "rounding up" calls to
the farthest minute.

The rounding up practice affected millions of Canadians and meant
that, for example, a call lasting one minute and one second would
be billed as a two-minute call.  Customers who purchased a fixed
number of minutes for a set fee (e.g. 100 local minutes for $25)
would deplete their talk time minutes much faster than
represented, after which they would incur additional per-minute
charges at a higher rate.  While Bell and TELUS had previously
billed customers on a per-second basis, in mid-2002 they changed
their practices so that customers were billed on a per-minute
basis, with calls being rounded up to the farthest minute.  This
change was not disclosed by Bell or TELUS until the end of the
Class Periods.

"This is an important decision for everyday consumers.  They have
a right not to be misled when entering a standard form contract.
There is hope with this decision that mobile phone transactions
will become more transparent.  Justice Conway's reasons reaffirmed
one the foremost policy goals of the Class Proceedings Act, by
providing access to justice to millions of cell phone users who
were unwittingly charged excessive and unjustified fees in breach
of the express terms of their contracts", said Joel Rochon --
jrochon@rochongenova.com -- partner at Rochon Genova LLP.  "That
punitive and aggregate damages have been certified sends a strong
message to the major actors in the cell phone industry that this
sort of conduct will not be tolerated."

The representative plaintiff Avraham Wellman, a TELUS subscriber
since 2006, said, "One of our main objectives was to ensure that
cell phone companies are much more honest and open about their
billing practices."

In certifying the actions, Justice Conway found that there was
commonality to the issues, because all class members' plans
provided for a set number of minutes for a fixed price, with
charges for additional minutes.  In addition, each customer signed
a written agreement and was subject to standard terms and
conditions that applied uniformly to all customers, and the
written documents referred to the number of minutes purchased but
did not disclose the "rounding up" practice which applied to all
class members.

Justice Conway also found that the plaintiffs had pleaded a breach
of an express term of the Bell and TELUS contracts, which promised
a specific number of "minutes" that were not provided.  She held
that the contracts could be interpreted on a common basis because
there was a common standard contract and the external context of
that agreement was typical across members of the class.

On the issue of preferable procedure for addressing the claims of
class members, Justice Conway stated that:

Viewed through the lens of judicial economy, behavior modification
and access to justice, there is no doubt that a class is the
preferable procedure for this action.  These are large classes of
customers, each of whom has a relatively small potential claim.  A
class action would achieve judicial economy. Without a class
action, the class members will not obtain access to justice.  The
action seeks to challenge a systemic practice and achieve behavior
modification.

The class actions were certified on behalf of Canadian residents
who subscribed to Bell services and were billed by the minute
between August 18, 2006 and October 1, 2009; and Ontario residents
who subscribed to TELUS services and were billed by the minute
between August 18, 2006 and July 1, 2010. Certification does not
assess the merits of the cases, and the allegations raised in the
proceedings have not yet been proven in court.

The class members are represented by Joel Rochon and Suzanne
Chiodo from Rochon Genova LLP, and Eli Karp from Merchant Law
Group LLP.


BIOLASE INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biolase, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties have
since reached an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit, which is subject to the
negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and preliminary
and final approval of the court.

On August 23, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Brady Adams v. Biolase, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-1300 JST
(FFMx) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against BIOLASE and its then Chief
Executive Officer, Federico Pignatelli, and its Chief Financial
Officer, Frederick D. Furry. On August 26, 2013, a purported class
action lawsuit entitled Ralph Divizio v. Biolase, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 13-CV-1317 DMG (MRWx) was filed in the same court against
BIOLASE, Messrs. Pignatelli and Furry, and its then President and
Chief Operating Officer, Alexander K. Arrow. Each of the lawsuits
alleges violations of the federal securities laws and asserts
causes of action against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, on December 10, 2013, the court entered an order
consolidating the lawsuits, appointing a lead plaintiff and
approving the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On
February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company and Messrs. Pignatelli, Furry, and
Arrow, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and
asserting causes of action against the defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 19, 2013, the Company's Board received a letter from
attorneys for purported shareholder David T. Long, demanding that
the Board investigate, institute litigation, and take measures to
redress and prevent alleged wrongdoing concerning the
dissemination of certain allegedly false and misleading public
disclosures made by the Company between January 2013 and August
2013.

The Company believes that the claims contained in the lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company paid $250,000
for legal costs incurred in connection with these matters. No
legal costs were incurred by the Company in connection with these
matters during the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

The parties have since reached an agreement in principle to settle
the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, which is subject
to the negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and
preliminary and final approval of the court. Although there can be
no assurance that such agreement will be finalized, as of the date
of these financial statements, management does not expect the
Company to incur additional expenses related to this matter due to
certain insurance coverage in place.

Biolase is a biomedical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets lasers in dentistry and medicine and
also markets and distributes two-dimensional ("2-D") and three-
dimensional ("3-D") dental imaging equipment, including cone beam
digital x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-oral scanners, and in-office,
chair-side milling machines and 3-D printers.


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Torres, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated
v. Carson Smithfield LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-
cv-01913 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's false, deceptive and unfair debt-collection practices.

Carson Smithfield LLC provides debt collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBIZ INC: Appeal Pending in Facciola Case
-----------------------------------------
CBIZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the appeal is currently
pending in the Facciola case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

In 2010, CBIZ, Inc. and its subsidiary, CBIZ MHM, LLC (fka CBIZ
Accounting, Tax & Advisory Services, LLC) (the "CBIZ Parties"),
were named as defendants in lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona and the Superior Court for
Maricopa County, Arizona. The federal court case is captioned
Robert Facciola, et al v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al, and the
state court cases are captioned Victims Recovery, LLC v. Greenberg
Traurig LLP, et al, Roger Ashkenazi, et al v. Greenberg Traurig
LLP, et al, Mary Marsh, et al v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al; and
ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman McCann PC, et al. Prior to
these suits CBIZ MHM, LLC was named as a defendant in Jeffery C.
Stone v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al. The Stone case was
subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

These lawsuits arose out of the bankruptcy of Mortgages Ltd., a
mortgage lender to developers in the Phoenix, Arizona area.
Various other professional firms not related to the Company were
also named defendants in these lawsuits.

Mortgages Ltd. had been audited by Mayer Hoffman McCann PC ("Mayer
Hoffman"), a CPA firm that has an administrative services
agreement with CBIZ. The lawsuits assert claims against Mayer
Hoffman for, among others things, violations of the Arizona
Securities Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation,
and seek to hold the CBIZ Parties vicariously liable for Mayer
Hoffman's conduct as either a statutory control person under the
Arizona Securities Act or a joint venturer under Arizona common
law. CBIZ is not a CPA firm, does not provide audits, and did not
audit any of the entities at issue in these lawsuits, nor is CBIZ
a control person of, or a joint venture with, Mayer Hoffman.

In June 2011, the Facciola court, in which the plaintiffs were
seeking to certify a class of all Mortgages Ltd. investors,
granted the motions to dismiss filed by the CBIZ Parties and Mayer
Hoffman. After that dismissal order, the plaintiffs moved the
court to amend their complaint in an attempt to state a claim
against the CBIZ Parties and Mayer Hoffman. In November 2011, the
Facciola court denied the plaintiffs' request to amend the
complaint as to the CBIZ Parties and Mayer Hoffman. In June 2012,
the remaining defendants in the Facciola case reached a class
action settlement, which the court approved in October 2012.
Eighteen class members, however, opted out of the settlement
before it was finalized and, in September 2012, filed a new case
against all of the defendants in the Facciola case, including the
CBIZ Parties (Rader et al v. Greenberg Traurig, LLC, et al). In
December 2012, the Facciola plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the dismissal of their
case against the CBIZ Parties and Mayer Hoffman. That appeal is
currently pending.

The plaintiffs, except for the ML Liquidating Trust, alleged that
they directly or indirectly invested in real estate mortgages
through Mortgages Ltd. The Victims Recovery, Ashkenazi and Marsh
plaintiffs sought monetary damages equivalent to their alleged
losses on those investments. The ML Liquidating Trust asserted
errors and omissions and breach of contract claims and is seeking
monetary damages. The Ashkenazi complaint alleged damages of
approximately $92.0 million; the Victims Recovery complaint
alleged damages of approximately $53.0 million; the Marsh,
Facciola, Rader, and ML Liquidating Trust complaints alleged
damages in excess of approximately $200.0 million. The plaintiffs
in these suits also sought pre- and post-judgment interest,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

The CBIZ Parties filed motions to dismiss in all remaining cases.
On March 11, 2013, the court issued a ruling dismissing the
securities fraud and aiding and abetting securities fraud claims
against the CBIZ Parties and Mayer Hoffman in the Marsh, Victims
Recovery and Ashkenazi lawsuits, and also dismissed certain other
claims in the Ashkenazi and Victims Recovery cases.

On April 12, 2013, the court denied the CBIZ Parties' motion to
dismiss the remaining claims in the Ashkenazi lawsuit. On May 7,
2013, the court in the ML Liquidating Trust lawsuit issued a
ruling dismissing claims for deepening insolvency damages,
negligence and breach of contract and holding that any claims
related to the 2004 and 2005 Mayer Hoffman audits were barred by
the statute of limitations. The court denied the motion as to the
negligent misrepresentation claim. On June 14, 2013, the court
dismissed the RICO, fraud and consumer fraud claims in the Marsh
lawsuit, and denied the CBIZ Parties' motion as to the negligent
misrepresentation and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty claims.

The CBIZ Parties and Mayer Hoffman, without admitting any
liability, have reached settlements in the Victims Recovery,
Ashkenazi, Rader and Marsh lawsuits. The CBIZ Parties did not pay
any monetary amounts as part of these settlements. The Victims
Recovery complaint had alleged damages of approximately $53.0
million, the Ashkenazi complaint had alleged damages of
approximately $92.0 million, the Rader complaint had alleged
damages in excess of $15.0 million, and the Marsh complaint had
alleged damages in excess of $115.0 million. Two plaintiffs from
the Ashkenazi lawsuit ("Baldino Group") were not part of that
settlement and their claims, which allege damages of approximately
$16.0 million, are proceeding. Discovery is proceeding in the
Baldino Group and ML Liquidating Trust matters and no trial dates
have been set. Discovery is not proceeding in Facciola as it is on
appeal.

The CBIZ Parties deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against
them in these actions and are vigorously defending the remaining
proceedings. In particular, the CBIZ Parties are not control
persons under the Arizona Securities Act of, or in a joint venture
with, Mayer Hoffman. The CBIZ Parties do not have, in any
respects, the legal right to control Mayer Hoffman's audits or any
say in how the audits are conducted. The Company has been advised
by Mayer Hoffman that it denies all allegations of wrongdoing made
against it and that it intends to continue vigorously defending
the matters.


CHANG GUANN: Faces Class Action Over Adulterated Cooking Oil
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Hsu, writing for Taipei Times, reports that the Consumers'
Foundation is to file a consumer class-action lawsuit against four
manufacturers whose allegedly adulterated cooking oil products
have hurt the nation's food industry since their discovery in
September, and is inviting anyone who purchased or consumed food
products tainted with the problematic oils to join the suit.

"The impact of the spate of cooking oil scandals over the past few
months is widespread.  They have affected not only consumers, but
also food factories, restaurants and night market vendors
nationwide," Consumers' Foundation chairman Alan Lu told a press
conference in Taipei on Feb. 27.

Mr. Lu said the group is more than willing to take on the case
entrusted to it by the Executive Yuan's Department of Consumer
Protection because it is often consumers rather than businesses
who require help seeking compensation.

Foundation vice chairman Yu Kai-hsiung said the lawsuit will be
filed primarily against the four oil producers at the center of
the recent oil scares: Chang Guann Co., Ting Hsin Oil and Fat
Industrial Co., Cheng I Food Co. and Beei Hae Oil and Fats Co.

"Their allegedly adulterated oil products have affected more than
500 smaller food companies and stores, as well as more than 1,000
kinds of food items," Yu said.

Yu said that since many of the problematic products were meant for
household use, both people who purchased the items and family
members who consumed them are welcome to join the suit.  Consumers
who were refunded for the suspect products may also participate,
so long as they did not sign a statement of settlement with the
sellers, Yu added.

"People who intend to join the lawsuit can apply with any of the
foundation's branches across the nation starting from Monday
[Dec. 1] until Jan. 5 next year.  All applicants will be required
to submit receipts to prove they bought the products in question,"
Yu said.

Department of Consumer Protection Director-General Liu Ching-fang
said she expects the suit to be the largest she has ever seen in
all her years with the department.

"It is unimaginable how much time and manpower will be devoted to
this case.  I am impressed by the foundation's willingness to
accept this challenging task," Liu said.

All litigation fees and costs will be paid from the government's
food safety fund, which is expected to be established in January,
she added.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Hearing Set on Bid to Strike Causes of Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company's motion to strike certain causes of action was scheduled
for hearing on November 10, 2014.

The Company said, "On April 11, 2013, a current restaurant hourly
employee filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior
Court, Placer County, alleging that the Company violated the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No
SCV0032820).  A similar lawsuit covering a different time period
was also filed in Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. SCV27073).  By stipulation the
parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora cases to Los
Angeles County.  Both cases (Case Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073)
were subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles County by
order of the Judicial Council.  On November 15, 2013, the Company
filed a motion to strike certain causes of action raised in Case
No. SCV003820, which motion was scheduled for hearing on November
10, 2014. "


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitrating Collective Actions
--------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company is arbitrating similar uniform and related issues under
federal law in separate collective actions in Alabama, Colorado,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas (Smith v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. 3 06 0829).

The Company said, "On October 24, 2013, the arbitrator in the
Tennessee matter (Case No. 3 06 0829) denied summary judgment
motions filed both by the claimants and by us on the uniform
issue.  In January 2013, the arbitrator in the Ohio matter (Case
No. 3 06 0829) ruled in favor of the Company on the material
claims raised in the Ohio arbitration, including uniform, minimum
wage and overtime issues, while finding in favor of the claimants
on two non-material claims.  The claimants then filed a motion to
vacate the Ohio arbitration decision.  These lawsuits and
arbitrations sought unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective claimants and other
purported class members.  On May 29, 2014, the parties agreed to a
confidential settlement that was approved by the arbitrator in
Case No. 3 06 0829.  We expensed immaterial amounts for this
settlement in the first and third quarters of fiscal 2014."


CHINA GERUI: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, LLP on Nov. 26 announced the
filing of a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit is filed
on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of securities of
China Gerui Advanced Materials Group Ltd. ("CHOP") between
January 11, 2012 and September 4, 2014, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as common law fraudulent
concealment, that occurred when CHOP, its directors, and/or
officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding CHOP's business and prospects.

Specifically, on September 4, 2014, CHOP disclosed that, before
June 30, 2014, it had purportedly spent $234 million of its
unrestricted cash to acquire a collection of antique Chinese
porcelain that it valued at $905 million.  However, CHOP provided
no details regarding the collection's source, where the collection
was being stored, whether it is insured, and who appraised and
authenticated it.

Before this unexpected purchase, CHOP had emphasized its fiscal
discipline, and had characterized its growth strategy as involving
expanding its product lines, expanding overseas, and combining
with competitors.  CHOP had also previously touted its significant
cash reserves, reporting holdings of $230.7 million of
unrestricted cash as of March 31, 2014.  By contrast, on
September 4, 2014, CHOP disclosed that as of June 30, 2014, it had
a mere $3 million in unrestricted cash.

Upon the announcement of this alleged acquisition, shares of CHOP
declined from $0.61 per share on September 3, 2014 to a
September 4, 2014 closing price of $0.49 per share, representing a
decline of approximately 20%.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than January 26, 2015, to serve as Lead Plaintiff.
A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court, who acts
on behalf of other Class members in directing the litigation.  You
do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included in the Class.
If you purchased CHOP securities and wish to discuss this
litigation, any questions concerning this Notice, or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued Over Sunroof Defects of Chrysler Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Cox, Melissa Doherty, Teresa Hughes, Anthony Lombardo,
Andrew Manesis, Michael Newcomb, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-07573 (D.N.J., December 4, 2014), arises out of the defective
design, specifically undersized drainage tubes, faulty materials,
substandard installation, inadequate sealing procedures and
manufacturing defects of Chrysler vehicles that has caused
factory-installed sunroofs to leak.

Chrysler Group, LLC is an American automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan and owned by Italian
automaker Fiat.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq.
      John N. Poulos, Esq.
      Poulos LoPiccolo, Esq.
      1305 South Rolle Road
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 757-0165
      E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com
              poulos@pllawfirm.com

      - and -

     John E. Keefe Jr., Esq.
     Stephen T. Sullivan, Esq.
     KEEFE BARTELS
     170 Monmouth Street
     Red Bank, NJ
     Telephone: (732) 224-9400
     E-mail: jkeefe@keefebartels.com
             ssullivan@keefebartels.com

      - and -

     Peter C. Lucas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER C. LUCAS, LLC
     725 Carol Avenue
     Oakhurst, NJ
     Telephone: (732) 663-9100
     E-mail: plucas@lm-lawfirm.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Treasury Dept Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Department of the Treasury of the
State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common
shares filed two lawsuits in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio against us and certain current and
former officers and directors of the Company. The actions are
captioned Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey
and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.,
et al., No. 1:14-CV-1031 and Weinstock v. Cliffs Natural Resources
Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1106. Both actions assert violations of
the federal securities laws based on alleged false or misleading
statements or omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to
March 26, 2013, regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in
Quebec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on our finances
and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend, and that
the alleged misstatements caused our common shares to trade at
artificially inflated prices. Both lawsuits seek class
certification and an award of monetary damages to the putative
class in an unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and
attorneys' fees. These lawsuits have been referred to our
insurance carriers."

"On July 15, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice the Weinstock lawsuit. On October 21, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Department of the Treasury of the
State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment lawsuit."

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an international mining and
natural resources company.


COBALT MORTGAGE: Faces "Wheeler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Wheeler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cobalt Mortgage, Inc., and Caliber Home Loans, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01847 (W.D. Wash., December 4, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are privately owned mortgage banking firms in the
state of Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street Ste 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile:  (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: jmurray@tmdwlaw.com


COMCAST CORPORATION: Illegally Connects Wifi Routers, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Toyer Grear and Joycelyn Harris, individually and on behalf of all
others situated v. COMCAST Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-05333 (N.D. Cal., December 4, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to obtain
authorization prior to supplying its residential customers with
new wireless routers, equipped to broadcast not only its
customers' home Wi-Fi network signal, but also an additional Wi-Fi
network signal that was available to the public.

COMCAST Corporation is an American media corporation located at
Comcast Center, 1701 John F Kennedy Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2838.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      Sara D. Avila, Esq.
      MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
      2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 396-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
      E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
              savila@milsteinadelman.com

         - and -

      Hank Bates, Esq,
      Allen Carney, Esq.
      David F. Slade, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC
      11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
      Little Rock, AR 72212
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      E-mail: hbates@carneywilliams.com
              acarney@cbplaw.com
              dslade@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      M. Ryan Kasey, Esq.
      KU & MUSSMAN, PA
      12550 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 406
      Miami, FL 33181
      Telephone: (305) 891-1322
      E-mail: ryan@kumussman.com


CYNOSURE INC: 2nd Circuit to Decide on Case Based on Briefs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Second Circuit
has notified the parties in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Litigation that it will not hear oral arguments and will decide
the case based on the briefs.

The Company said, "In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as
putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint
against us under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County,
captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior
Court, Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior
express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the
TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are
entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent
violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful
violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff
alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on
our behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals."

"In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion.
In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded
the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs.
The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the
appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Appeals Court.

"In March 2014, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's
ruling, and in April 2014 plaintiff filed a request for further
appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court. On May 6, 2014,
the Supreme Judicial Court issued a Notice of Denial of
Application for Further Appellate Review. No further appeals are
possible in Massachusetts.

"In addition, in July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported
class action, based on the same operative facts and asserting the
same claims as in the Massachusetts action, in federal court in
the Eastern District of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v.
Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court,
Eastern District of New York).

"In February 2013, that court granted our motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims. In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion
seeking reconsideration of the court's judgment and vacation of
the court's order of dismissal. In April 2013, we drafted a
response opposing the plaintiff's motion. In August 2013,
plaintiff filed its motion with the court, although the deadline
had been April 2013. We filed a letter with the court objecting to
this untimely motion and requesting sanctions.

"In February 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied
our request for sanctions. On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an
appeal of the court's judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July
23, 2014, the Second Circuit notified the parties that it will not
hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs."


CYNOSURE INC: Massachusetts Federal Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Massachusetts
Federal Action related to the merger with Palomar Medical
Technologies Inc. was dismissed on August 22, 2014.

The Company said, "On March 21, 2013, a putative stockholder class
action complaint, captioned Edgar Calin v. Palomar Medical
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-1051 BLS1 (Superior Court,
Suffolk County), was filed against Palomar, its board of
directors, us and Commander Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and our wholly-owned subsidiary (Commander), in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 9, 2013,
a second putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-1328 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County),
was filed against Palomar, its board of directors and us in
Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County. On April 12, 2013,
a third putative stockholder class action complaint, captioned
Albert Saffer v. Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
13-1385 BLS1 (Superior Court, Suffolk County), was filed against
Palomar, its board of directors, us and Commander in Massachusetts
Superior Court in Suffolk County (collectively with Edgar Calin
and Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust, the "Massachusetts State
Actions")."

"On April 23, 2013, each of the plaintiffs in the foregoing suits
filed an amended complaint. Each amended complaint alleges that
members of the Palomar board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the approval of the merger contemplated
by the agreement and plan of merger, dated as of March 17, 2013,
by and among Palomar, us and Commander, and that we and, with
respect to the Calin and Saffer suits, Commander, aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Each amended
complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by,
among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and failing
to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and
other terms, and that the registration statement filed by us is
materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. The plaintiffs in the Massachusetts State
Actions moved to expedite the proceedings on May 1, 2013 and moved
to consolidate the actions on May 1, 2013. On May 13, 2013, each
of the defendants in the Massachusetts State Actions filed an
opposition to expedite, an opposition to consolidate and a cross
motion to stay its respective action. On May 16, 2013, each of the
plaintiffs filed oppositions to defendants' cross motion to stay.
On May 17, 2013, the Massachusetts Superior Court issued an order
denying plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings and granting
defendants' cross motion to stay the Massachusetts State Actions.

"On April 19, 2013, a fourth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Gary Drabek v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8491, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court.
On May 1, 2013, a fifth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Daniel Moore v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 8516, (Del. Ch.) was filed against Palomar, its
board of directors, us and Commander in Delaware Chancery Court.
Each of the foregoing lawsuits alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the merger and that we and Commander aided
and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

"Each complaint alleges that the Palomar directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by,
among other things, conducting a flawed sale process and failing
to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and
other terms, and that the registration statement filed by us is
materially deficient. Each of these plaintiffs seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. The plaintiff in the Drabek action moved
to expedite the proceedings on April 29, 2013, and the plaintiff
in the Moore action moved to expedite and moved for a preliminary
injunction on May 3, 2013. On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs in the
Drabek and Moore actions jointly submitted a proposed order of
consolidation to consolidate the class actions as In re Palomar
Medical Technologies Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8491-VCP,
which order was granted by the court on the same day.

"On May 28, 2013, a sixth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Melvin Lax v. Palomar Medical Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 13-11276 (D. Mass.) (Massachusetts Federal
Action), was filed against Palomar, its board of directors, us,
and Commander in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The lawsuit alleges that members of the Palomar
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the merger, that we and Commander aided and
abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by issuing a
materially misleading Proxy Statement. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
and other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger, in addition to other unspecified
damages, fees and costs. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a
stipulation and joint motion to stay proceedings.

"On June 7, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which we refer to as the Delaware Memorandum of
Understanding, with the Delaware plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of the Delaware putative stockholder class actions and,
on June 10, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC a Current Report on
Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement pursuant to the terms
of the Delaware Memorandum of Understanding.

"On June 14, 2013, Palomar entered into a memorandum of
understanding, which we refer to as the Massachusetts Memorandum
of Understanding, with the Massachusetts plaintiffs, pursuant to
which the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts state and federal
actions agreed to be bound by the terms of the Delaware Memorandum
of Understanding and on June 14, 2013, Palomar filed with the SEC
a Current Report on Form 8-K to supplement the Proxy Statement
pursuant to the terms of the Massachusetts Memorandum of
Understanding.

"The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding and the Massachusetts
Memorandum of Understanding contemplate that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. On May 1, 2014, we,
Palomar and the Delaware plaintiffs entered into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the court approved the
form of notice for mailing to the former stockholders of Palomar.
Following notice, the court scheduled a hearing for July 21, 2014
at which the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware considered
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and
approved the settlement, resolved and released all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), and
dismissed the Delaware actions with prejudice. The court also
awarded the plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in
the amount of $420,000 to be paid by Palomar or its successor.

"As Palomar's successor, we paid through our insurance company the
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. In addition, also on May 1, 2014, we,
Palomar and the Massachusetts plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation
seeking dismissal of the Massachusetts State Actions, and the
court dismissed the Massachusetts State Actions with prejudice on
May 7, 2014. Finally, on July 16, 2014, the parties to the
Massachusetts Federal Action informed the court that if the Court
of Chancery for the State of Delaware approved the settlement
during the July 21, 2014 hearing, the plaintiff would dismiss the
Massachusetts Federal Action with prejudice and we will pay the
plaintiff an additional amount for his attorneys' fees and
expenses through our insurance company. The Massachusetts Federal
Action was dismissed on August 22, 2014."


DAUTERIVE CONTRACTORS: "Busby" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Busby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dauterive Contractors, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-03366
(W.D. La., December 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dauterive Contractors, Inc. is a small business that specializes
in unique marine transport, herbicide spraying and operates a
wetlands nursery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      J. Forester Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON & JACKSON
      201 St Charles Ave Ste 2500
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Telephone: (504) 599-5953
      Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
      E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net
              jjackson@jackson-law.net


DYNAMIC INTERACTIVE: Sued in California Over Violation of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Marakovitz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Dynamic Interactive Corp., Case No. 8:14-cv-
01917 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Dynamic Interactive Corp. is a provider of virtual call center
services and telemarketing software.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E. W. SCRIPPS: Wisconsin Court Expected to Rule on Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The E. W. Scripps Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Circuit
Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin held a hearing and stated it
would issue a ruling on the motions to dismiss a class action
lawsuit on or about November 11, 2014.

Members of the Board of Directors of Journal Communications, Inc.
("Journal"), and the parties to the Master Transaction Agreement,
including Journal and Scripps, are defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
(Howard Goldfinger v. Journal Communications, Inc., et al.). The
plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges that the directors of Journal
breached their fiduciary duties to Journal shareholders in
connection with the transactions and that the other parties to the
lawsuit aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff alleges that the directors of Journal breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, (i) agreeing to enter
into the Master Transaction Agreement for inadequate
consideration, (ii) having certain conflicts of interest, (iii)
not negotiating a "collar" mechanism on the share exchange ratio,
and (iv) agreeing to certain deal protection provisions, such as a
termination fee, a "no-shop" provision, and a "matching rights"
provision. The plaintiff also challenges the qualifications of
Journal's financial advisor, Methuselah Advisors LLC
("Methuselah"), and asserts that Methuselah has a conflict because
the founder and managing partner of Methuselah, who is the lead
investment banker at Methuselah for Journal in this transaction,
was employed by Lazard Freres & Co. LLC ("Lazard") prior to 2010
as a managing partner and group co-head, where he had
responsibility for Lazard's relationship with Scripps.

The outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain and cannot be predicted.
An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material
adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Journal or
Scripps. An adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief
could indefinitely enjoin completion of the transactions. Journal
and Scripps believe the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the
claims alleged in this lawsuit.

On August 29, 2014, the defendants filed motions asking the
Circuit Court to dismiss this lawsuit. On October 20, 2014, the
Circuit Court held a hearing and stated it would issue a ruling on
such motions on or about November 11, 2014.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Discovery Continue Through 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery in a
class action litigation is expected to continue through 2015.

On April 15, 2013, David M. Loritz filed a purported class action
lawsuit against the Company, James R. Bolch, Phillip A. Damaska,
R. Paul Hirt, Jr., and Michael Ostermann alleging violations of
certain federal securities laws. On May 3, 2013, Trevor Knopf
filed a nearly identical complaint against the same named
defendants in the same court. These cases were filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
February 9, 2012 and April 3, 2013. On June 4, 2013, James
Cassella and Sandra Weitsman filed a substantially similar action
in the same court, purportedly on behalf of those who purchased
the Company's stock between June 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013,
against the Company, Messrs. Bolch, Damaska, Hirt, and Louis E.
Martinez. On July 9, 2013, Judge Stephen V. Wilson consolidated
these cases under the Loritz v. Exide Technologies, Inc. caption,
lead docket number 2:13-02607-SVW-E, and appointed Sandra Weitsman
and James Cassella Lead Plaintiffs of the putative class of former
Exide stockholders. Judge Wilson ordered Lead Plaintiffs to file
their consolidated amended complaint on or before August 23, 2013.
On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against the Company, without prejudice, to re-file at a
future date. Lead Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to
pursue their claims against the individual defendants during the
pendency of Exide's bankruptcy and may seek to reinstate their
claims against the Company when it emerges from bankruptcy.

On September 6, 2013, pursuant to an order extending the previous
deadline, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint, naming as defendants Messrs. James R. Bolch, Phillip A.
Damaska, R. Paul Hirt, Jr., Louis E. Martinez, John P. Reilly,
Herbert F. Aspbury, Michael R. D'Appolonia, David S. Ferguson,
John O'Higgins, and Dominic J. Pilleggi.  Lead Plaintiffs did not
name Mr. Ostermann as a defendant in the Consolidated Amended
Complaint. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint Lead Plaintiffs
purport to state claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period June 1, 2011 and May 24, 2013.
In addition, Lead Plaintiffs purport to state claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's senior secured notes during the period
August 8, 2011 through May 24, 2013. Lead Plaintiffs allege that
certain public statements made by the Company and its officers
during these periods were materially false and misleading. The
Consolidated Amended Complaint does not specify an amount of
damages sought. Defendants deny all allegations against them and
intend to vigorously pursue their defense. Defendants moved to
dismiss all claims against them and, on December 19, 2013, Judge
Wilson granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety,
without prejudice. Judge Wilson gave Lead Plaintiffs leave to file
their Consolidated Second Amended Complaint on or before January
30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, which is nearly identical
in every material respect to the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Consolidated Second Amended Complaint does not specify an
amount of damages sought.

On February 13, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Second Amended Complaint.   On August 11, 2014, Judge
Wilson entered an order  dismissing Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim
against R. Paul Hirt, Jr., former Executive Vice President and
President of Exide Americas, but denying the remainder of
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Discovery in this litigation will
now proceed and it is expected to continue through 2015.  A trial
date of January 19, 2016 has been set in this matter. Defendants
deny all allegations against them and intend to vigorously pursue
their defense.


FIZA INVESTMENTS: "Joseph" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hermite C. Joseph and Marie E. Laguerre, on their own behalf and
others similarly situated v. Fiza Investments, Inc., a Florida
Profit Corporation, d/b/a Windsor Court and Patricia S.
Rengasawmy, Case No. 9:14-cv-81511 (S.D. Fla., December 3, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an assisted living facility
primarily engaged in the care of the sick, aged, and the mentally
ill or defective elderly who reside at the facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, PA
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Shareholder Can't Stop Merger With TowneBank
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder objecting to the proposed merger of Franklin
Financial Corporation and TowneBank is not entitled to an
injunction blocking the deal, reports Charly Himmel at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

The $275 million merger, through which TowneBank will acquire
Franklin Financial, was announced in July.  Shareholders of both
financial institutions voted to approve the merger December 4
afternoon.

In a class action filed on Oct. 1, Franklin Financial shareholder
Andrew Mallon accused the two entities of "breaches of fiduciary
duties and/or aiding abetting such breach, arising out of their
attempt to sell the Company to TowneBank by means of an unfair
process and for an unfair price."

According to Mallon, "the Proposed Transaction provides Franklin
stockholders with a negative premium to the Company's recent
trading high of $24.60 per share."

"Since the deal announcement," Mallon said in his complaint,
"Franklin's stock has tumbled to a post-announcement low of $18.81
per share."

But District Judge Henry Hudson found the proposed exchange rate
of 1.4 shares of TowneBank stock per Franklin stock to be
inadmissible as a breach of fiduciary duty.

"62% of Franklin's shareholders have already cast their votes,
with 99% favoring the merger."  said Hudson in his Dec. 2 ruling.
"No other stockholder has expressed concerns about the sufficiency
of the Proxy."

Mallon claims that Franklin used dodgy language in their proxy
statement to stockholders, and cites a conflict of interest in
appointment of TowneBank board members previously employed with
Franklin.  "Moreover," Mallon says, "members of the Board and
Franklin's management will benefit from acceleration of their
unvested stock."

But according to Hudson, "These benefits do not appear atypical of
a transaction of this type and the disclosure in the Proxy appears
sufficient to place voting stockholders on notice of any potential
conflicts of interest."

The case is Andrew Malon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Franklin Financial Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00671-HEH-RCY, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Prez Faces Charges in Chemical Spill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the top executive charged in a chemical spill that left 300,000
people without drinking water lied about his role with the company
to protect his personal wealth of nearly $8 million from lawsuits,
according to an FBI affidavit.

In bankruptcy court hearings and meetings, Freedom Industries
President Gary Southern repeatedly said he had little to do with
the company before it was sold a few weeks prior to the January
chemical spill.  But an FBI affidavit said Southern had overseen
day-to-day operations at the chemical storage company, hired
employees and executed contracts for several years, according to a
complaint unsealed on Dec. 8.

"They are either outright lies, or are, at the very least,
misleading," FBI Special Agent James F. Lafferty II said in a
sworn statement.  "All of the statements indicate or suggest an
effort to defect blame from Southern for the discharge of (the
chemical) MCHM into the Elk River."

Southern negotiated the sale of Freedom Industries to Chemstream
Holdings Inc. just weeks before the spill, and discussed how much
money would be set aside to deal with necessary repairs at the
site, the complaint said. Investigators discovered holes in tanks,
shoddy last-resort containment walls and other deficiencies.

Southern, who has previously denied wrongdoing, faces charges of
bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud and lying under oath.  If convicted
of all the charges, he faces up to 30 years in prison.

He was arrested in Florida, where he owns a home on Marco Island,
and was released on Dec. 9 on a $100,000 bond. His next hearing is
in West Virginia on Dec. 18.

Southern's public image suffered when he appeared unsympathetic to
much of an entire valley of people lacking clean water.

The day after the spill, he told reporters he had a "long day" and
tried to leave a news conference multiple times as he swigged a
bottle of water in front of TV cameras.

"Look guys.  It has been an extremely long day," Southern said
Jan. 10.  "I have trouble talking at the moment.  I would
appreciate if we could wrap this thing up."

Deno Stanley, owner of Adelphia Sports Bar & Grill in Charleston,
said he hoped the charges set a precedent for executives like
Southern.

"That guy should've went to social graces 101 class," Mr. Stanley
said on Dec. 9.

On Jan. 9, a tank at Freedom Industries in Charleston leaked coal-
cleaning chemicals into the Elk River, about a mile and a half
upstream from a water treatment plant.  Tap water from faucets
started smelling like licorice.  It also had a blue-green color to
it.  Drinking the water was banned for several days.

Freedom filed for bankruptcy eight days later.

The affidavit said Southern had a "substantial motive" to downplay
his employment with Freedom.  He was trying to protect his net
worth of at least $7.7 million from lawsuits, according to the
affidavit.  Many businesses sued Freedom, the regional water
company and a handful targeted related parties such as Southern
because the tap-water ban shuttered their operations for days.

Creditors are seeking more than $176 million.  Many involved in
the case don't think much cash will be left, however, and point to
Freedom's proposed $2.9 million insurance settlement as the
biggest pot of money.

The affidavit said Southern started May 2009 as chief operating
officer with direct oversight over the Charleston facility where
the spill occurred.  He also was on the board of directors from
March 2010 to October 2013.  After Freedom was sold to Chemstream,
Southern made $230,000 a year as Freedom's president, according to
court records.

In bankruptcy court, Southern described his role before the sale
as a "part-time, financial type consultant to help the owners of
that business get their finances and systems kind of back on
track."

He said he was involved only "superficially" in Chemstream's
purchase of Freedom.  He also told creditors, under oath, that he
was not part of the Freedom organization before the acquisition,
the affidavit said.

Southern was fully aware of the lawsuits facing him and the FBI
and EPA investigations into possible Clean Water Act violations,
the affidavit said.  U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said the charges
were part of an ongoing investigation.


FSAS LLC: Faces "Diaz-Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Diaz-Martinez and Jesus Flores-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees v. FSAS, LLC, and Frank
Sbragia individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-09709 (N.D. Ill., December
4, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in commerce or in the production of
goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


GOLD CLUB: Faces "Houle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Houle and Deliah Ploski, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gold Club Tampa, Inc.
d/b/a Tampa Gold Club, Case No. 8:14-cv-03034 (M.D. Fla., December
4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gold Club Tampa, Inc. owns and operates a gentlemen's club in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone:  (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile:  (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Consolidated Class Action in Discovery Phase
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
consolidated class action lawsuits are currently at the discovery
phase.

On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit
organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint
alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and
JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's
implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated
certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative
class action containing substantially identical allegations
concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care products. The
consolidated actions seek an award for damages, injunctive relief,
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. These consolidated lawsuits
are currently at the discovery phase. The Company intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously and believes that the plaintiffs'
claims are without merit.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Records Pre-Tax Costs Totaling $22,844 on Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company recorded pre-tax costs totaling $22,844 in the three
months ended September 30, 2014 and previously recorded charges of
$6,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, related to the
voluntary recall on certain nut butters.

On August 19, 2014, the Company announced a voluntary recall on
certain nut butters. In connection with the voluntary recall, the
Company recorded pre-tax costs totaling $22,844 in the three
months ended September 30, 2014 and previously recorded charges of
$6,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014. The charges recorded
primarily relate to returns of product from customers ($10,442)
and inventory on-hand and other cost of goods sold charges
($9,925), and to a lesser extent consumer refunds and other
administrative costs ($2,477). The charges recorded are based upon
management's estimates of the total costs incurred through
September 30, 2014, however it is reasonably possible that
additional pre-tax costs up to $7,000 could be recorded, excluding
any recovery from our insurance carrier, with whom the Company is
working to recover a portion of these costs. Additionally, the
Company anticipates certain ongoing period costs, primarily
transportation and storage costs, to be incurred during the
remainder of fiscal 2015 of approximately $800 before tax. The
Company is continuing to work with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to finalize the matter.


HARRIS & HARRIS: Has Invaded Plaintiff's Privacy, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., and Does 1 Through 10,
Inclusive, And Each Of Them, Case No. 2:14-cv-09310 (C.D. Cal.,
December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on
the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Harris & Harris, Ltd. is in the business of collecting debt for
Government agencies, Utility services and Healthcare facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee Paul Mankin IV, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF L PAUL MANKIN IV
      8730 Wilshire Blvd Suite 310
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (800) 219-3577
      Facsimile: (323) 207-3885
      E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com


HEALTHFIRST INC: Faces "Thind" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kanwarpreet Thind, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Healthfirst, Inc., d/b/a Healthfirst, HF Management
Services, LLC, d/b/a Healthfirst, and Healthfirst PHSP, Inc.,
d/b/a Healthfirst, Case No. 1:14-cv-09539 (S.D.N.Y., December 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide administrative and management services to
healthcare organizations in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelly A. Magnuson, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516)248-5550
      Facsimile: (516)248-6027


HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT: Faces "Guerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carole Guerra, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Heartland Employment Services, LLC, an Ohio Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-06890 (E.D. Pa., December 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Heartland Employment Services, LLC owns and operates skilled
nursing facilities in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Protective Order Entered in "Frater" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which will govern all
confidential documents produced in discovery, in the case
Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., William A.
Carter, David Strayer and Wayne Pambianchi, U.S. District Court
for Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:12-cv-07152-WY.

On December 21, 2012, a putative Federal Securities Class Action
Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17,
2012. The Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of
the Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been
filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 14, 2013, the Court
appointed Hemispherx Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4.

Pursuant to the Court's March 29, 2013 scheduling order, Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
("Amended Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and in its Amended
Complaint, dropped Thomas K. Equels and Charles T. Bernhardt as
Defendants and added David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne Pambianchi,
an outside consultant, as Defendants. The Amended Complaint
alleges an expanded Class Period of March 14, 2012 to December 20,
2012, which period encompasses statements made in the Company's
2011 Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2012, and at the FDA Advisory
Committee Meeting on December 20, 2012. On July 19, 2013,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead
Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to Defendants' motion to
dismiss is September 17, 2013, and Defendants filed their reply
brief on October 17, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on
February, 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter
alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for the completion of all fact
discovery. On February 25, 2014, defendants filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to the Amended Compliant. Also on February
25, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order, which
will govern all confidential documents produced in discovery.


HIGHVELD SYNDICATIONS: 6,000+ Investors Support Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Barry, writing for Moneyweb, reports that more than 6,000
investors in the Highveld Syndications (HS) companies have to date
confirmed support of a class action application being brought
against the Pickvest-promoted property schemes, attorney Jacques
Theron confirmed.

Mr. Theron's law firm, Theron & Partners, is bringing the class
action application on behalf of the 18,000-odd investors, mainly
pensioners, who invested in the HS companies.  Court papers list
22 respondents in the matter, but the application seeks relief
against 16 of these, Mr. Theron said.

Among the respondents against which relief is sought is
Nic Georgiou, MD of Orthotouch, a public company that bought
properties in the HS companies on the grounds that it would pay
the syndication companies a return of 6% a year, increasing by 25
basis points each year.  At the end of five years, Orthotouch
would pay the syndication companies the full purchase price of
R4.6 billion, in terms of this scheme of arrangement.

To date, just two respondents have notified the class action
attorneys of their opposition, namely Heinrich Pieter Moller
(director and company secretary of the relevant Highveld
companies) and Orthotouch.

Eleven respondents have confirmed their receipt of the
application, including Mr. Georgiou, who has not yet indicated an
intention to oppose it.  Mr. Georgiou could not be reached via his
office line to comment.

"Respondents have 15 court days from date of service of the
application to file a Notice of Opposition and 30 (court) days
after the filing of their notices to file affidavits in answer to
the applicants' papers," Mr. Theron explained.

On January 6 2015, the court will rule on those respondents who
did not oppose the application for certification.  "This order may
include a certification in respect of those respondents or the
court may postpone the matter to be adjudicated upon
simultaneously with the opposing respondents," Mr. Theron said.

In all likelihood, the bulk of respondents would oppose the
application, Mr. Theron said, but he had not yet received any
opposing affidavits.

Before a class action can proceed, the affected parties must first
be declared (certified) as a class by a court, on the grounds of
them having a common claim.  This will be done once the court has
received the relevant affidavits from applicants and respondents
and considered the merits of the case.

Mr. Theron believes this application could be heard in the North
Gauteng High Court in the first half of 2015, but this would
depend on available court dates and the degree of opposition
received.

If the class is certified and the class action goes ahead,
investors will be given an opportunity to opt out of the action --
i.e. be excluded from the proceedings and ultimate findings of the
action, as well as rewards that might be made.  If investors do
not opt out, they are automatically included in proceedings.

Mr. Theron said he was not privy to the investors' votes regarding
the proposed schemes of arrangement recently put forward by
Orthotouch.  Investors have been asked to choose between three
alternatives to rearrange the business affairs of Orthotouch,
after it failed to meet interest payment obligations to these
investors.

"Many investors indicated that they were not aware of the class
action and that they want to withdraw their votes," Mr. Theron
noted.

Business rescue practitioner for the HS Companies, Hans Klopper
did not respond to requests for comment on the voting outcomes.


HOMEGOODS INC: Sued Over Failure to Design POS Devices for Blinds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Homegoods, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-09296 (C.D. Cal.,
December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices that
is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people.

Homegoods, Inc. is a chain of home furnishing stores across the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Harrison, Esq.
      THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
      25876 The Old Road, #304
      Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
      Telephone: (661) 257-2854
      Facsimile: (661) 257-3068
      E-mail: Mharrison30@aol.com


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. awaits approval of the New Jersey Court
of the settlement of the class action over the merger with
Wilmington Trust Corporation, Hudson City Bancorp said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Since the announcement of the Merger with Wilmington Trust
Corporation ("WTC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank
Corporation ("M&T"), eighteen putative class action complaints
have been filed in the Court of Chancery, Delaware against Hudson
City Bancorp, its directors, M&T, and WTC challenging the Merger.
Six putative class actions challenging the Merger have also been
filed in the Superior Court for Bergen County, Chancery Division,
of New Jersey (the "New Jersey Court"). The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that the Hudson City Bancorp directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Hudson City Bancorp's public
shareholders by approving the Merger at an unfair price, that the
Merger was the product of a flawed sales process, and that Hudson
City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleading and incomplete Form S-4
with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction. All 24
lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of the
Merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Certain of the
actions also seek an accounting of damages sustained as a result
of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of all of the actions.  Under the terms of the MOU,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other named defendants, and all the
plaintiffs have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Actions and release the defendants from all claims relating to the
Merger, subject to approval of the New Jersey Court. Pursuant to
the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&T agreed to make available
additional information to Hudson City Bancorp shareholders. The
additional information was contained in a Supplement to the Joint
Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as an exhibit to a Current
Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013.

In addition, under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also
has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. If the New Jersey Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with
prejudice. The settlement will not affect the Merger consideration
to be paid to Hudson City Bancorp's shareholders in connection
with the proposed Merger. In the event the New Jersey Court
approves an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection
with the settlement, such fees and expenses shall be paid by
Hudson City Bancorp, its successor in interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


IHS ASSOCIATION: Faces Suit Over Sports-Related Head Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former high school football star sued the body that governs
secondary school sports in Illinois to force it to align its
policies on sports-related head injuries with state law, according
to Ted Wheeler at Courthouse News Service.

In a class action filed in the Cook County Circuit Court on
December 1, Daniel Bukal lambasts what he described as the
Illinois High School Association's "historically poor management
of concussions," and asked the court to mandate changes that would
improve injury prevention and treatment outcomes for student
athletes in the state.

In 2011, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the Protecting Our Student Athletes
Act, which was intended to address the high-profile issue.

The act requires individual school boards to adopt policies set
out by the IHSA.

Among these were that students and parents be educated about the
dangers of head trauma while participating in sports; that
athletes who suffer concussions during a contest be removed from
the game; and that athletes must be cleared by a health care
professional before returning to the field.

However, the act "does not mandate specific guidelines on managing
concussions and head injuries," the complaint states, putting the
onus on the IHSA for failures in protecting students.

"Despite the passage of the 'Protecting Our Student Athletes' Act
in Illinois in 2011, the IHSA's systemic failure to properly
manage concussions persists," the complaint says.

It then goes on to charge the association failed in its duty to
students on several requirements, notably by failing to mandate
the removal of athletes who have suffered concussions during
practice, and inadequately tracking concussions in order to combat
negative trends.

In addition to addressing these short-comings, Bukal seeks the
establishment of a fund to pay for "medical monitoring" of
athletes after they graduate, noting that repetitive head trauma
increases the risk of future health problems even without prior
incident of concussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified
sports as the leading cause of brain injury among 15- to 24-year-
olds.  An estimated 3.9 million sports and recreation-related
concussions occur in the United States annually.

Bukal played football from 1999 to 2003 at Notre Dame College Prep
in Niles, Ill.  He was a team captain and broke school records as
a quarterback.  But he now suffers from the lingering effects of
concussions he sustained at practice and in games, including
lightheadedness, migraine headaches and memory loss.

The Illinois High School Association is a not-for-profit body that
governs interscholastic athletics in the state.  Located in
Bloomington, Ill., the organization represents nearly 800 member
schools with tens of thousands of student athletes under its
purview.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Siprut, Esq.
          Brandon Cavanaugh, Esq.
          SIPRUT P.C.
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL  60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  bcavanaugh@siprut.com


J & M INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bertha Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Manolo's Tamales, J & M, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-09686 (N.D. Ill., December 3, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located within the
State of Illinois

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JONES FINANCIAL: No Briefing Schedule Entered in Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the appeal of a class action settlement will be heard
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but no briefing schedule
has been entered.

There have been five cases filed against Edward Jones (in addition
to numerous other issuers and underwriters) asserting claims under
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") in
connection with registration statements and prospectus supplements
issued for certain mortgage-backed certificates issued between
2005 and 2007. Three cases were purported class actions (David H.
Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed
in 2007; Maine State Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010; and Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010). All three cases,
however, have been settled, and on December 6, 2013, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement.
The settlement that was approved by the court (1) establishes a
fund to be paid exclusively by Countrywide, (2) contains a
complete release for all defendants in all three cases, including
Edward Jones, (3) contains proposals for the administration of the
settlement fund, and (4) provides for the dismissal of all three
cases once the Court enters the final approval of the settlement
and enters a final judgment. Because Edward Jones was being
indemnified and defended in all three cases, Edward Jones will not
be paying and is not required to pay any money into the settlement
fund. On December 17, 2013, the Court entered the final judgment
and dismissal for all three cases.

On January 14, 2014, some objectors to the class action settlement
filed their Notice of Appeal of the Court's final judgment and
dismissal. The appeal will be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, but no briefing schedule has been entered.


JONES FINANCIAL: Final Compliance Hearing Set for January 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that a final compliance hearing is set for January 8, 2015
in the case Nicholas Maxwell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

On December 18, 2012, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
putative class action complaint in Alameda Superior Court. The
complaint asserted causes of action for unlawful wage deductions
(Labor Code sections 221, 223, 400-410, 2800, 2802, Cal. Code Reg.
title 8, section 11040(8)); California Unfair Competition Law
violations (Business and Professions Code sections 17200-04); and
waiting time penalties (Labor Code sections 201-203). Plaintiff
alleged that Edward Jones improperly charged its California
financial advisors fees, costs, and expenses related to trading
errors or "broken" trades, and failed to timely pay wages at
termination. The parties reached a settlement that does not have
an adverse material impact on the Partnership's consolidated
financial condition. The Court granted final approval of the
settlement on September 22, 2014. A final compliance hearing is
set for January 8, 2015.


KENNETH COLE: Ex-Intern Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oluseyl Shay Awogbile, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Kenneth Cole
Consumer Direct, LLC, or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., or Kenneth Cole
Consumer Direct, LLC, Case No. 161886/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
December 2, 2014) is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law
and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are presently or
were formerly employed by the Defendants as interns.

Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. and Cole Consumer Direct, LLC are
New York business corporations headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


KMAX IT: Faces "Blotzer" Suit for Making Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KMax IT Professionals, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01918
(C.D. Cal., December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

KMax IT Professionals, LLC is a provider of I.T. and web design
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Trial in NY Class Action Begins
--------------------------------------------------
Trial in the New York class action concerning the merger
transaction whereby Jefferies became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Leucadia National Corporation was scheduled to begin December 8,
2014, Leucadia National said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "seven putative class action lawsuits have been
filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of Jefferies
stockholders in New York and Delaware concerning the merger
transaction whereby Jefferies became our wholly-owned subsidiary.
Three were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York:
(1) Howard Lasker IRA v. Jefferies Group, Inc. et al. (Index No.
653924/2012), filed on November 14, 2012 in New York County; (2)
Lowinger v. Leucadia National Corp. et al. (Index No.
653958/2012), filed on November 15, 2012 in New York County; and
(3) Jiannaras v. Jefferies Group, Inc., et al. (Index No.
702866/2012), filed on November 16, 2012 in Queens County.  Four
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1)
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Handler et
al. (C.A. No. 8054-CS), filed on November 21, 2012; (2) Laborers'
District Council Pension and Disability Trust Fund No. 2 et al. v.
Campbell et al. (C.A. No. 8059-CS), filed on November 26, 2012;
(3) Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Handler et al.
(C.A. No. 8096-CS), filed on December 11, 2012; and (4) Gelfand v.
Handler et al. (C.A. No. 8228-CS), filed on January 17, 2013
(collectively, the "Actions").  The class actions, filed on behalf
of Jefferies shareholders prior to the merger, name as defendants
Jefferies, the members of the board of directors of Jefferies,
certain members of our board of directors and, in certain of the
actions, certain merger-related subsidiaries.  The Actions seek,
among other things, equitable relief and unspecified monetary
damages."

"The New York actions were consolidated and have been stayed
through pretrial discovery in deference to the Delaware actions,
which also have been consolidated.  The consolidated Delaware
action alleges that the members of Jefferies board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger
transactions by engaging in a flawed process, agreeing to sell
Jefferies for inadequate consideration pursuant to an agreement
that contains improper deal protection terms, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the merger transactions,
and further that we aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties (the Court has since dismissed the former
Jefferies independent directors from the action).  The action also
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty against Messrs. Handler and
Friedman in their capacities as officers of Jefferies, and against
Messrs. Handler, Friedman, Cumming and Steinberg, collectively, as
purported controlling shareholders of Jefferies.  On May 30, 2014,
the court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to certify the
class.  On September 16, 2014, the court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' claim that
Messrs. Handler, Friedman, Cumming and Steinberg breached their
fiduciary duties as purported controlling shareholders of
Jefferies, and the court denied the defendants' motion as to the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.  Trial was scheduled to begin
December 8, 2014.

"On October 31, 2014, the defendants agreed to settle the Delaware
litigation.  The agreement, which is subject to court approval of
the settlement, provides for an aggregate payment of $70 million
to certain former stockholders of Jefferies, other than the
defendants and certain affiliates, along with attorney's fees to
be determined and approved by the court.  The agreement further
provides that the settlement will be paid, at the Company's
option, in either cash or the Company's common shares.  The
settlement, if approved, will resolve all claims in Delaware and
release the claims brought in New York.  While the defendants
continue to deny each of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any
liability, the defendants have entered into the agreement solely
to settle and resolve their disputes, to avoid the costs and risks
of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to our
management."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Willing to Resolve Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company would be willing to resolve the consumer class action
captioned Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., with
plaintiffs for $20.0 million, and the Company accrued a litigation
reserve for this contingency in that amount.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers
are named as defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes
v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The named defendants also include the Mel Harris law firm,
certain individuals and members associated with the law firm, and
a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees.  The
action arises out of the law firm's obtaining default judgments
against approximately 124,000 individuals in New York City Civil
Court with respect to consumer debt purchased by our subsidiaries.
We asserted that we were an investor with respect to the subject
purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of the amounts
received from debt collections, but otherwise had no involvement
in any alleged illegal debt collection activities."

"The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently obtained
the default judgments in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, the New York General Business Law and the New York Judiciary
Law (alleged only as to the law firm) and seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and others similarly situated.  Defendants' motions to dismiss
were denied in part (including as to the claims made against us
and our subsidiaries) and granted in part (including as to certain
of the claims made against our officers) (the "Dismissal
Decision").  In September 2012, the Court issued a decision
granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class (the "Certification Decision").  Neither the
Dismissal Decision nor the Certification Decision addresses the
ultimate merits of the case.

"At a November 2012 status conference, the parties advised the
Court of their intention to attempt to resolve the dispute through
mediation.  Those efforts were not successful and the parties
advised the Court.  On March 28, 2013, the Court entered its
certification order, certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class of "all
persons who have been or will be sued by the Mel Harris defendants
as counsel for the Leucadia defendants in actions commenced in New
York City Civil Court and where a default judgment has or will be
sought" and a Rule 23(b)(3) class of "all persons who have been
sued by the Mel Harris defendants as counsel for the Leucadia
defendants in actions commenced in New York City Civil Court and
where a default judgment has been obtained." (the "Certification
Order").

"On July 19, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit granted our leave to appeal the District Court's
March Certification Order.  In connection with the appeal, the
District Court has granted a stay of the proceedings pending the
Court of Appeals' decision. The appeal was heard on February 7,
2014.

"Determinations of both the probability and the estimated amount
of loss or potential loss are judgments made in the context of
developments in the litigation.  We review these developments
regularly with our outside counsel.  Because we determined that we
would be willing to resolve this matter with plaintiffs for $20.0
million, we accrued a litigation reserve for this contingency in
that amount.  In arriving at this reserve amount, we considered a
number of factors, including that (i) while the damages sought are
indeterminate, payment of this reserved amount would not resolve
the case at this time, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome
of pending proceedings (including motions and appeals respecting
class certification), (iii) there are significant factual issues
to be determined or resolved, (iv) relevant law is unsettled and
untested legal theories are presented, (v) we have numerous
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, (vi) there are no adverse
rulings by the Court on the merits of plaintiffs' claims and (vii)
several important litigation milestones, such as the completion of
discovery and the filing of summary judgment motions, have not yet
occurred.

"We also note that the plaintiffs in the action -- the class
members certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
-- have alleged certain categories of damages under each of the
statutes underlying their claims.  These damages include (i)
statutory damages, which are capped under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act at $0.5 million for the class, and (ii) actual
damages.  While not fully described in the complaint, it appears
that plaintiffs' claim for actual damages includes not only
incidental costs incurred in connection with the default judgments
(including, for example, subway fares to the courthouse and bank
fees), costs relating to emotional distress and costs related to
reputational damage allegedly arising as a result of the long-term
effects of the default judgments, but also the full amount of the
debt that class members paid (whether owed or not) following entry
of the default judgments.  The amount of debt collected to date
totals approximately $90.0 million.  If the plaintiffs are
successful in proving their claims and in proving actual damages,
plaintiffs' damages may be subject to prejudgment interest and
trebling under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Haverhill Settlement Papers Being Drafted
------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that settlement
papers are currently being drafted to settle the class action by
Haverhill Retirement System.

The Company said, "On May 2, 2014, plaintiff Haverhill Retirement
System ("Haverhill")  filed an amended putative class action and
derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint") entitled Haverhill Retirement
System v. Asali, et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") against Harbinger Capital
Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners
Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Harbinger
Funds"), the members of the board of directors of Harbinger Group,
Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominal defendant Harbinger, as well as
Leucadia. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Harbinger breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchase of preferred
securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds that are
exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the Harbinger
Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the special
committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in
connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the
Harbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of
unjust enrichment against Leucadia.

"On April 1, 2014, the Chancery Court denied Haverhill's motion
for expedited proceedings associated with the complaint originally
filed by Haverhill on March 26, 2014.  Haverhill filed an amended
complaint on May 2, 2014.  On July 2, 2014, the defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs'
filed another amended complaint.

"The amended complaint dropped Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim
against Leucadia. With respect to remedies sought, the amended
complaint no longer sought an injunction against installing
Leucadia designees as Board members and no longer sought
rescission of Leucadia's right to select the director class to
which one of its designees would be appointed.  The parties
settled the case -- it was a non-monetary settlement that
included, among other things, additional disclosures by Harbinger.
A term sheet reflecting the settlement was signed on October 15,
2014.  Settlement papers are currently being drafted."


LEVEL 3: Approval of Deal in Rights-of-Way Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. is party to a number of purported
class action lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic
cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs'
land. In general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed
its networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories.

The Company has defeated motions for class certification in a
number of these actions but expects that, absent settlement of
these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to
seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only
lawsuit in which a class was certified against the Company, absent
an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a
settlement reached in November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and
former landowners, have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states, including payments of claims.

The settlement has also been presented to federal courts in
additional states and approval is pending, Level 3 said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.


LEVEL 3: Defending Against Severance, Contractor Termination Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a number
of former employees and third-party contractors have asserted a
variety of claims in litigation against certain Latin American
subsidiaries of the Company for separation pay, severance,
commissions, pension benefits, unpaid vacation pay, breach of
employment contracts, unpaid performance bonuses, property
damages, moral damages and related statutory penalties, fines,
costs and expenses (including accrued interest, attorneys fees and
statutorily mandated inflation adjustments) as a result of their
separation from the Company or termination of service
relationships. The Company is vigorously defending itself against
the asserted claims, which aggregate to approximately $43 million
at September 30, 2014.


LIVINGSTON ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Livingston Electrical Associates, Inc., and Daniel
Livingston, Case No. 1:14-cv-07053 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Livingston Electrical Associates, Inc. is a New York corporation
engaged in the construction and electrical installation industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


MAKER'S MARK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Schreiner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
two California consumers sued one of Kentucky's best-known
distilleries, saying Maker's Mark tries to spike demand and
sticker prices by falsely promoting its bourbon as being handmade.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Diego, accused the
distillery of deceptive advertising and business practices with
its "handmade" promotion on the labels of its bottles, known for
their distinctive red-wax seal.  The potential class-action suit
claims damages exceed $5 million.

A spokesman for Beam Suntory Inc., the parent of Maker's, said the
suit was meritless and the company will fight it.

The suit was brought by Safora Nowrouzi and Travis Williams, who
purchased Maker's Mark bourbon last month.

"Defendant promotes its whisky as being 'handmade' when in fact
defendant's whisky is manufactured using mechanized and/or
automated processes, which involves little to no human
supervision, assistance or involvement," the suit said.

The allegations were backed up by photos and video of the Maker's
Mark bourbon-making process, according to the suit filed on
Dec. 5.

The automated process includes grinding up grains, mixing the
grains with other ingredients and bottling the bourbon, it said.

Maker's Mark bourbon is produced at a distillery outside Loretto,
Kentucky.

The distillery is being expanded to pump up production to keep
pace with demand.  Maker's shipped about 1.4 million cases in
2013, up 10.7 percent from the prior year.

Maker's Mark has developed a passionate following among bourbon
drinkers.  The brand created a backlash last year by saying it was
cutting the amount of alcohol in each bottle to stretch its
whiskey supplies.  Producers quickly scrapped the idea.

Clarkson Hine, a spokesman for Beam Suntory, said on Dec. 9 "we
will defend this case vigorously and we are confident that we will
prevail."  He declined to comment on specifics of the suit, citing
company policy.

Mr. Williams purchased a bottle of Maker's for $32.99 from a
grocery store in San Diego, while Ms. Nowrouzi bought a bottle of
Maker's for $58.99 from a grocery store in Los Angeles County, the
suit said.  They made the purchases "under the false impression
that the whisky was of superior quality by virtue of being
'Handmade' and thus worth an exponentially higher price as
compared to other similar whiskies," the suit said.

Other spirits makers have faced legal challenges over labeling
claims.  Executives at Templeton Rye said earlier this year they
will change labels on bottles of their whiskey to clarify that the
beverage is distilled in Indiana, not Iowa.


MF GLOBAL: Feb. 13 Futures Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If You Purchased or Sold a NYMEX Platinum Futures Contract or
NYMEX Palladium Futures Contract Between June 1, 2006 and April
29, 2010, Inclusive,

Then Your Rights Will Be Affected and You May Be Entitled to a
Benefit

Please be advised that this notice is separate and in addition to
the previously published notice concerning the Futures Plaintiffs'
prior $48,400,000 settlement with the Moore Capital Defendants and
Defendant Joseph Welsh and requires your separate review.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
James W. Giddens as trustee for the liquidation of MF Global Inc.
under the Securities Investor Protection ACT.  MFGI was, prior to
the SIPA Proceeding, a defendant in the class action In re:
Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig. (Platinum/Palladium
Futures Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.) ("Futures Action")
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The Court has scheduled a public Fairness Hearing on
February 13, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY,
Courtroom 20B.

In order to resolve the claims against MFGI, (1) the Trustee has
agreed, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, to the
allowance of a final, non-appealable allowed claim in the MF
Global SIPA Proceeding in the amount of $18,753,571.43 for the
benefit of the Futures Class; (2) MF Global's insurance carrier
has agreed, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, to make
an all-cash payment totaling $4,672,500; and (3) MF Global
Holdings, Ltd. has agreed to provide further specific
consideration to the Futures Plaintiffs and the Physical Class,
including an all-cash payment of $800,000 in consideration for the
Physical Plaintiffs' agreement to assign certain rights in
relation to an anticipated judgment against Defendant Joseph
Welsh. See Settlement Agreement and mF Global Holdings Agreement
available at www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

MFGI and the Trustee have consistently and vigorously denied the
Futures Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Futures Plaintiffs, the Trustee does not admit
and instead continues to deny MFGI engaged in any unlawful
conduct, and denies any member of the Futures Class suffered
compensable damages.  Absent a settlement, the Trustee would
continue to vigorously oppose each and every aspect of the Futures
Plaintiffs' claims and alleged damages.

There is a separate settlement with Defendant MF Global involving
certain transactions in physical platinum and physical palladium.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and other important documents
are available on the settlement website at
www.PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com.

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at (888) 206-5360 or at the below
address:

PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT -- PHYSICAL ACTION
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
PO Box 170500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
info@PlatinumPalladiumFuturesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Futures Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before April 29,
2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the settlement website
referenced above. If you are a member of the Futures Class but do
not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order
approving the Settlement Agreement. All objections must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the formal
Settlement Notice and must be filed with the Court and served on
the Parties' counsel by January 21, 2015.  All requests to be
excluded from the Settlement must be made in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be
received by the Settlement Administrator no later than January 9,
2015.  You may obtain a Request for Exclusion form on the
settlement website referenced above.  However, it is the Trustee's
position that if anyone seeks to be excluded from the Settlement
and did not file a bankruptcy proof of claim in the SIPA
Proceeding on or before June 2, 2014, such claim is late filed and
should be disallowed and expunged.  Additionally, the Trustee
asserts that the claim of anyone excluded from the Settlement
(even if a timely bankruptcy proof of claim was filed) will be
subject to the claims allowance process in the Bankruptcy Court
and may be subject to denial and expungement.


MF GLOBAL: Feb. 13 Physical Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If You Purchased, Invested In, or Otherwise Acquired an Interest
in Platinum or Palladium Bullion in the United States Physical
or "Spot" Market Conforming to NYMEX "Good Delivery" Requirement,
or Purchased Platinum or Palladium Bullion of at
Least 99.95% Purity, During the Period of June 1, 2006 through
April 29, 2010, Inclusive, Then Your Rights Will Be Affected and

You May Be Entitled to a Benefit

Please be advised that this notice is separate and in addition to
the previously published notice concerning the Physical
Plaintiffs' prior $9,355,000 settlement with the Moore Capital
Defendants and Defendant Joseph Welsh and requires your separate
review.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
James W. Giddens as trustee for the liquidation of MF Global Inc.
under the Securities Investor Protection ACT.  MFGI was, orior to
the SIPA Proceeding, a defendant in the class action In re:
Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig. (Platinum/Palladium
Physical Action), 10-cv-3617 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.) ("Physical Action")
pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Court has scheduled a public
Fairness Hearing on February 13, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. at the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY, Courtroom 20B.

In order to resolve the claims against MFGI, (1) the Trustee has
agreed, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, to the
allowance of a final, non-appealable allowed claim in the MF
Global SIPA Proceeding in the amount of $2,317,857.14 for the
benefit of the Physical Class; (2) MF Global's insurance carrier
has agreed, subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court, to make
an all-cash payment totaling $577,000; and (3) MF Global Holdings,
Ltd. has agreed to provide further specific consideration to the
Physical Plaintiffs and the Physical Class, including an all-cash
payment of $200,000 in consideration for the Physical Plaintiffs'
agreement to assign certain rights in relation to an anticipated
judgment against Defendant Joseph Welsh. See Settlement Agreement
and mF Global Holdings Agreement available at
www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

MFGI and the Trustee have consistently and vigorously denied the
Physical Plaintiffs' claims.  By entering into the Settlement
Agreement with the Physical Plaintiffs, the Trustee does not admit
and instead continues to deny MFGI engaged in any unlawful
conduct, and denies any member of the Physical Class suffered
compensable damages.  Absent a settlement, the Trustee would
continue to vigorously oppose each and every aspect of the
Physical Plaintiffs' claims and alleged damages.

There is a separate settlement with Defendant MF Global involving
certain transactions in futures platinum and futures palladium.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and other important documents
are available on the settlement website at
www.PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at (888) 206-5360 or at the below
address:

PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM LITIGATION SETTLEMENT -- PHYSICAL ACTION
c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
PO Box 170500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53217-8091
info@PlatinumPalladiumPhysicalLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Physical Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before April 29,
2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the settlement website
referenced above.  If you are a member of the Physical Class but
do not file a Proof of Claim, you will still be bound by the
releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters
an order approving the Settlement Agreement.  All objections must
be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
formal Settlement Notice and must be filed with the Court and
served on the Parties' counsel by January 21, 2015. All requests
to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the formal Settlement Notice and
must be received by the Settlement Administrator no later than
January 9, 2015.  You may obtain a Request for Exclusion form on
the settlement website referenced above.  However, it is the
Trustee's position that if anyone seeks to be excluded from the
Settlement and did not file a bankruptcy proof of claim in the
SIPA Proceeding on or before June 2, 2014, such claim is late
filed and should be disallowed and expunged.  Additionally, the
Trustee asserts that the claim of anyone excluded from the
Settlement (even if a timely bankruptcy proof of claim was filed)
will be subject to the claims allowance process in the Bankruptcy
Court and may be subject to denial and expungement.


MICHAEL KORS: Sued Over Failure to Design POS Devices for Blinds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Michael Kors Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-09326 (C.D. Cal.,
December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices that
is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people.

Michael Kors Inc. operates as an accessories, footwear, and
apparel company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Harrison, Esq.
      THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
      25876 The Old Road, #304
      Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
      Telephone: (661) 257-2854
      Facsimile: (661) 257-3068
      E-mail: Mharrison30@aol.com


NATIONWIDE COLLECTIONS: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petrina Harrison v. Nationwide Collections, Inc. d/b/a PRA
Recovery, Case No. 1:14-cv-07027 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Nationwide Collections, Inc. is engaged in the business of debt
collection in the State of New York with addresses at 1045 Route
109, #105, Lindenhurst, New York 11757-1040.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      M. HARVEY REPHEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      Facsimile: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD: Faces "Showers" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roosevelt Showers, Gary Frith, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., A Bermuda Company
d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line, Case No. 1:14-cv-24584 (S.D. Fla.,
December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work performed over 40 hours in a week.

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. is in the business of operating cruise ships
out of several ports including the Port of Miami.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Brian Roller, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 374-6974
      E-mail: broller@szalaw.com


NCS INC: Sued Over Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NCS, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-09327 (C.D. Cal., December
3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

NCS, Inc. defines itself as a leader in consumer debt buying and
recovery and collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Faces "Lusero" Suit Over Gravesite Visit Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosaria Cortes Lusero, Marie Cruz Garcia and Michelle Caner, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The City
of New York, Case No. 1:14-cv-09533 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014),
is a civil-rights action that seeks to end the City's
disgraceful policy of barring gravesite visits on Hart Island.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation within the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Dunn, Esq.
      NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
      125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 607-3300
      E-mail: cdunn@nyclu.org


NEW ZEALAND: Seeka Kiwifruit Is Second Plaintiff in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bay of Plenty Times reports that Seeka Kiwifruit Industries has
taken the position of second plaintiff representing the post-
harvest class in the Kiwifruit Claim filed on Nov. 27 in the High
Court, Wellington.

The claim seeks damages from the Attorney-General, representing
the Ministry of Primary Affairs (MPI), for financial losses
suffered because of alleged negligence over the Psa-V incursion.

Strathboss Kiwifruit Limited is the first plaintiff, representing
growers taking part in the class action, which is being supported
by LPF, a litigation funder.

In addition to representing the post-harvest class, Seeka has also
joined this action as New Zealand's biggest kiwifruit grower, it
said in a statement released on Nov. 28.  Seeka chief executive
Michael Franks said the company's independent legal opinion
supports the view that a strong case can be made confirming that
MPI, formerly the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, was
negligent and failed in its duty of care.

The Psa-V incursion has cost Seeka in excess of $45 million.

"Seeka respects the right of every grower and post-harvest
operator to fully consider their own circumstances and make their
own decision in relation to this matter," said Mr. Franks.

In entering the claim, Seeka noted industry concerns and has
sought legal guidance to ensure that the plaintiffs' funding
agreement with LPF fully protects all those joining the claim
against legal costs in the event of an adverse outcome.

"As a primary industry stakeholder, we owe it to ourselves and our
industry counterparts to ensure that the border biosecurity
controls are maintained to the highest possible standards so that
similar outbreaks are never repeated.  Considering the financial
and human impact of Psa-V on our people, our growers and our
shareholders, we believe the issue should be considered and
determined by the courts.  Seeka believes in accountability," said
Seeka chairman Fred Hutchings.

Seeka, as a plaintiff, will appoint its own representative to the
Kiwifruit Claim committee in due course.

"Seeka has a major ongoing commitment to research and development
and has worked closely with industry groups and growers to deal
with the damage caused by Psa-V," said Mr. Franks.

"While parts of our industry are in recovery, growers are still
suffering its effects and many have incurred significant financial
losses in addition to emotional and psychological stress.  This
claim is focused only on losses suffered by the kiwifruit industry
participants and is not directed in any way at the single point of
entry structure of the industry, which Seeka fully supports."


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Recorded $13.8 Million of Costs for Recalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
recorded $13.8 million of costs during the nine months ended
September 30, 2014 for the cost of the recall of harness buckles
on select car seats.

In February 2014, Graco, a subsidiary of the Company, announced a
voluntary recall in the U.S. of harness buckles used on
approximately 4 million toddler car seats manufactured between
2006 and 2013. As a result of the recall, substantially all
affected car seats which were at retail locations or in customer
warehouses have been reworked in the field or returned to the
Company for rework. In July 2014, Graco announced that it had
agreed to expand the recall to include certain infant car seats
manufactured between July 2010 and May 2013. There have been no
reported injuries associated with the recalled harness buckles
used on these toddler or infant car seats.

The Company recorded $13.8 million of costs during the nine months
ended September 30, 2014 for the cost of the above recalls. The
Company believes that any additional costs of executing the recall
will not be significant. However, the amount recorded does not
include any fines or penalties that may result from any
governmental investigation into the circumstances related to the
recalls.


OCEAN FIVE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Rodriguez, Gloria De Los A. Fundora and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Ocean Five Hotel,
L.L.C. and Hassan Jalali-Bidgoli, Case No. 1:14-cv-24597 (S.D.
Fla., December 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a boutique hotel in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, PA
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Telephone: (305) 865-6766
     Facsimile: 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


OGLETHORPE POWER: Faces Patronage Capital Litigation in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oglethorpe Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on March
13, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb
County, Georgia, against the Company, Georgia Transmission and
three of the Company's member distribution cooperatives.

The Company said, "Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July
28, 2014. The amended complaint challenges the patronage capital
distribution practices of Georgia's electric cooperatives and
seeks to certify a defendant class of all but one of our 38
members. It was filed by four former consumer-members of four of
our members on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all
former consumer-members of our members."

"Plaintiffs claim that approximately 30% of all the defendants'
total allocated patronage capital belongs to former consumer-
members. Plaintiffs also allege that patronage capital owed to
former consumer-members includes patronage capital allocated by us
to our members but not yet distributed to our members. Plaintiffs
claim that the patronage capital of former consumer-members held
by defendants and the proposed defendant class should be retired
immediately when the consumer-members end their membership by
terminating service, or alternatively, according to a revolving
schedule of no longer than 13 years from the date of its
allocation and seek relief to effect such retirements. Plaintiffs
further seek to require the defendants to adjust rates in order to
establish and maintain reasonable reserves to fund patronage
capital retirements on this basis. Plaintiffs also claim that
defendants and the proposed defendant class should be required to
adopt policies to periodically retire the patronage capital of all
consumer-members on a revolving schedule of no longer than 13
years from the date of its allocation.

"Our first mortgage indenture restricts our ability to distribute
patronage capital.  Although not expected, if we were ordered by
the Court to make distributions of our patronage capital, our
first mortgage indenture would require us to raise our rates to a
level sufficient so that we could comply with the current
patronage capital distribution restrictions, and the rate
increases required to meet the Plaintiffs' demands would be
significant for a period of years."


OGLETHORPE POWER: Faces 2nd Patronage Capital Litigation in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oglethorpe Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on August
20, 2014, a second patronage capital lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of DeKalb County against the Company, Georgia
Transmission, and two of the Company's member distribution
cooperatives.

The Company said, "The case was filed by two alleged current
consumer-members of the two member distribution cooperatives named
in the lawsuit. Similar to the above described litigation, this
complaint challenges the patronage capital distribution practices
of Georgia's electric cooperatives; however, one notable
difference is that the first case, seeks to bring claims on behalf
of former members while this second case seeks to bring claims on
behalf of current members. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants have (i) retained patronage capital for an unreasonably
long period of time; (ii) conspired with each other to deprive
consumer-members of their patronage capital; and (iii) breached
bylaw provisions allegedly requiring that patronage capital be
retired when the financial condition of the cooperative will not
be impaired. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and equitable
relief, including an order declaring that the defendants be
required to retire patronage capital "according to a regular,
reasonable revolving plan." Similarly to the litigation described
above, although not expected, if we were ordered by the Court to
make distributions of our patronage capital, our first mortgage
indenture would require us to raise our rates to a level where we
could comply with current patronage capital distribution
restrictions and the rate increases required to meet the
Plaintiff's demands could be significant for a period of years.
The plaintiffs seek to certify three plaintiffs' classes but do
not seek to certify a defendants' class."


OPKO HEALTH: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in
a class action lawsuit did not appeal the dismissal order or file
an amended complaint.

The Company said, "On April 29, 2013, we were named in a putative
class action filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in and
for Clark County, Nevada against PROLOR (now known as OPKO
Biologics), the members of the PROLOR Board of Directors,
individually (including Drs. Frost and Hsiao and Steven Rubin),
and the Company. From May 1, 2013 through May 6, 2013, we were
named in an additional five putative class actions suits filed in
the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for Clark County, Nevada
against the same defendants. On July 17, 2013, these suits were
consolidated, for all purposes, into an amended class action
complaint. The lawsuit is brought by purported holders of PROLOR's
common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of PROLOR's stockholders, asserting claims that PROLOR's Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger by purportedly failing to maximize stockholder value, that
PROLOR and its Board of Directors failed to disclose material
information to PROLOR's stockholders, and that the Company aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit
seeks monetary damages, including increased consideration to
PROLOR's stockholders, equitable relief, including, among other
things, rescission of the Merger Agreement along with recissionary
damages, and an award of all costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees. On May 5, 2014, the court issued an order
dismissing all claims as to all defendants without prejudice, and
the plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal or file an amended
complaint."


ORANGECREST SELF: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Smith" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abrendal Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Orangecrest Self Storage, LP, Case No. 5:14-cv-02492
(C.D. Cal., December 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Orangecrest Self Storage, LP provides storage space for
consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss SEPTA Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
decision from the court on the motions to dismiss a class action
complaint by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
("SEPTA") is pending.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and
former directors and executive officers (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-
3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated
March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of
March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
lending practices and financial results, including misleading
statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit
practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan
portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's
March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class
certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees
and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA
was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff
on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.
Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time.

On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or
before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm
and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering
of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August
23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of
their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered
oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument
on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was
held on April 29, 2014. A decision from the court on the motions
to dismiss is pending.

The Second Scheduling Order stays all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informs the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
will be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

The matter is currently progressing through the legal process. The
Orrstown Defendants believe that the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously against those claims, and as a result, no accrual for
losses have been established for this matter.

The Company is a bank holding company that has elected status as a
financial holding company, with a wholly-owned bank subsidiary,
Orrstown Bank.


PACKAGING CORP: Kleen Products Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
court granted final approval to the settlement of the Kleen
Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al class action
lawsuit.

During 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard
producers were named as defendants in five purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman
Act. The lawsuits were consolidated in a single complaint under
the caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants conspired
to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and
effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase
prices of containerboard products during the period of August 2005
to October 2010 (the time of filing of the complaint). The
complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of all
purchasers of containerboard products during such period.

"On April 4, 2014, we reached an agreement with the
representatives of the class to settle this lawsuit for $17.6
million. These costs were recorded in "Other expense, net" in our
Consolidated Income Statement for the nine months ended September
30, 2014. On May 6, 2014, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Notice of the proposed settlement was mailed to
potential class members and $17.6 million was paid to the
settlement fund escrow account in June 2014. The court granted
final approval to the settlement on September 4, 2014," the
Company said.

PCA is the fourth largest producer of containerboard in the United
States and the third largest producer of white papers in North
America, based on production capacity.


PORSCHE SE: Faces Class Action Over Volkswagen Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------
Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that investors
suing Porsche SE have asked a German court to link several
lawsuits across the country related to the company's failed
attempt to acquire Volkswagen AG.

Andreas Tilp, an attorney representing institutional investors
seeking more than EUR2 billion (US$2.5 billion) in a pair of
lawsuits, said he filed the request at the Braunschweig court.  If
the court grants the request, the suits pending in other courts
would be halted until his case is resolved, Mr. Tilp said in an
interview on Nov. 26.

Porsche is fighting suits filed by hedge funds and individual
investors in courts in Braunschweig, Frankfurt, Hanover and
Stuttgart, that are seeking a total of EUR5 billion.  Mr. Tilp is
seeking to have his suit classified as a test case under a German
law that creates a process akin to U.S. class actions.

"If a test case is opened, more investors could join the suit in
an easy way and for less money," said Mr. Tilp.  "This would bring
a turbo effect to the cases."

Mr. Tilp is the lead attorney in several suits under Germany's
mass test law, which was introduced at the beginning of the last
decade to cope with 16,000 investors suing Deutsche Telekom AG
over a share sale.  The law centralizes the evidence phase in
capital market cases in which a large number of investors claim to
have been hurt by the same action.

Mr. Tilp ultimately lost the Deutsche Telekom test case judgment
in 2012 after a decade of litigation.  He has appealed that
ruling.

Porsche spokesman Albrecht Bamler declined to comment on the bid,
saying that the suits are unfounded.


PROTEIN SCIENCES: "McEvoy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McEvoy, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Protein Sciences
Corporation, and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by Protein Sciences Corporation v. Protein Sciences
Corporation, and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by Protein Sciences Corporation, Case No. 7:14-cv-09548
(S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Protein Sciences Corporation is engaged in the pharmaceutical
services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
      Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS MORELLI & BROWN
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Karl Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      Facsimile: (516) 747-5024
      E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com
              mtompkins@lmblaw.com

         - and -

      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      Suzanne Brooke Leeds, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net
              sleeds@vandallp.com


PHILADELPHIA FEDERAL: Doesn't Provide Handicap Parking, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Philadelphia Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:14-cv-
06885 (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act regulations regarding handicap parking.

Philadelphia Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered
at 12800 Townsend Road Philadelphia, PA 19154.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com


SANOFI: Faces "Mofsenson" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Mofsenson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sanofi, Christopher A. Viehbacher and Jerome
Contamine, Case No. 1:14-cv-09624 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical company that researches,
develops and manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and
vaccines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
William Kader, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Christopher Garabedian,
and Sandesh Mahatme, Case No. 1:14-cv-14318 (D. Mass., December 3,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the discovery and development of unique RNA-based therapeutics
for the treatment of rare and infectious diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Steven P. Harte, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
              steven@blockesq.com
              joel@blockesq.com


SENTINEL OFFENDER: Cannot Extend Sentences to Collect More Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Private contractors charged with supervising misdemeanor probation
terms cannot extend sentences to collect more fees, Georgia's top
court ruled, reports Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service.

Georgia allows private probation companies to supervise offenders
convicted of minor violations that do not warrant jail time.
Probation is usually imposed when offenders cannot pay their
traffic tickets and other misdemeanor fines.

Thirteen people who were sentenced to probation in two counties in
Georgia sued their for-profit probation supervisor, Sentinel
Offender Services, claiming it charged them unauthorized fees in
violation of their due-process rights.

The plaintiffs, all of whom were convicted of at least one
misdemeanor, alleged that Sentinel illegally changed the terms of
their sentences, added conditions not included in their original
court-ordered probation, and got some of them arrested based on
their failure to comply with those added conditions.

Three of the probationers claimed that Sentinel collected or tried
to collect excessive fees by seeking probation-revocation warrants
against them after their original probation terms expired.

Others claimed that Sentinel unlawfully tolled their sentences to
charge additional fees and imposed electronic monitoring and drug
and alcohol testing not authorized under Georgia's private-
probation statute.

After certifying the plaintiffs' lawsuits as class actions in each
county, a state court ruled that private probation firms had no
authority to recommend sentence extensions or to collect
electronic-monitoring fees from misdemeanor probationers.

The ruling granted the plaintiffs recovery of any unauthorized
supervision fees, but allowed Sentinel to keep fees from Columbia
County where the company's contract was actually invalid because
it had not been approved by the commission.

Georgia's Supreme Court expanded the recovery for probationers in
its Nov. 24 resolution of the consolidated appeals, finding the
disgorgement of fees appropriate in Columbia County, even for fees
that could have been collected under a valid contract.

Without a valid contract, Sentinel had no authority to provide
probation supervision services or charge for them, the 41-page
opinion states.

The court agreed that private probation supervisors cannot extend
sentences beyond the statutory one year for misdemeanor
convictions, and that probationers are entitled to recover
unlawfully collected supervision fees.

As to electronic monitoring, however, the court found this a
proper condition of probation that may be applied to probationers
under private supervision.

Electronic monitoring fees imposed by the sentencing court and
collected during original sentence terms cannot be recovered, the
ruling states.

Though the probationers had challenged the constitutionality of
Georgia's private-probation statute, neither the trial court nor
the Georgia Supreme Court found any violation of due process.

The allegations and evidence against Sentinel are troubling, but
the law prohibits illegal or unreasonable probation fees; does not
allow courts to improperly delegate their duties to probation
officers; and does not violate probationers' rights, the court
found.

"While the supervision of probation is a function historically
performed by state probation officers, the mere act of privatizing
these services does not violate due process," Chief Justice Hugh
Thompson wrote for the court.

He cited the trial court's finding that "most of the injuries
alleged by the plaintiffs in these cases occurred not because of
Sentinel's compliance with the restrictions placed upon it by the
private probation statutory framework, but because of Sentinel's
failure or the failure of its employees to abide by the limited
statutory authority granted."

Since all the plaintiffs were convicted of misdemeanors and placed
on probation as an alternative to jail time, the statute cannot be
said to condone imprisonment for debt, the ruling states.

The trial court must reconsider class certification on remand
since its decision to certify the plaintiffs' classes was based on
a ruling that was reversed in part.

State legislators from both parties welcomed the ruling, noting
the need for stricter supervision of private probationers, who may
charge low-income offenders unnecessary fees and keep them on
probation for longer than ordered by courts.

"There are companies that see Georgia as a ripe business
opportunity and I think we need to be a business-friendly state
but not at the expense of our citizens," Georgia House Minority
Leader Stacey Abrams told National Public Radio.  "What (the court
decision) signals to me is that the General Assembly has an
affirmative obligation to ensure that any court system that uses
these companies does so in a way that does not penalize the poor."

Rep. Wendell Willard, the Republican chair of the House Judiciary
Committee, said the state must find ways to reduce the number of
low-level offenders on probation.

"I think we're just overusing and abusing, perhaps, the need for
probation," Wendell told NPR.

Georgia has more people on probation for low-level offenses than
any other state, at a rate that's quadruple the national average,
according to an NPR report.

Earlier this year, Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that would have
expanded the power of probation companies and allowed them to
continue charging monthly fees during extended probation terms.

The cases in the Supreme Court of Georgia are:

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. GLOVER, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1033/S14X1036;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC, et al. v. GILYARD, et al.; and
     vice versa, Case Nos. S14A1035/S14X1034;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. TENNILLE, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1037/S14X1038;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. OSBORN, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1039/S14X1040;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. MARTIN,  et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1041/S14X1042;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. CASH, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1251/S14X1252;

   * ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. CASH et al., Case No. S14A1253;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. ASHLEY, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1254/S14X1255;

   * ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. ASHLEY, et al., Case No. S14A1256;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. HAYES, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1257/S14X1258;

   * ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. HAYES, et al., Case No. S14A1259

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. STEPHENS, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1260/S14X1261;

   * ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. STEPHENS, et al., Case No. S14A1262;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. BARRETT, et al.; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1263/S14X1264;

   * ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. BARRETT, et al., Case No. S14A1265;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC, et al. v. CARTER; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1266/S14X1267;

   * ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. CARTER, et al., Case No. S14A1268;

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC, et al. v. HUCKS; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1269/S14X1270; and

   * SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC, et al. v. MANTOOTH; and vice
     versa, Case Nos. S14A1271/S14X1272.


SHEA HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Rotting Redmond Homes
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Puget Sound Business Journal, reports that
attorneys representing Trilogy Redmond Ridge homeowners with
houses built by Shea Homes said they've filed the largest mass-
action lawsuit in Seattle history against the home builder, whom
they're accusing of building homes without enough protection from
the elements.

In response, Shea Homes said the lawsuit is "misleading,
intentionally inflammatory and unnecessary."

The amended lawsuit adds to the suit filed in October by
attorneys, and now the legal action, according to the attorneys,
includes more than 1,500 plaintiffs, accounting for 960 of the
1,521 homes at Trilogy, a community for over-55 residents.

The latest lawsuit includes "new allegations against Shea Homes
for faulty roof construction, lack of roof flashing and failure to
properly seal homes from rats, mice, squirrels, frogs, insects and
other vermin, resulting in widespread wood rot and infestations."
"We have inspected over one thousand homes at Trilogy and
documented that each home has incurred tens of thousands of
dollars in damages," said Steve Berman, one of the attorneys
representing the group of homeowners, in a statement.

But Shea Homes officials say they're working with Trilogy
homeowners to make repairs to the houses, and the lawsuit wasn't
necessary.

"We are encouraging homeowners to speak with others in the
community who have chosen the path of repair/settlement over
litigation that may take years to resolve and may not be
successful," said Robb Pigg, vice president of operations for
Shea, in a statement.


SHREE SHAYMAJI: Faces "Peets" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Ann Peets, Ashley Miller, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Shree Shaymaji Corp., Michigan Corporation,
Shree Rajji Corp., Michigan Corporation, and Ketan Patel, Case No.
1:14-cv-01252 (W.D. Mich., December 4, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Subway Sandwich Shops in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Sterken, Esq.
      RODENHOUSE KUIPERS, PC
      678 Front St., Ste. 176
      Grand Rapids, MI 49504
      Telephone: (616) 451-4000
      E-mail: james@rodenhouselaw.com


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Investigates Claims in 4 Hawaii Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the claims
asserted in the four lawsuits filed against the Company in the
Hawaii First Circuit Court.

Four lawsuits (the "Cases") have been filed against the Company in
the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke
Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.

The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a putative class
action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe
houses.  Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then
re-filed with a new representative plaintiff.

Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe
against the Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie
holdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the Company
failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the products'
susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments.

Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance company
for the builders and developers against the Company claiming the
insurance company expended funds to correct problems allegedly
caused by the Company's products.

Case 4 is a putative class action brought, like Case 1, by owners
of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.  In Case 4, Haseko
Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the Ocean Pointe
development, brought a third party complaint against the Company
alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable are
actually the fault of the Company. Similarly, Haseko's sub-
contractors on the Ocean Pointe development brought cross-claims
against the Company seeking indemnity and contribution for any
amounts for which they may ultimately be found liable.

None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought,
although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1
seeks punitive damages.  Cases 1 and 4 have been consolidated.  In
December 2012, the Court granted the Company summary judgment on
the claims asserted by the plaintiff homeowners in Cases 1 and 4,
and on the third party complaint and cross-claims asserted by
Haseko and the sub-contractors, respectively, in Case 4.

In April 2013, the Court granted Haseko and the sub-contractors'
motion for leave to amend their cross-claims to allege a claim for
negligent misrepresentation.

The Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the
claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the
cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown
to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the
general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.  At this
time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable under
any legal theory and the extent of such liability, if any, are
unknown.  Management believes the Cases may not be resolved for an
extended period in the absence of agreement to settle the Cases
and other related legal proceedings.  The Company is defending
itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.


SOUTHERN CROSS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valladares" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter A. Recinos Valladares and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Southern Cross Yachts, Inc. and Roger
West, Case No. 1:14-cv-24598 (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Southern Cross Yachts, Inc. is a premier brokerage company that
sells power boats and yachts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, PA
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Telephone: (305) 865-6766
     Facsimile: 865-7167
     E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, that the MDL action is in the
early stages of discovery.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of
a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False
Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under
seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam
complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states
and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our
answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally
denying the allegations therein. Also, as previously disclosed,
Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issued
civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made on
their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided
whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the
early stages of discovery.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court
in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in
state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these related
actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized
pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action,
generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in
the early stages of discovery.

"We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of
our customer contracts and that these complaints are without
merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of
these lawsuits.

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and
we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of
reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to
make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature
uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the proceedings are at an early
stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable
proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance
in making estimates."

The Company is in the business of providing regulated and
compliance solutions to healthcare and commercial businesses.


STERICYCLE INC: Discovery in Junk Fax Lawsuit Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, that discovery in the Junk
Fax lawsuit case is proceeding.

The Company said, "On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual
plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other "similarly
situated" persons. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to
plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks
certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to
class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500
for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the
TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if
the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. On May
22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying
the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is proceeding.

"We have not accrued any amounts in respect of the TCPA action,
and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range
of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to
make such an estimate because (i) the proceedings are at an early
stage and discovery is ongoing and (ii) other reported TCPA claims
have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being
dependent on its own unique facts and circumstances. We review all
of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and
we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably possible loss or
range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to
make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of
reasonably possible losses is material to our financial
statements."

The Company is in the business of providing regulated and
compliance solutions to healthcare and commercial businesses.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Parties Await Ruling in Class Cert. Denial Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank await the Court's
ruling in the plaintiff's appeal from the denial of class
certification, Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30.

Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank was filed in the Fulton County State
Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on
August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged
to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions
are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury
laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of
civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and
received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all
Georgia citizens who have incurred such overdraft fees within the
last four years where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest
rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.

SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,
2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this
decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that
the appeal was prematurely granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February
26, 2014. The parties have filed briefs and conducted oral
arguments, and now await the Court's ruling.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Still Faces Company Stock Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. continues to face the Company Stock Class
Action after the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer,
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Defendants and plaintiffs filed separate motions for the District
Court to certify its October 25, 2010 order for immediate
interlocutory appeal.

On January 3, 2011, the District Court granted both motions.
On January 13, 2011, defendants and plaintiffs filed separate
petitions seeking permission to pursue interlocutory appeals with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit
Court"). On April 14, 2011, the Circuit Court granted defendants
and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in
separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these
appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home
Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented.

On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of
The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an
order remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an
appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the
filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), which held that
ESOP fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect
to employer stock plans. The Eleventh Circuit has remanded the
case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light
of Dudenhoeffer.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Consolidate Appeals Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, that the motion of the
plaintiffs in the Mutual Funds Class Actions requesting
consolidation of appeals remains pending.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiff purports to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and
seeks to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to
dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On
October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action.
Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion
to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, Plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion remains pending.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Brown, et al. Case Transferred to Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, that on June 27, 2014, the
Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in another putative class
action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the
inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the
Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Accord in Lender-Placed Insurance Actions Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, that the Court entered an
order approving the settlement in the SunTrust Mortgage Lender
Placed Insurance Class Actions.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. has been named in three putative class
actions similar to those that other financial institutions are
facing which allege that the Company acted improperly in
connection with the practice of force placing homeowners'
insurance in certain instances. Generally, the plaintiffs in these
actions allege that STM violated various duties by failing to
properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by
receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers
of such insurance. The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. STM filed a motion
to dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and
denied in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. The third case, Yaghoub
Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

STM has filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the
case. The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the
Southern District of Florida. STM has entered into an agreement to
settle these cases in the context of a nationwide settlement
class.

On October 24, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the
settlement. STM's anticipated liability in this settlement has
been fully accrued and is reflected in the Company's financial
statements at September 30, 2014. The plaintiffs in Mahdavieh have
opted out of the class action settlement and their case will
proceed on an individual basis.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Case Stayed Pending 3rd Cir. Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, that SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named
as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the
companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements
with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs
allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who
agree to reinsure loans referred to them by SunTrust with Twin
Rivers results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance
premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this
arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of
borrowers.

The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The
second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v.
SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of
certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases
were lifted. The plaintiffs in Acosta voluntarily dismissed this
case.

A motion to dismiss was filed in the Thurmond case. In June 2014,
the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in part and denied in
part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the
statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably
tolled. The case is stayed again pending a decision in a case
before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Riddle v. Bank of
America Corp., a case analyzing the ability to equitably toll
claims under RESPA.


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Illegal Corn Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harold S. Moore and Karl Otte, Jr. v. Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-00127 (S.D. Iowa, December 3, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to
farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting,
transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera
corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Sykes, Esq.
      DAVID E. SYKES, P.C.
      60 S. Main Street
      Fairfield, IA 52556
      Telephone: (641) 472-5141
      Facsimile: (641) 472-6800
      E-mail: davidsykes@davidsykeslaw.com

         - and -

      Charles F. Speer, Esq.
      SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A.
      104 West 9th Street, Suite 400
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 472-3560
      Facsimile: (816) 421-2150
      E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
      James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
              dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
              jobrien@seegerweiss.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Teisl" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Teisl, Susan Teisl, Veronica Stewart, Michael Cunningham,
and Erik Boone, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09357
(C.D. Cal., December 4, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard B. Drubel, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      26 South Main Street
      Hanover, NH 03755
      Telephone: (603) 643-9090
      Facsimile: (603) 643-9010
      E-mail: rdrubel@bsfllp.com
              jvoegele@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivans Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (855) 467-0451
      Facsimile: (622) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
              smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

     John Kristensen, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
     12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Telephone: (310) 507-7924
     Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
     E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

        - and -

     Brent Hazzard, Esq.
     HAZZARD LAW, LLC
     P.O. Box 24382
     Jackson, MS 39225
     Telephone: (601) 977-5253
     Facsimile: (601) 977-5236
     E-mail: brent.hazzard@hazzardlaw.net

         - and -

     Amy L. Marino, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Telephone: (248) 266-2536
     Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
     E-mail: amarino@sommerspc.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Ritter" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Ritter v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09315
(C.D. Cal., December 3, 2014), lleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DeVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      E-mail: nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com
              tseaver@bermandevalerio.com


UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit Over Logan Massport Surcharge & Toll
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston.com reports that a class-action complaint filed in Suffolk
County alleges that Uber fleeces travelers to Logan Airport with
an $8.75 "Logan Massport Surcharge & Toll."

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly first identified the complaint,
Cullinane, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., which was filed in
Suffolk Superior Court's Business Litigation Session.

"Those Uber vehicles which are licensed livery services or taxi
services are only charged [a] $3.25 livery or $2.25 taxi fee if
picking up at Logan, and no fees are assessed for drop-offs.
There are no 'other costs related to airport trips' that Uber
incurs on trips to or from Logan.  Uber has imposed the fictitious
'Massport surcharge' upon tens of thousands of Logan-bound and
outbound passengers, and continues to do so."


UBER TECH: Judge Orders CEO to Hand Over Emails in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge ordered Uber Technologies Inc. CEO Travis Kalanick
and two other executives on Nov. 26 to hand over emails to the
plaintiffs in a proposed class action accusing Uber of misleading
passengers regarding what portion of their tips go to the drivers.
U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu largely granted
the plaintiffs' motion to obtain emails from Mr. Kalanick and Uber
vice president of operations Ryan Graves.  They'll also get
missives from Andrew MacDonald, who was the general manager of
Uber's Chicago office when Uber switched from requiring passengers
to pay a fixed 20 percent gratuity to allowing variable tip
amounts, Judge Ryu said.

"The CEO and the vice president of operations were likely involved
in those decisions," she ruled in an Oakland courtroom on Nov. 26.
"I am not persuaded by Uber's argument that it would be a burden."

Uber argued that it had already searched the email accounts of
five other Uber employees to find emails and documents related to
the search terms "taxi" and "gratuity."  Uber's attorney, Arthur
Roberts -- arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, said when the company turns over those
emails this month, the plaintiffs will find that it's more than
enough.

Those files are from five other general managers, who are akin to
the CEOs of the regions in which they work, Mr. Roberts said.
"They're the people who are the most knowledgeable about the
issues in this case."

"My ruling is my ruling, and I see that these are relevant," Judge
Ryu said.

Ms. Ehret sued Uber in January, claiming she used the company's
mobile app to hire a car in Chicago in September 2012, and was
charged the mandatory 20 percent tip on top of the cost of the
metered fare. She believed the money would go to the driver, but
that turned out not to be the case, her complaint said.

"Instead, Uber keeps a substantial portion of this additional
charge for itself as its own additional revenue and profit on each
ride arranged and paid for by consumers, including plaintiff and
the class," she said.

In September, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen, who is
presiding over the case, dismissed Ms. Ehret's allegation that
Uber breached its contract with passengers, but let stand her
claims that the rideshare company violated California's unfair
competition law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, according to
his order.

During oral arguments on the motion, Roberts told Judge Chen that
Ms. Ehret and her proposed nationwide class of customers can't
bring claims under California's Unfair Competition Law because a
California appeals court ruled that consumers have no legitimate
interest in what a company does with any mandatory charges it adds
to its bills.  According to Ms. Ehret's lawsuit, Uber charged her
a 20 percent gratuity she believed would go to the driver, but
kept a portion of that so-called tip for itself.

Plaintiffs are represented by Hall Adams III of Law Offices of
Hall Adams LLC, Jacie Campbell Zolna and Myron Milton Cherry of
Myron M. Cherry and Associates and Michael Francis Ram --
mram@rocklawcal.com -- of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Uber is represented by Amit B. Patel, Arthur Miles Roberts and
Stephen A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

The case is Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc., case number 3:14-cv-
00113, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Faces "Alexander" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Alexander, on his own behalf and on behalf of his beneficiary
son, Jordan Alexander, Corinna Klein, David Haffner, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. United Behavioral
Health operating as Optum Health Behavioral Solutions, Case No.
3:14-cv-05337 (N.D. Cal., December 4, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

United Behavioral Health is responsible for drafting and
promulgating the internal level of care and coverage determination
guidelines and adjudicates mental healthcare and substance abuse
claims on behalf of United Healthcare Insurance Company and Oxford
Health Plans, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meiram Bendat, Esq.
      PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
      8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 598-3690, x.101
      Facsimile: (310) 564-0040
      E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

         - and -

      D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
      Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 704-9600
      Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
      E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
              jcowart@zuckerman.com

         - and -

     Jason M. Knott, Esq.
     Andrew Caridas, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 778-1800
     Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
     E-mail: jknott@zuckerman.com
             acaridas@zuckerman.com


UNITED STATES: Air Force, DOD Don't Pay Proper OT Wage, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Eddins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United States of America Department of the Air Force
and United States of America Department of Defense, Case No. 4:14-
cv-00160 (E.D. Va., December 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime wages.

The Defendants own and operate all Langley Officer's Clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara Allyn Queen, Esq.
      LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES
      701 E Franklin St, PO Box 495
      Richmond, VA 23218-0495
      Telephone: (804) 643-9343
      E-mail: bqueen@lawrencelawyers.com


US CENTURY: 3rd Circuit Stays Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nina Lincoff, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that the 3rd District Court of Appeal stayed a case involving U.S.
Century Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), the
Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), and the bank's
shareholders.

The Doral-based bank, which is "undercapitalized" and is seeking
to be recapitalized by new investors and repay its taxpayer
bailout, has been tied up with a settlement agreement in a
shareholder lawsuit. Miami-Dade County Judge John W. Thornton had
ordered the bank to sign the settlement agreement by Nov. 26 or be
held in contempt of court and fined $100,000 a day.

The problem was that the FDIC and OFR warned the bank that signing
the class-action settlement violated its enforcement action and
could accrue fines for the financial institution -- potentially of
over $1 million a day.

The bank moved to appeal the court's approval of the settlement on
Nov. 25, and was hoping for a stay from the 3rd District Court of
Appeal   That stay came in at 9:15 a.m. Nov. 26, just an hour and
15 minutes before the bank's hearing was set before Judge
Thornton.

And while the $866-million asset bank and its representatives were
grateful for the stay, the financial institution had been ready to
sign.

"Pursuant to instructions, we were ready to perform the board's
prior instructions which were that, under compulsion, we have to
sign.  And we were ready," said Andres Rivero --
arivero@riveromestre.com -- of Coral Gables-based law firm Rivero
Mestre, the representative for U.S. Century Bank, during the
hearing.

"In other words, you already have the signed copy," Judge Thornton
replied.

"Everything the court instructed us to do was done.  We were
clearly never intending to disobey," Mr. Rivero said.

"Frankly the whole situation . . . the way I see this is you
protecting your client," Thornton said.

The saga began when U.S. Century minority shareholders filed a
claim that former officers and directors of the bank mismanaged
the institution and benefited from improper insider deals.

Earlier in November, Judge Thornton approved a settlement that
would pay those shareholders $4.5 million.  The FDIC and OFR's
objection is that because the settlement issues new shares to
former officers and directors, it violates the bank's enforcement
action.  The settlement calls for U.S. Century Bank to issue the
former officers and directors new shares of the bank to compensate
them for their $750,000 share of the payment.  Judge Thornton had
previously instructed the bank to sign the settlement --
regardless of the regulators' objections.

Moving forward, the 3rd District Court of Appeal has ordered the
other parties involved, including the shareholders who filed the
claim, to answer the court's questions by Wednesday, Dec. 3. U.S.
Century Bank then can reply by Nov. 28, which it will, Mr. Rivero
said.

"What the 3rd District said is that everything that has happened
up until now, stop that nonsense right now," Mr. Rivero said.

Following that, there is no deadline for the 3rd District Court of
Appeal to decide what to do.


VCA INC: To Defend Against Remaining Claims in "Duran" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims in the action, titled Jorge Duran vs. VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc., et. al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant
at one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action
lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs.
VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert
claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks
damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing
4 of the 8 claims of the complaint, including the claims for
failure to pay regular and overtime wages. We intend to continue
to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this action.
At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: Expects 2 Class Actions Consolidated With "Duran" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VCA Inc. expects two class actions will be consolidated with, or
related before the same judge hearing, the Duran action, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On July 16, 2014, two additional former
veterinary assistants filed a purported class action lawsuit
against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri
Brakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to
assert claims on behalf of current and former veterinary
assistants, kennel assistants, and client service representatives
employed by us in California, and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime
wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods,
improperly failed to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to
reimburse for certain business-related expenses, and engaged in
unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs."

"We currently expect that these two actions will be consolidated
with, or related before the same judge hearing, the Duran action.
At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on our results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole."


VCA INC: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Lopez" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The court denied VCA Inc.'s request for summary judgment in the
case, Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech
Diagnostics, Inc., et. al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company said, "On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided
courier services with respect to our laboratory clients in
California filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics
Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al.
Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit,
is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier
services in California. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on
behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery
Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, among
other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech
Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent
contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and
improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit
seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including
attorneys' fees and costs. We filed our answer to the complaint on
September 13, 2013. Written discovery is currently ongoing. We
filed a motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2014, and on
October 3, 2014 the court denied our request for summary
judgment."

"We are continuing to vigorously defend this action. At this time,
we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of
possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on our results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole."


VCA INC: "Graham" Lawsuit in Early Procedural Stage
---------------------------------------------------
The case Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc., is in an early procedural stage and the Company
intends to vigorously defend this action, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company said, "On May 12, 2014, an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. This case is in an early procedural stage and we intend
to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."


VIRGINIA MARBLE: "Banegos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Fernando Banegos, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Virginia Marble and Granite, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-01650 (E.D. Va., December 4, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Virginia Marble and Granite, Inc. describes itself as one stop
center for granite, marble, and quartz countertops, specializing
in fabrication as well as installation of granite countertops with
a retail sales location in the Commonwealth Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIVINT SOLAR: January 20 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP reminds
investors that they have until January 20, 2015 to file a motion
seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff against Vivint Solar, Inc.
Johnson & Weaver is the firm that filed the initial class action
complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against
Vivint Solar, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

If you purchased Vivint Solar common stock securities between
October 1, 2014 (the date of Vivint's "IPO") and November 10,
2014, we encourage you to contact our firm.  The case is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Additional Information about the Lawsuit:

Vivint Solar provides distributed solar energy to residential
customers.  It installs and owns solar energy systems through
long-term customer contracts.

The complaint charges certain Vivint Solar's officers and
directors, its controlling shareholder and the underwriters of its
IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On or about September 30, 2014, Vivint Solar and the underwriters
priced the IPO, and on October 1, 2014 filed the final Prospectus,
which forms part of the Registration Statement for the IPO, with
the SEC.  The IPO was successful for Vivint Solar and the
underwriters, with the Company issuing and selling 20.6 million
new shares of Vivint Solar common stock to the public at $16 per
share, raising approximately $329.6 million in gross proceeds.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements or omitted necessary material facts which misled
investors.  According to the complaint, under the rules and
regulations governing the preparation of the Registration
Statement, Vivint Solar was required to disclose at the time of
the IPO that ownership trends in the residential solar industry
had changed from long-term leasing to financing, that demand for
long-term leases had declined, and that growth in the Company's
operating expenses in the third quarter of 2014 had significantly
outstripped growth in revenue, resulting in much weaker sales
trends and significantly larger net losses than the market had
been led to expect.  The Registration Statement contained no such
disclosures.  Vivint Solar common stock currently trades at below
$11 per share, a more than 32% decline from the IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Vivint Solar common stock during the Class Period.  If you wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 15, 2014.  Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning
this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact lead
analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471.
If you email, please include your phone number.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits.


WARNER/CHAPPELL: Class Action Over Happy Birthday Rights Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal and Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, report that
a Warner Music Group Corp. unit and the plaintiff alleging the
unit's copyright for "Happy Birthday to You" is bunk each asked a
California federal judge on Nov. 25 to gift them a quick win in
the putative class action over the ubiquitous song.

Good Morning to You Productions Corp., lead plaintiff in the class
action seeking a declaration that the song is public domain and
restitution from Warner for rights payments obtained for its use,
and Warner on Nov. 25 filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
the declaratory judgment claim, urging U.S. District Judge George
H. King to rule on the copyright's validity.

Good Morning to You argues that when Warner acquired "Happy
Birthday" rights holder Summy-Birchard Co., it actually only
acquired "various piano arrangements" Summy-Birchard had
registered, which did not include the famous lyrics.

"Defendants cannot prove they own the song since there is no proof
that Summy Co. acquired rights to the lyrics from its author,"
plaintiffs' motion states.  "[Registration certificate] E51988
(including the deposit copy of the work covered by that copyright)
proves that defendants only own rights to a specific piano
arrangement and the obscure second verse, not the immensely
popular song itself."

Warner, however, argues that plaintiffs' arguments are "long on
rhetoric" but short on supporting law or evidence.

"The simple fact is that defendants (Warner/Chappell) own
federally registered copyrights in Happy Birthday to You, the
registration certificates are prima facie evidence of the facts
that establish Warner/Chappell's ownership, and plaintiffs fail to
raise any genuine issue rebutting those presumptions," Warner's
motion states.

Good Morning to You, a production company working on a documentary
about the song, sued in New York federal court in June 2013,
claiming that the song was first copyrighted in 1893 and thus is
long past expiration.  The suit alleges Warner/Chappell had
unlawfully collected millions of dollars in licensing fees for the
tune by claiming it holds the exclusive right to control
distribution, performances and reproductions of it.

The company said it has uncovered documentary evidence that shows
"Happy Birthday" sprang out of "Good Morning to All," composed by
sisters Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill in the late 19th
century.  In 1893, the Hill sisters sold their rights to more than
70 songs, including "Good Morning to All," to Clayton F. Summy,
who published it in the songbook "Song Stories for Kindergarten,"
the production company said.

Copyright claims for the song didn't arise until 1934, when a
reincarnation of Summy's company, Summy Co. III, filed the first
of six copyright applications related to the song "Happy Birthday
to You," the suit says.  The following year, the company filed an
application for a copyright on a specific piano arrangement of the
song, and Warner/Chappell has asserted its rights to the song
based on that 1935 filing ever since, according to the suit.

The copyrights for "Happy Birthday to You" were either expired,
forfeited or invalid because they didn't contain "original works
of authorship" except for the piano arrangements, the complaint
alleges.  Good Morning to You said it had filed suit in response
to Warner/Chappell's demand that it pay a $1,500 licensing fee to
use the song in its documentary.

The current case, in California court, was filed by the same
parties a few days after the New York suit, which was voluntarily
dropped in June 2013.

On Nov. 25, Warner argued that even if the lyrics to "Happy
Birthday" were in use before the song was copyrighted in 1935, it
does not mean they are public domain, as long as the Hill sisters
did not copy them from someone else.

"So long as the Hill Sisters had not copied the lyrics from
someone else -- a proposition for which plaintiffs have put forth
no evidence -- the work remains original to them, and thus fully
eligible for copyright protection," the motion states.

Good Morning to You is represented by Betsy C. Manifold and Mark
Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Warner/Chappell is represented by Glenn D. Pomerantz, Kelly M.
Klaus and Melinda E. LeMoine -- Melinda.LeMoine@mto.com -- and
Adam I. Kaplan -- Adam.Kaplan@mto.com -- of Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP.

The case is Good Morning to You Productions Corp. et al. v.
Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-04460, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


WIS HOLDINGS: Faces "Hose" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hose, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WIS Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation
and Washington Inventory Service, Inc. d/b/a WIS International, a
California corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02869 (S.D. Cal.,
December 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are international companies that provide inventory
or data collection and merchandising services to large retail
stores across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Konecky, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


                              *********

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

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

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

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *