---

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

            Wednesday, January 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 15


                             Headlines

ADECCO USA: Fails to Pay Missed Meal and Rest Periods, Suit Says
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
ALLIED NEVADA: Court Keeps Slomnitsky as Lead Plaintiff
ALLIED RECREATION: Recalls Ambassador and Excursion Models
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration Class Action Waivers Valid Under FAA

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: 200,000 People Can Get Partial Refunds
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settles Kirin Deceptive Advertising Class Action
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Claims in MacBook Logic Board Class Suit
ARBOC SPECIALTY: Recalls Spirit of Mobility Model
ASTON MARTIN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: Faces Class Action Over Provident Collapse
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over "Stock-Drop"
BANKAMERICA: 8th Circuit Rejects Cy Pres Award in Class Action
BELL MOBILITY: Loses Appeal of 911 Fees Class-Action Judgment
BRAD LAKIN: Faces Foreclosure Complaint Over Bethalto Property

BOEING CO: Judge Tosses Remaining Age Discrimination Claims
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Ernst" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
BUILDING MATERIALS: "Stidham" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
CARLSON RESTAURANTS: Parker Waichman Comments on Wage Class Suit
CHRYSLER: Recalls Charger Model Due to Safety Warning Lamps

CIGNA CORP: Loses Bid to Reverse Pension Plan Reformation
CONAGRA FOODS: Class Cert. Bid in "Allen" Case Denied
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Wrongful Termination
CULLMAN COUNTY, AL: District Court Dropped From Class Action
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

DAN-D PAK: Recalls "Brittle - Sesame" Due to Off-Flavor
DEOLEO USA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Oil Class Action
DURHAM, CANADA: Regional Police Sued Over Racial Profiling
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Injuries Arising From Cymbalta Withdrawal
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Unitholders Question Oiltanking Acquisition

FACEBOOK INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Class Suit Over Privacy
FAMILY DOLLAR: Shareholders Cannot Block Merger With Dollar Tree
FLUIDMASTER INC: "Wyble" Suit Consolidated in Water Connector MDL
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Mustang Model Due to Possible Fuel Leak
GATES AUTOMOTIVE: "Mason" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

GRAND DADDY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Unpaid Overtime Class Action
GREAVES JAMS: Recalls Jam and Marmalade Products Due to Mold
HARRIS & HARRIS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Formally Resolves Federal Securities Action
INVENSENSE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

IRON ORE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Innu Communities Class Action
JAYCO: Recalls Eagle HT Fifth Wheel Trailer Models
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
JM SMUCKER: Florida Court Refuse to Certify Class in Crisco Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mikhlin" Suit in Missouri Dismissed

KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN: Dist. Ct. Ruling in Travelers Case Reversed
KPMG US: 1 Out of 10 Female Staff to Join Gender Bias Suit
LHC GROUP: "Chapman" FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Certification
LIFE PARTNERS: Securities Class Actions Stayed Pending SEC Action
LIFE PARTNERS: LPI's Appeal in "McDermott" Rejected

LIFE PARTNERS: Fifth Court of Appeals Stays Bellwether Trial
LIFE PARTNERS: No Trial Set in "Steuben" Class Action
LIONSTONE HOLDINGS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
LOC-SKY TRADING: Recalls Macau Honghong Cracker Due to Allergen
MAY COSMETICS: Recalls Mon-Platin Strengthening Hair Spray

MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls E Class, GLK Class and Sprinter Models
MOTORCITY CASINO: 6th Cir. Upholds FLSA Class Action Dismissal
NAT'L HOCKEY: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Concussion Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Class Action Over Public Housing Policing
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over SUV Defective Transmissions

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Weil Quaranta Files Class Action in Calif.
NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS and LFS ARTIC Models
PACIFIC BELL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Rest Period Class Suit
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Credit Reports
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Stockholders Suit as Stock Prices Fall

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Over All-Terrain Vehicles
PREVOST: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
REITMANS (CANADA): Recalls Infant Sleepers
RJ REYNOLDS: "Drake" Suit Transferred From M.D. to S.D. Florida
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Suit by Nude Protesters Continues

SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Conference Settlement Scheduled for June 29
SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Entered Into MOU to Settle "Bushansky" Action
RUIDOSO, NM: Settles Class Action Over Wasterwater Fees
SPARTAN: Recalls Gladiator Model Due to Broken Cooling Fan
STARCRAFT RV: Recalls Launch 17SB Model

SWEET SENSATIONS: Fails to Give Required Overtime Pay, Suit Says
SYNGENTA CORP: "Sanders" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: West Brooklyn Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL
SYNGENTA CORP: Corn Growers' Class Action Gains Momentum
THOMAS BUILT: Recalls Minotour School Bus Model

TRINITY COAL: Judge Certifies Security Guards' Class Action
UNITED NATIONS: Dist. Court Dismisses Suit Over Cholera Outbreak
WAL-MART STORES: Suit Over Contaminated Baby Wipes Dismissed

* ERISA Class Action Settlements Tops 1.3 Billion in 2014
* Florida Emerging as Plaintiff-Friendly Forum, Proskauer Says
* Top Class Actions Unveils Biggest Settlement Payments


                            *********


ADECCO USA: Fails to Pay Missed Meal and Rest Periods, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The staffing company Adecco failed to compensate employees when
they missed meal and rest periods, a class alleges in San Diego
County Superior Court, reports Courthouse News Service.

Incorporated in 1997 as a subsidiary of Adecco SA, Adecco USA Inc.
has offices in San Diego and employs more than 33,000 people, the
27-page complaint states.

Artin Nazarain, the lead plaintiff in the complaint, allegedly
worked for Adecco in California from November 2013 to July 2014.
He says Adecco classified him as a nonexempt employee, paid on an
hourly basis, thus entitling him to meal and rest periods, under
the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order.

"During the California class period, defendant from time to time
failed to provide the legally required off-duty meal breaks and
also failed to correctly provide rest breaks to the plaintiff and
the other California class members as required by the applicable
wage order and labor code," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff and
other California class members paid on an hourly basis were
required to perform work as ordered by the defendant for more than
five (5) hours during a shift without receiving a meal break as
evidenced by defendant's business records.  Defendant failed to
correctly compensate plaintiff and other California class members
when they missed their meal and rest breaks.  Defendant did not
have a policy or practice which correctly provided meal and rest
periods to the plaintiff and the other California class members."

Nazarain says Adecco also had a habit of improperly calculating
"compensation for the time worked by the plaintiff and the other
members of the California labor sub-class, even though defendant
enjoyed the benefit of this work, required employees to perform
this work and permitted or suffered to permit this work."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kohen, Esq., Kristin Ann, Esq., and Kristin Ann Shepard,
Esq. of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra,
report that a recent California federal district court order may
prove a massive boon to data breach class action plaintiffs.  The
Northern District of California order, issued in In re Adobe
Systems, Inc. Privacy Litigation, denied Adobe's motion to
dismiss.  The court found that the plaintiffs have standing to sue
based on their now-increased risk of future harm due to the
alleged compromise of their confidential information by hackers
who gained unauthorized access to Adobe's systems.

This ruling breaks with the majority view that increased risk of
identity theft following a data breach is insufficient to satisfy
the standing requirements of Article III of the United States
Constitution, as articulated in the Supreme Court's 2013 precedent
in Clapper v. Amnesty International.  Under Clapper, the threat of
injury must be "certainly impending" to give rise to standing.
Yet after a data breach, victims may not suffer financial harm
immediately.  Often, they may find that their identity or
financial accounts have been compromised months or years after the
breach.  As a result, most courts have dismissed data breach
putative class actions for lack of standing.

According to the Northern District of California, however, the
alleged disclosure of the plaintiffs' nonpublic personal
information, including usernames, passwords, and credit card
numbers, was sufficient injury to confer standing to sue.  The
court found that "the threatened harm alleged here is sufficiently
concrete and imminent to satisfy Clapper."

So far, the decision's effect is unclear.  But it certainly
provides additional support for plaintiffs seeking to assert
claims on behalf of a class injured by a data breach.
Nevertheless, the court noted that the most factually analogous
case, a data breach class action in the Southern District of Ohio,
reached the opposite conclusion.  Given the proliferation of data
heists targeting large corporations, it is likely that this
important question of law will continue to develop rapidly over
the coming months.


ALLIED NEVADA: Court Keeps Slomnitsky as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------
In MOVSES MARJANIAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SCOTT
A. CALDWELL, ROBERT M. BUCHAN, RANDY E. BUFFINGTON, STEPHEN M.
JONES, Defendants. JANET MARTINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED NEVADA GOLD
CORP., SCOTT A. CALDWELL, ROBERT M. BUCHAN, RANDY E. BUFFINGTON,
STEPHEN M. JONES, Defendants, NOS. 3:14-CV-0175-LRH-WGC, 2:14-CV-
0650-JCM-VCF, (D. Nev.) are federal securities class action
lawsuits on behalf of investors who purchased stock of Allied
Nevada between January 18, 2013, and August 5, 2013.  The lawsuits
assert that Allied Nevada's Form 10-Q filed on April 30, 2013,
"contained materially false and misleading representations about
Allied Nevada's risk factors, its management's discussion and
analysis, its disclosure controls and false misleading
certifications thereon."

In early 2013, Allied Nevada announced record production for the
fourth quarter of 2012, but added that the company fell short of
its production guidance due to "record cold temperatures" that
were "adversely affecting" its operations. Soon after, Allied
Nevada represented to investors that the company was "back on
track" and that the problems had been solved, in addition to other
remarks allegedly designed to encourage investment.  In one
instance, Allied Nevada President and CEO Scott Caldwell
represented that Allied Nevada was "going to have a very strong
quarter or a better quarter this quarter than last."

Plaintiffs allege that these statements, and others, led to
artificially inflated prices.  On April 30, 2013, Allied Nevada
issued a press release announcing disappointing results for the
first quarter of 2013.

Before the Court is plaintiff Richard Heil and State-Boston
Retirement System's motion for reconsideration of the Court's
prior order appointing Andrey Slomnitsky as lead plaintiff.

District Judge Larry R. Hicks entered an order on January 8, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/v1d5QBfrom
Leagle.com, holding that Heil/Boston failed to produce new
evidence that the Court must consider losses caused by the April
30, 2013 press release.  Accordingly, the Court declined to
reconsider its November 7, 2014 Order holding that Slomnitsky was
the presumptive lead plaintiff because he lost $233,437.60 that
was directly related to Allied Nevada's August 6, 2013 disclosure,
compared to Heil/Boston, which lost $149,465.81 as a result of the
August 6, 2013 corrective disclosure. The Court reaffirmed
Slomnitsky as the lead plaintiff in this class action.

Movses Marjanian, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Alba, Jr.,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, William M. O'Mara, The O'Mara Law Firm, PC &
David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Jose Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Sharp, Matthew
L. Sharp, Ltd.

Jeanette Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Sharp,
Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.

Janet Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog, Griffith H Hayes, Cooksey,
Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Jeff Croucier, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo Bergstrom LLP, Nicholas
Porritt, Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Sean P Connell, Palumbo Bergstrom
LLP.

LBP Holdings Ltd., Movant, represented by Francis P. McConville,
Pomerzntz LLP, Griffith H Hayes, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy &
Woog, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP & Andrew R.
Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog.

Richard Heil, Movant, represented by Naumon A Amjed, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & Kirk B. Lenhard, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP.

State-Boston Retirement System, Movant, represented by Christopher
Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael W. stocker, Labaton
Sucharow LLP & Kirk B. Lenhard, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP.

United Teamster Pension Fund-A, Movant, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Sherman Olson, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Susan Olson, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Thomas Frost, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP & Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd.

Beth Frost, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty &
Associates Chtd.

Beth Thomas, 2:14-cv-0650-LRH-WGC, Movant, represented by Patrick
R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates Chtd.

Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Defendant, represented by Thomas P
Erwin, Erwin & Thompson LLP.

Jeff Croucier, Defendant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo
Bergstrom LLP & Sean P Connell, Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.

Andrey Slomnitsky, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brian E Lunt,
Aaron & Paternoster, Ltd., Charles J Piven, Brower Piven & Martin
A. Muckleroy, Muckleroy Lunt.


ALLIED RECREATION: Recalls Ambassador and Excursion Models
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           29
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014541
TC ID number:             2014541
Manufacturer recall
number:                   141117ARG

Certain vehicles fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (CMVSS) 207 - Anchorage of Seats and CMVSS 210 Seat Belt
Assembly Anchorages.  The driver and passenger bucket seat
pedestal brackets may have been improperly installed at the time
of assembly, causing the seats to fail to meet the requirements of
the standard.  Failure of the seat and/or seat belt anchorages to
restrain the occupant would increase the risk of personal injury
during a crash.

Dealers will inspect the seat mounting and reinstall it properly,
if necessary.

Affected products:

   Maker               Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----               -----          ----------------------
   HOLIDAY RAMBLER     AMBASSADOR     2014
   FLEETWOOD           RV             2014


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration Class Action Waivers Valid Under FAA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Carpenter, Esq., Dan Cranshaw, Esq., and S. Jay Dobbs, Esq.
of Polsinelli, in an article for JDSupra, report that in American
Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court
confirmed what it had only hinted at two years earlier in AT&T
Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion. In a holding authored by Justice
Scalia, the Court made plain that because "arbitration is a matter
of contract," its terms must be "rigorously enforced by courts."
Therefore, arbitration agreements containing class action waivers
are valid under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").  The Court's
expanded view of the FAA, joined with a clear disfavor of class
actions means that businesses can now better manage their legal
risk, and the high costs associated with it, through well-drafted
arbitration agreements that prohibit any form of class action.

The Four Corners of the Dispute

The Italian Colors plaintiffs objected to the rate American
Express charged merchants for accepting its cards, allegedly 30%
higher than other card companies. Plaintiffs filed suit, arguing
that the excessive fees violated the Sherman Act.  Under the
merchant agreement signed by the plaintiffs, all claims had to be
arbitrated and collective arbitration was prohibited.

Plaintiffs sought to void the arbitration agreement and the
collective action waiver on the basis that the agreement as
written would subject individual claimants to prohibitive costs
associated with expert testimony.  In fact, plaintiffs
demonstrated that the most any individual plaintiff would receive
was between $12,850 and $38,549 -- with treble damages.  Expert
testimony on the other hand, would cost between several hundreds
of thousands of dollars to almost $1 million.  As a result of this
imbalance, plaintiffs argued that enforcement of the collective
action waiver would deprive them of federal rights under the
Sherman Act.

The Ruling: No and Never

To resolve this case, the Italian Colors court asked two
questions:

Does the FAA permit courts to invalidate arbitration agreements on
the grounds that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal
law claim?

Can courts refuse to enforce arbitration waivers when individual
prosecution of claims is just too expensive?

In response, the Court said no and never.  Regarding the efforts
to invalidate the arbitration agreement, the Court observed that
nothing in the Sherman Act exempted itself from class actions and
correspondingly, class arbitration waivers.  And regarding the
costs associated with prosecuting a Sherman Act claim, the Court
held that "[t]he antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable
procedural path to the vindication of every claim."  A vigorous
dissent, authored by Justice Kagan, summarized the majority
holding like this: "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And to a Court bent on diminishing the usefulness of Rule 23,
everything looks like a class action ready to be dismantled."

Summary and Takeaways

Italian Colors places businesses in a strong position to manage
their legal risk both through internal and external means.  A
well-drafted arbitration agreement prohibiting class arbitration
means less discovery, less time and less risk.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: 200,000 People Can Get Partial Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Horsleythe, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that
about 200,000 people in the Kansas City area who paid red-light
camera fines since 2009 can now apply for partial refunds.

Those individuals are part of a proposed settlement of a class
action lawsuit against American Traffic Solutions, the company
that for years has operated red-light cameras in 27 cities
throughout Missouri, including Kansas City, Grandview, Excelsior
Springs and Sugar Creek.

A claims administrator has recently sent out nearly 900,000
postcard notices to people who paid fines for red-light violations
in Missouri between 2005 and November 2014.  American Traffic
Solutions estimated about a quarter of those notices went to
people in the Kansas City metro area.

The postcards alert people that they can recover cash payment of
20 percent of any fine paid and provide information to apply for a
refund under the settlement.  People can also object to the
settlement.

A response is due by Feb. 28, and a court hearing is scheduled
March 13 to consider final settlement approval.

Ironically, those whose Kansas City cases were still pending last
year or who never paid their fines for violations are now off the
hook.  But a judge's approval would resolve class action lawsuits
filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court that argued the red-light
camera programs in Missouri conflicted with state law.  American
Traffic Solutions denied the allegations but agreed to pay the
partial refunds to resolve all pending claims on behalf of the 27
communities.  The total value of the settlement has been estimated
at $16 million.

American Traffic Solutions and attorneys for the plaintiffs
declined to comment separately about the proposed settlement but
issued a joint statement answering questions from The Kansas City
Star.  They said the 20 percent refund on the fines was arrived at
through negotiation.

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

George Heymach of Kansas City received notice about a week ago but
said it was different from the huge packet of information he's
gotten when he was a claimant in other class action lawsuits.

"It literally was a postcard," Mr. Heymach said.  "On the front it
has an ID number, which you of course ignore."

But Mr. Heymach said that when he actually read the postcard more
closely, it directed him to a website, www.MORLCEnforcement.com,
where he put in his ID number and was able to readily apply for
the refund.

"Once I decided to read the card, and I went to the website, it
was frankly very straightforward," he said.

He said he's not holding his breath about receiving the refund
because he knows these types of cases can take a long time to
resolve.  And in this case, the 20 percent payment would only
equate to $20 because Kansas City's fines were $100.

Still, he considers it "found money," especially because he didn't
have a quarrel with Kansas City's red-light program, even though
he had one violation and one of his children had a violation.

He said he is a safe driver and doesn't run red lights, but
tripped a camera on Southwest Trafficway in the early years of
Kansas City's red-light camera program. He said his family's two
violations made them drive even more safely and cautiously.

"I think it's a good program," he said.

That's been Kansas City's position as well since the program began
in 2009, but it was halted in November 2013 because of conflicting
appeals court rulings and uncertainty over whether and how
communities could legally operate red-light camera programs under
state law.

Two key lingering questions: Whether it was appropriate to presume
the vehicle's owner was the driver, and whether the city programs
can be enforced because they don't treat the red-light camera
tickets as moving violations with points against a person's
driver's license.

Kansas City and other cities are awaiting a Missouri Supreme Court
ruling this year to provide clear guidance on how they can
proceed.  But this settlement, if approved, would resolve the
issue of refunds on prior fines paid.  As for those who did not
pay their fines in Kansas City Municipal Court, they are now free
and clear.

City Prosecutor Keith Ludwig said on Jan. 7 that after the city
suspended its red-light camera program in November 2013, many
violations were still pending in the court.  All those cases were
moved to a Dec. 31, 2014, docket in hopes the city would have
legal clarity by then.

But the red-light camera program remains in legal limbo, so Ludwig
said the decision was made to just dismiss all those cases.

"As a practical matter, it's such a delay that it's not fair to
keep those people hanging on," Mr. Ludwig said, adding that prior
violations in which people had simply failed to pay were also
dismissed.

For people who paid a fine and want a partial refund, they should
have received a postcard, mailed to their last known address.
More information is available at 1-866-681-9151.

People who object can exclude themselves from the settlement if
they want to preserve their right to sue, but must do so by
Feb. 28.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settles Kirin Deceptive Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Bradford, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that
Anheuser-Busch, the brewing company that makes Kirin, will have to
reimburse customers who bought the beer anytime between Oct. 25,
2009, and Dec. 17, 2014, over alleged deceptive packaging,
according to a preliminary settlement approved last month.

Anheuser-Busch has agreed to the settlement, which comes in
response to a class-action lawsuit filed in October by Miami
residents Lady J. Suarez and Gustavo E. Oliva, who said that they
didn't realize Kirin wasn't actually imported from Japan because
of its packaging.

Customers will be reimbursed $0.50 for cans or bottles purchased
in a six-pack and $1.00 for cans or bottles purchased in a 12-
pack.  They can get up to $50 if they provide receipts.  Those
without proof of purchase can still get up to $12 if they register
a claim.  Claims can be registered by mail or online, though the
website for digital registration has not yet been announced.

Kirin's label says that the beer is "Brewed under Kirin's strict
supervision by Anheuser-Busch in Los Angeles, CA, and
Williamsburg, VA," but the lawsuit claimed that the disclaimer
isn't adequate because it is not visible on the outside packaging
of six-packs and 12-packs.  That's a problem, the lawsuit
contends, because customers typically are willing to pay more for
beer that they believe is imported.

"As a result of these unfair and deceptive practices, the
defendant has collected millions of dollars from the sale of Kirin
beer that it would not have otherwise earned," the lawsuit said.
"Plaintiffs paid money for a product that is not what it claims to
be or what they bargained for."

Kirin Beer sold in the U.S. hasn't actually been brewed in Japan
since 1996, when Anheuser-Busch took over brewing and
distribution.  In 2006, it also took over marketing the brand.
Anheuser-Busch has faced similar complaints over its Beck's brand
of beer, which is also no longer brewed abroad.

While Anheuser-Busch has agreed to the settlement, it stands by
its packaging.

"We believe our labeling, packaging and marketing of Kirin Ichiban
and Kirin Light have always been truthful," an Anheuser-Busch
spokesperson wrote The Huffington Post in an email.  "A-B proudly
brews these beers in the U.S. under Kirin's strict supervision."

The plaintiff's lawyer, Tucker Ronzetti, told HuffPost in an email
that "we are pleased that the parties were able to resolve this
dispute amicably for themselves and the class."


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses Claims in MacBook Logic Board Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that Apple Inc. escaped
claims from a would-be class of laptop buyers who said the company
purposefully keeps selling MacBooks with faulty logic boards,
according to a California federal decision on Jan. 8 that found
the plaintiffs hadn't been specific enough in their claims.

U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup ruled that the customers'
claims, first brought in Texas federal court in May and then
transferred to California, didn't sufficiently show which of
Apple's statements about its product misled them into buying a
product that was faulty, among other things.

Plaintiffs Uriah Marcus and Benedict Verceles alleged in their May
complaint that the logic boards on their MacBooks failed as a
result of negligent design, production and testing, and that even
Apple CEO Tim Cook knew about the problem but did nothing to
resolve it, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs held up a series of marketing statements by Apple
touting its MacBook's benefits, but Judge Alsup found on Jan. 8
that the buyers didn't sufficiently tie those statements to the
allegedly defective logic boards, according to the decision.

"None of these representations mentions the computers' allegedly
defective logic board," Judge Alsup wrote.  "Plaintiffs do not
specifically allege how the statements are false or misleading."

The plaintiffs alleged that their logic boards failed and that
Apple did nothing to help repair them even though it was aware of
the defect, according to court records.  For example, Marcus
alleged he was told he "should have bought the warranty" if he
wanted his board fixed, court records showed.

The plaintiffs pointed to some statements by Apple about the
quality and durability of its products, saying the statements were
demonstrably false and that the company knew as much, according to
the decision.  But Judge Alsup found the statements and
plaintiffs' accompanying arguments to be too disconnected.

The judge shut down the plaintiffs' contention that Apple was
wrongly telling customers its laptop was the "most advanced ever,"
among other claims, according to the decision.

"This order detects nothing 'specific or measurable' about the
phrases 'Most Advanced Notebook Ever' or 'State-of-the-Art.'
Those representations and the four put forth in the complaint
constitute non-actionable puffery," Judge Alsup wrote.  "The
complaint does not allege which of Apple's representations were
relied upon, when they were relied upon, or by whom."

The plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend their claims,
with the amended claims attached, by Jan. 22, according to the
order.

Marcus and Verceles are represented by Omar Weaver Rosales of The
Rosales Law Firm LLC.

Apple is represented by David M. Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- Kai
S. Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- and Rose S. Lee --
roselee@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is Uriah Marcus et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 3:14-
cv-03824, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


ARBOC SPECIALTY: Recalls Spirit of Mobility Model
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Visual System
Units affected:           3
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014556
TC ID number:             2014556

Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (CMVSS) 205 - Glazing Materials.  Driver side transition
windows may not comply with the requirements of the standard.
Non-complying glass could break into shards instead of shattering,
which could result in injury.

Dealers will replace windows with ones that comply with CMVSS 205.

Affected products: 2015 Spirit of Mobility


ASTON MARTIN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           691
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014543
TC ID number:             2014543
Manufacturer recall
number:                   RA-01-0019

On certain vehicles, a defect in the seat heater wiring could
cause the front seat heaters to remain on even when the control
switch is in the "off" position.  This could cause certain areas
of the seats to overheat, which could result in injury to seat
occupants and increase the risk of a fire causing damage to
property.

Dealers will install an additional module which will isolate power
supply in the event of a malfunction.

Affected products:

   Maker       Model         Model year(s) Affected
   -----       -----         ----------------------
ASTON MARTIN   DB9           2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                             2012, 2013, 2014
ASTON MARTIN   VANTAGE V8    2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                             2012, 2013, 2014
ASTON MARTIN   V12 VANTAGE   2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                             2012, 2013, 2014
ASTON MARTIN   DBS           2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                             2012, 2013, 2014
ASTON MARTIN   VIRAGE        2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                             2012, 2013, 2014


AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: Faces Class Action Over Provident Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kylar Loussikian, writing for The Australian, reports that
trustees of failed debenture firm Provident Capital should have
realized there were serious issues with the company's loan book 18
months before it collapsed owing investors millions of dollars, it
will be alleged in the Federal Court.  Australian Executor
Trustees should have concluded by the beginning of December 2010
that there were insufficient assets securing loans made by
Provident and sought to prevent the company from taking more funds
from the public, documents lodged by Slater & Gordon claim.

If Australian ET had exercised reasonable diligence, "then
debentures would not have been issued on or after
December 22, 2010 and the applicant and the group members would
not have suffered any loss or damage", the claim reads.  Provident
collapsed in July 2012, months after telling its 3500 investors it
was confident it could stay afloat despite more than 90% of its
AU$176 million loan book being many months in arrears.

The class action will allege Australian ET knew or ought to have
known that Provident was regularly not disclosing information and
was failing to meet equity ratio guidelines, and should have
notified ASIC.  Despite consistently falling short of ASIC's
minimum equity ratio benchmark of 20%, reporting an equity ratio
of 6.43% in its 2009 financial report and 6.32% in its 2010
financial reports, Australian ET still did not do enough to
ascertain the debenture firm's full financial position, it is
claimed.  By the time the Provident collapsed, its equity capital
ratio had fallen to 2.73%.

The court documents, sighted by The Australian, give numerous
examples of loans with no chance of recovery, including a AU$4
million loan over a development property in Burleigh Heads in
Queensland made in 2000 which eventually reached a carrying value
of AU$17.5 million in 2010.  That was despite development approval
on the site, on which no construction activity had commenced,
lapsing in 2005.

Odette McDonald, a senior associate at Slater & Gordon, said she
was confident it was a strong case considering the law firm was
pursuing the action on a no-win, no-fee basis.  "Our clients
allege that Australian ET failed to exercise reasonable diligence
to ascertain whether the value of Provident's loan portfolio would
be sufficient to repay debentures when due," she said.

"Slater and Gordon has experience in class actions against
trustees of failed debenture issuers, including the AU$29 million
settlement achieved for Fincorp debenture holders, and current
proceedings on behalf of debentures holders in collapsed issuer
Australian Capital Reserve."

A second class action, launched by Meridian Lawyers, last month
completed public examinations of one former and one current senior
Australian ET officer.

In a letter to debenture holders, Meridian lawyer Douglas Rafte-
sath wrote he was "very encouraged" about bringing a claim against
the trustee.  Nearly 1000 debenture holders with total investments
to the value of AU$55 million have signed an agreement to join the
action if it commences.

"Subject to review of further documents to be produced by early
February of this year we anticipate filing proceedings shortly
thereafter," Mr. Raftesath told The Australian.

Australian ET said it had complied with all its duties with
respect to Provident and would not comment further citing the
legal action.

Provident receiver PPB has already begun pursuing directors of the
failed debenture firm.

The latest report prepared by PPB forecast debenture holders
should expect a return of only up to 19 cents for every dollar in
a fixed-term investment, which is at most AU$23.5 million.  PPB
reported it had paid about AU$11 million to date.


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Over "Stock-Drop"
---------------------------------------------------
Nick Thornton, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that Avon Products
Inc., the global cosmetics brand made famous by its door-to-door
sales force, is facing the prospect of a class-action "stock-drop"
lawsuit by participants in its retirement plans.

The plaintiffs allege Avon should have frozen its purchase of
company stock for the retirement plans as it was being
investigated for foreign corruption practices.

In December, Avon agreed to pay $67 million to settle a civil
probe by the SEC and another $68 million to settle criminal claims
brought by the Justice Department.

The company's Chinese subsidiary allegedly violated the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act in making $8 million in payments to
officials overseeing direct selling regulations in that country.
The bribes were made between 2004 and 2008, as Avon sought access
to the new market.

Avon's stock price, now trading below $9, has been punished over
the last five years.  In October 2010 it traded at around $35; it
more recently has traded at under $9.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
New York, alleges participants in the beleaguered company's 401(k)
plan suffered millions of dollars in losses due to the "abject
failure" of Avon fiduciaries to take action to protect employers
to whom they owed "the highest duty known to the law."

Avon failed to "come clean to the investing public" when it
learned of the misconduct, embarked on a lengthy cover up, and
ultimately paid whistle blowers off with severance packages, or
simply fired them, according to the complaint.

During the proposed class period -- July 31, 2006 to May 1, 2014
-- Avon's stock steadily declined.

"Plan fiduciaries were well aware of Avon's FCPA violations, its
program of firing or paying off potential whistleblowers, and its
series of misrepresentations to the public about those violations.
They knew that these violations were causing Avon's stock to trade
at an artificially high price, and that when the truth finally
came out, the effect would be devastating for anyone who happened
to be holding the stock at the time," the complaint alleged.

Avon's fiduciaries could have frozen the purchase of shares during
the period, or could have communicated truthfully about the
allegations and investigation, it said. The plaintiffs claim the
company did neither.

That allegedly caused Avon employees "hundreds of millions of
dollars" in retirement savings.

At the start of the class period, the company plan held $609
million in investments, $205 million of which was in the Avon
Company Stock Fund. Avon stock at that time was trading $32.41.

New York-based Zamansky LLC is representing the plaintiffs, who
have requested a jury trial. A judge will have to certify whether
the case merits class-action status.


BANKAMERICA: 8th Circuit Rejects Cy Pres Award in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
latest victory of Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action
Fairness came on Jan. 8 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, in a securities class action stemming from the
1998 merger between BankAmerica and NationsBank that created Bank
of America Corporation.  Taking aim at one of Mr. Frank's favorite
targets -- cy pres awards -- the court overturned a decision to
hand over leftover settlement funds from the case to a Missouri
legal nonprofit, rather than distributing the money to investors
or to a group concerned with shareholder issues.

The underlying litigation, brought by shareholders of both pre-
merger banks, settled more than a decade ago for $490 million. Mr.
Frank's client, NationsBank class representative David Oetting,
had challenged the district court's decision years later to award
$2.5 million in "surplus" settlement funds to Legal Services of
Eastern Missouri, a well-respected legal charity in the state.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel on Jan. 8 rejected pretty much every
argument thrown up by class counsel, Joe Jacobson of Green
Jacobson in St. Louis, who had championed the award to LSEM.
(Frank and Jacobson squared off at Eighth Circuit oral arguments
in September.) Among other things, Jacobson maintained that it
would be too difficult to find class members, and that
institutional investors, which would be the main beneficiaries of
the new settlement funds, weren't as deserving as the legal
nonprofit.

"Class counsel . . . argues that a further distribution to the
class is inappropriate because it would primarily benefit large
institutional investors, who are less worthy than charities such
as LSEM," the panel wrote.  "We flatly reject this contention.  It
endorses judicially impermissible misappropriation of monies
gathered to settle complex disputes among private parties."

Even if some sort of cy pres award had been appropriate, the panel
also found fault with the choice of LSEM as the recipient.  When
distributing funds to class members isn't feasible, the majority
held, courts are obligated to make a "thorough investigation" to
find a cy pres recipient that "closely approximates the interests
of the class."

"At oral argument, it became apparent there are non-profit
organizations devoted to preventing and aiding the victims of
securities fraud," the panel wrote.  "Those alternatives must be
thoroughly explored before concluding that a totally unrelated
charity such as LSEM is an acceptable 'next best' recipient."
The decision is the latest in a long string of appellate wins for
Frank and CCAF since last year.


BELL MOBILITY: Loses Appeal of 911 Fees Class-Action Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Dobby, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Bell
Mobility Inc. has lost an appeal of a class-action judgment that
found the company liable to thousands of cellphone subscribers in
Canada's three northern territories over fees for non-existent 911
services.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal concluded that the trial
judge, who presided over what was the territory's first class-
action lawsuit to go to trial, made no mistake in his
interpretation of contracts that class members signed with the
wireless carrier.

(BCE Inc., which owns Bell Mobililty, also owns 15 per cent of The
Globe and Mail.)

The case began in 2007 when representative plaintiffs, Yellowknife
residents James and Samuel Anderson, filed a lawsuit over Bell
charging 75 cents a month, or $9 a year, for 911 service despite
the fact that local authorities had not set up a 911 system for
emergency calls.

The lawsuit extended to include about 30,000 Bell Mobility
customers in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon (except
for Whitehorse, where 911 services were in place).

Bell appealed a May, 2013, ruling that found it was liable,
arguing that the service agreements with customers gave it an
express contractual right to collect the 911 fees. (The appeal
court noted that due to the litigation, the company stopped
charging the fee for contracts made after November, 2009.)

Justice Jean Cote, writing for the unanimous three-person panel of
the appeal court, said the wording of the service agreements was
not sufficient to allow the company to collect the fees.

"In my respectful view, connecting someone to nothing is still
nothing," he said in a decision published on Jan. 7.

Justice Cote further noted that the fact that 911 calls in the
Territories are sometimes routed to recordings that suggest the
caller dial local emergency numbers (but do not actually provide
those numbers) did not help Bell's case.

"To seek to charge for that by calling it 911 service seems to me
very unreasonable.  It is like delivering to a starving person a
photograph of a turkey dinner, and then charging him or her for a
turkey dinner (or delivery of one)."

Apart from an adjustment of $18,000, the court also upheld a legal
costs judgment that ordered Bell to pay the plaintiffs a total of
about $340,000.

"We are pleased the court affirmed the position which we have been
taking throughout the litigation, which is that the people of the
North should not have to pay for service that was not provided,"
Samuel Marr, a Toronto lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, said
on Jan. 8.

BCE spokesman Mark Langton said the company is "very disappointed
with the decision," adding: "We're considering our options."

The trial decision did not address the issue of damages, which
will be the subject of a separate trial.  In the costs award, the
trial judge said he accepted the plaintiffs' estimate that damages
would exceed $1.5-million.  Mr. Marr said on Jan. 8 that the
plaintiffs require further disclosure from Bell, adding that at
this point he anticipates pursuing a claim for between $3-million
and $5-million.

Bell is also facing two other class-action lawsuits related to its
wireless business, both of which have been certified in Ontario.
The first is over the expiration of Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile
or Solo Mobile prepaid phone cards when the cards still had a
balance remaining.  The second, in which Telus Corp. is also a
defendant, is over billing practices of rounding up to the next
minute for voice calls.


BRAD LAKIN: Faces Foreclosure Complaint Over Bethalto Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
a multi-million dollar home that attorney Brad Lakin built at the
height of Madison County's class action boom faces foreclosure.

BMO Harris Bank filed a complaint against Brad and Hallie Lakin
claiming they owe $2,302,543.11, plus interest, costs, advances
and fees over property located at 4 Oak Crest Drive in Bethalto.

The Lakins took out a $2.5 million mortgage on the property on
May 24, 2005.

According to BMO's Dec. 22 foreclosure complaint, the mortgagors
have not paid a monthly installment since before March 1, 2014.
Interest accrues at $244.45 per day.

Designed by architect Nolan Pederson, the home sits on 5.8 acres.
It is 15,005 square feet, has five bedrooms, seven and a half
baths and boasts a "one of a kind gourmet kitchen."

Class Action Era

The former Lakin Law Firm of Wood River built Madison County's
reputation as the nation's consumer class action capitol, having
participated in most of the 350-plus cases filed here.

President George Bush, however, showed up in Collinsville in 2005
to rail against class action litigation.  After his visit,
Congress passed a law that would direct most new class actions to
federal courts.

The law didn't ruin class litigation in Madison County, for
lawyers such as Lakin had piled up more than 200 pending cases at
that point that they could develop for years.

However, the tide had turned. Founder Tom Lakin was convicted on
drug charges in 2008, and Lakin Law Firm was renamed in 2009 to
LakinChapman.

The firm suffered perhaps its biggest blow in September 2011 when
the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a $43 million verdict against
Ford Motor Co., Jablonski v. Ford.  The case, which blamed Ford
for a Lincoln Town Car fuel tank explosion, was won in Madison
County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian's court in 2005.

By November 2011, Lakin's firm began significant lay-offs.

The Lakins' Bethalto home was initially listed for sale on
Nov. 17, 2012 for $3.3 million.  The price was reduced another
eight times over two years and was removed from listing on Nov.
13, 2014, at a price of $1.67 million.  The property tax bill in
2013 was $36,157.


BOEING CO: Judge Tosses Remaining Age Discrimination Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
remaining age-discrimination claims against Boeing Co. and Spirit
AeroSystems were tossed out by a federal judge on Jan. 7, a major
blow to a lawsuit that's spanned nine years.

When Boeing sold its commercial aircraft operations in Wichita to
the parent company of Spirit AeroSystems in 2005, 90 former Boeing
workers claimed they lost their jobs because of their age.

In a scathing decision, U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren said he
was dismissing the claims of the remaining 26 plaintiffs as a
sanction for their refusal to obey a court order that they give
their tax returns to the companies.  The judge also chided their
attorney for choosing "not to even attend" a hearing on the
companies' request to summarily rule in their favor.

"This inaction exemplifies a pattern of nonparticipation that
leads the Court to find that a lesser sanction would not deter
further noncompliance," Judge Melgren wrote.

The decision is a final judgment with prejudice, meaning that if
it stands, the workers would not be able to file another lawsuit
over the same claims.

James Gore, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he planned to
appeal the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and would
also ask the judge to reconsider.  "We believe the decisions are
wrong and we will do everything we can to correct that and get it
reversed," he said.

Meanwhile, Boeing spokesman Chaz Bickers said in an email, "We
welcome the judge's decision and this closes the chapter on the
case."

And Spirit AeroSystems said in an emailed statement that the court
has consistently ruled in its favor, and the company would
"vigorously defend itself" if there is an appeal.

"Spirit does not discriminate in its employment practices, and is
an equal opportunity employer," the company said.  "We take that
responsibility very seriously."

Mr. Gore also took issue with the judge's contention that he chose
to not attend the hearing.  Mr. Gore said he notified the court
that he wouldn't be able to attend weeks and days before the
hearing -- even the day of, he said.  He said he was dealing with
the death of the grandmother who had raised him.  The other
plaintiffs' attorney on the case, Lawrence Williamson, was dealing
with an ongoing, debilitating illness that kept him from
traveling, Mr. Gore said.

"It wasn't like we maliciously just failed to show up," Mr. Gore
said.

Mr. Gore also argued that the plaintiffs' authorizations for the
release of tax return information were enough to comply with the
court order, a contention the judge rejected.

The lawsuit was initially filed as a class action in December
2005, with Melgren granting summary judgment in the companies'
favor on the class-action claims in 2010. The 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld that ruling in 2012.

The following year, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of 87
workers alleging individual counts of age discrimination.  It was
whittled down to 26 plaintiffs as some former workers settled out
of court, died or dropped out.


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Ernst" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ernst v. Building Materials
Corporation of America d/b/a/ GAF Materials Corporation, Case No.
3:14-cv-50182, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00123 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2577

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant
Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
          Edward Eshoo, Jr., Esq.
          CHILDRESS DUFFY GOLDBLAT LTD.
          51 North State Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-0200
          E-mail: mduffy@cdglawyers.com
                  eeshoo@childresslawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael John Lyle, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 538-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 538-8100
          E-mail: mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Anne Bauer, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          500 W. Madison, Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
          E-mail: jenniferbauer@quinnemanuel.com


BUILDING MATERIALS: "Stidham" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Stidham v. Building Materials
Corporation of America, Case No. 2:14-cv-00247, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark).  The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00124-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2577

The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of
allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant
Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Joseph Morse, Esq.
          MORSE LAW FIRM PC
          320 North Meridian Street, Suite 506
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 686-1540
          Facsimile: (317) 686-1541

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey Taylor Williams, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          65 East State Street, Suite 2100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-4738
          Facsimile: (614) 462-2616
          E-mail: jwilliams@bakerlaw.com


CARLSON RESTAURANTS: Parker Waichman Comments on Wage Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of wage theft victims, is commenting on a class action
lawsuit brought against Carlson Restaurants Inc., Carlson
Restaurants Worldwide Inc., and T.G.I. Friday's Inc. that alleges
that T.G.I.  Friday's did not pay proper wages to its tipped
employees.  The case is Flood v. Carlson Restaurants Inc., et al.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Case No. 14CV2740.

According to the lawsuit, the restaurant chain violated the
federal Fair Labor Standards and New York Labor Law by failing to
pay tipped workers their proper minimum wage pay, overtime pay,
spread-of-hours pay, and uniform maintenance.  The lawsuit also
seeks compensation for alleged unlawful deductions from paychecks
and failure to keep accurate records.  The lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of tipped employees such as servers, bussers, runners,
bartenders, and barbacks. (Flood v. Carlson Restaurants Inc., et
al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York; Case No. 14CV2740)

Allegedly, T.G.I. Friday's did not pay tipped employees wages that
accurately reflected the amount of work they conducted, including
overtime if Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.
The lawsuit also alleges that, if Plaintiffs worked more than 10
hours a day, they did not receive their proper spread-of-hours pay
for this time.  The Defendants also allegedly failed to compensate
employees for washing and maintaining their uniforms.  According
to the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs performed non-tipped "side-work"
more than 20 percent of the time, but were never paid the
appropriate hourly minimum wage for these tasks.  In one
situation, a Plaintiff was not properly paid when he performed
"side-work" off-the-clock, the lawsuit alleges.  Additionally, the
lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiffs were forced to share their
tips with employees who are not entitled to tips, such as
silverware rollers and expeditors. (Flood v. Carlson Restaurants
Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York; Case No. 14CV2740)

According to Parker Waichman LLP, a number of tipped T.G.I.
Friday's employees may be victims of wage theft.  "These
individuals work hard for theirs wages," said Gary Falkowitz,
Managing Attorney at Parker Waichman LLP.  "It is wrong and
unlawful for a company to deny its employees what is owed to
them."

Parker Waichman LLP provides free legal consultations to victims
of wage theft.  If you or someone you know is a victim of wage
theft because your employer violated state and/or federal laws,
please visit the firm's Unpaid Wage page at yourlawyer.com or call
1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).


CHRYSLER: Recalls Charger Model Due to Safety Warning Lamps
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           405
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014550
TC ID number:             2014550
Manufacturer recall
number:                   P74

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 - Controls and Displays.  The
instrument cluster may not display safety warning lamps when the
ignition key is first turned on, contrary to the requirements of
the standard.

Dealers will reprogram the instrument cluster.

Affected products: 2015 Dodge Charger


CIGNA CORP: Loses Bid to Reverse Pension Plan Reformation
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a recent Second
Circuit opinion rejecting Cigna Corp.'s challenge to a ruling
reforming its pension plan in a massive Employee Retirement Income
Security Act class action answered a question left open by the
nation's highest court, holding that plan reformation resulting in
monetary relief may be permissible under a class action rule
providing for injunctive and declaratory remedies.

The appellate panel's Dec. 23 decision came in a long-running
legal battle that centered on the 1998 conversion of Cigna's
defined benefits plan to a cash balance plan.  The case, brought
on behalf of some 25,000 plan beneficiaries, made its way up to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated and remanded in May 2011 and
said the relief the district court had awarded the workers wasn't
available under a particular section of ERISA.

The high court directed the district court to consider whether the
plan participants were entitled to relief under another section of
ERISA that provides for "appropriate equitable relief."  The trial
court refused to decertify the class and, as it had done the first
time around, ordered Cigna to provide benefits accrued under the
defined benefit plan at the time of conversion, plus benefits
under the cash balance plan.

Both sides appealed, and last month, the Second Circuit affirmed
the lower court, concluding that the plan should be reformed to be
consistent with representations made by the plan administrator.

"It should not be surprising that Cigna's fraud, coupled with its
deception of its employees, would justify reformation of the
pension plan," said Harris Wiltshire & Grannis LLP's Christopher
Wright, an attorney for the plaintiffs.  "But prior to this
decision, that was not as clear as it ought to be."

An attorney for Cigna declined to comment, and the company could
not immediately be reached.  But in a brief filed with the Second
Circuit, the company had urged reversal on both class
certification and reformation.

After finding fault with Cigna's argument that the class should be
decertified because the lower court's remedy actually hurt, rather
than benefited, certain class members, the panel went on to reject
Cigna's claim that "the district court's reformation remedy and
award of monetary damages are simply not permitted under Rule
23(b)(2)."

Cigna argued that reformation cannot form the basis for a request
for monetary relief under the rule, as it is not a form of
injunctive relief.  But the Second Circuit found that reformation
is essentially an injunction and a declaration of the plaintiffs'
rights and that the money plaintiffs receive as a result is
incidental and therefore permissible.

"It is certainly an extension of the law in the Second Circuit to
say you can use 23(b)(2) in an ERISA context to reform a plan and
then issue an injunction," said Ronald Richman --
ronald.richman@srz.com -- co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP's
employment and employee benefits group.  "It's the first time, as
I understand it, that the Second Circuit has taken that position,
and it was certainly an issue left open by the Supreme Court."

Whether "incidental monetary relief" can be sought on a classwide
basis under Rule 23(b)(2) hasn't been resolved by the high court,
the opinion said.

While the landmark Dukes decision nixed the standard for monetary
relief in Rule 23(b)(2) class actions that had been laid out in a
Second Circuit decision called Robinson v. Metro-North, it did not
rule out a monetary award that is incidental to a final injunctive
or declaratory remedy, according to the appeals court, which cited
"persuasive" decisions from other circuits.

Other courts that have tackled the question of whether reformation
is available to a Rule 23(b)(2) class in an ERISA suit, including
the Seventh Circuit, have said the answer is yes, the Dec. 23
ruling said.

The Second Circuit ruling also represents a broader view of the
relief available under ERISA's Section 502(a)(3) than had existed
before the Supreme Court's May 2011 ruling on the matter in the
case Cigna v. Amara, Thompson Hine's Timothy McDonald --
Tim.McDonald@ThompsonHine.com -- said.  That provision authorizes
plan participants, beneficiaries and fiduciaries to seek
"appropriate equitable relief" to redress violations of ERISA or a
plan's terms.

"The general trend of ERISA cases before Amara was that relief
under 502(a)(3) was very narrow, and the language in Amara,
regardless of what you may think of the opinion, clearly broadened
the relief that was available," Mr. McDonald said.

But while the Second Circuit's recent decision might seem like a
boon for workers who bring ERISA suits over inaccurate
information, that's not actually the case, Mayer Brown LLP's Nancy
Ross -- nross@mayerbrown.com -- said.

While the Supreme Court left it for lower courts to ascertain
exactly when reformation might be appropriate, the Second
Circuit's ruling sets a high bar for plaintiffs and won't be much
use to anyone arguing that mistaken information that was
inadvertently given won't be enough, Ross said.

"I think this is a pretty narrow decision, frankly," Ms. Ross
said. "We all knew that reformation was a viable, equitable remedy
under [Section 502(a)(3)]."

The Second Circuit panel ruled last month that the district court,
which ruled for the second time in December 2012, "did not err in
determining that Cigna committed fraud or inequitable conduct
against all of the class members."

In the lawsuit, brought back in 2001, the plan beneficiaries said
Cigna Corp. and the Cigna Pension Plan had failed to give them
proper notice of changes to their benefits.  The district court
found that Cigna intentionally misled its employees, the Supreme
Court opinion noted.

The lower court reformed the plan and ordered Cigna to pay
benefits accordingly under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B).  While the
high court concluded that relief wasn't authorized by that
particular section of ERISA, a different provision "authorizes
forms of relief similar to those that the court entered," the
Supreme Court said, referring to Section 502(a)(3).

Mr. McDonald pointed out that the high court's Cigna decision came
with a concurrence delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined
by Clarence Thomas.  According to Justice Scalia, the majority's
discussion of available relief under 502(a)(3) was "purely dicta."

"The district court need not read any of it -- and, indeed, if it
takes our suggestions to heart, we may very well reverse," the
concurrence said.

The Dec. 23 ruling in the Cigna case could be setting the stage
for further high court review and putting Scalia's admonition to
the test.

"I don't think the Second Circuit adds much new law to the
district court's opinion, but I think we're finally teed up to see
whether there was any heft behind Justice Scalia's warning or
not," Mr. McDonald said.


CONAGRA FOODS: Class Cert. Bid in "Allen" Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria denied without prejudice plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the case captioned ERIN ALLEN,
Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-
01279-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

Erin Allen brings this proposed class action against ConAgra
Foods, Inc., alleging that the label on ConAgra's "Parkay Spray"
misleads people about the product's fat and calorie content. Allen
moved for certification of a multi-state class, divided into
several subclasses. The motion is denied, but denial is without
prejudice to filing a renewed motion for class certification after
discovery is complete.

"In the event of a renewed motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3)
class, and the event Allen continues to seek certification of a
multi-state class, she should, as part of her required showing as
to the predominance of common questions and the manageability of
such a class, attach, as an exhibit to her motion, a set of
proposed jury instructions that would govern the trial," wrote
Judge Chhabria in his January 9, 2015 order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/CKLU0qfrom Leagle.com.

Erin Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine T. Byszewski --
elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shaprio LLP, Jeff D
Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Lee M. Gordon -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Ureka Ellie Idstrom --
uidstrom@eurekalawfirm.com -- The Eureka Law Firm.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard Trent
Taylor -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Allen
Brooks Gresham, II -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, Angela M Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP, Joan Shreffler Dinsmore -- jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Laura E Coombe -- lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP & Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr. --
pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com -- McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC
LLO.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Beauchamp v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00094-KAM-RER (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2015) alleges
that the Plaintiff was terminated by the Defendant based on
incorrectly being "regarded as" disabled and from stereotypes and
generalizations about sleep apnea.

The Plaintiff was employed at Con Edison since 1986 when he was
terminated in September 2013 because he allegedly suffered from
sleep apnea, which Con Edison claims posed a threat to his safety
and others in his position as a Distribution Splicer, rendering
him unable to perform the essential functions of his job.  The
Plaintiff contends that he does not suffer from sleep apnea, nor
did he cause any prior incidents that involved workplace safety.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business in the County of
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Dinnocenzo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIC DINNOCENZO
          641 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 933-1675
          E-mail: eric@dinnocenzolaw.com


CULLMAN COUNTY, AL: District Court Dropped From Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cullman Times reports that the multi-million dollar civil
lawsuit surrounding the Cullman County Court Referral Office has
received some fine tuning in order to avoid the recusal of local
circuit judges and to refocus its mission.

As a part of that fine tuning, the Cullman County District Court
and Drug Court are no longer under fire from the suit.  The
defendants remaining in the suit are the Cullman County Court
Referral Office and its managers, Cynthia Keller and Lisa
Sharpton, as well as Winfred Eugene Vance Jr.

Attorneys Thomas Drake, Melvin Hasting and Kimberly Drake filed a
motion on Jan. 6 to dismiss the names of the two entities, as well
as all other drug courts and court referral offices in Alabama,
which was granted in an order by the presiding circuit judge, Greg
Nicholas.

"We didn't want judges in the circuit court to recuse themselves
from the case because we named the district court as a defendant,"
Thomas Drake said.  "We believe they would treat us and the
defendants fairly."

Along with avoiding a possible change of venue or losing Nicholas
as the presiding judge, Thomas Drake said the "cleaning up" of the
lawsuit was in preparation for something bigger on the horizon.
"We are getting ready to file a federal suit," he said.  "This
could very well be a class-action lawsuit."

A potential federal suit could encompass the court referral
offices throughout Alabama that the suit just recently dismissed.
Thomas Drake explained the dismissal of the Cullman County Drug
Court from the list of defendants as a technicality.

"The structure of the drug court will still be implicated without
any question," he said.  "It is certainly a major focus of the
case.  The drug court is really not an entity for the purpose of
filing suits.  We can still go after that through the court
referral office alone."


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           223
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014548
TC ID number:             2014548
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-676

On certain vehicles, brake chamber diaphragm(s) may not be
properly seated.  This could lead to brake drag, causing brake
overheating or unintended spring brake application.  These issues
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage.

Dealers will affect repairs as necessary.

Affected products:

   Maker              Model                Model year(s) affected
   -----              -----                ----------------------
   FREIGHTLINER       CASCADIA             2015
   FREIGHTLINER       CORONADO             2015
   WESTERN STAR       4900                 2015
   FREIGHTLINER       BUSINESS CLASS M2    2015
   FREIGHTLINER       114SD                2015
   WESTERN STAR       4700                 2015
   FREIGHTLINER       122SD                2015


DAN-D PAK: Recalls "Brittle - Sesame" Due to Off-Flavor
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Dan-D-Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9501

Affected products: 15 g. Dan-D Pak Brittle - Sesame


DEOLEO USA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Oil Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Jan. 6 denied a motion to dismiss a putative
class action accusing the importer of Bertolli- and Carapelli-
brand olive oils of deceiving consumers about its products'
quality, saying the claims were sufficient to pass muster at this
stage.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg found that plaintiff Scott
Koller's allegations against Deoleo USA Inc. -- that labeling the
oils as "extra virgin" is misleading because they are actually
mixed with refined oil, and that the bottle containing the oil is
insufficient to protect it from heat and sunlight degradation --
are enough to state his claim that a $12 bottle of Bertolli extra
virgin olive oil he had purchased didn't meet the applicable
quality standards.

The judge said that while Mr. Koller was required to plead
sufficient facts to support his case, he wasn't required at this
stage to include evidence that would prove the case.

Judge Seeborg likewise declined to dismiss Mr. Koller's
allegations stemming from the front labeling on the oils in
question, which state that the products are "Imported from Italy."
He rejected Deoleo's arguments that Mr. Koller couldn't have been
misled because the back label clearly indicates the oil's
different countries of origin, concluding that even if Mr. Koller
had seen the back label, he might not necessarily have seen the
information about the olives' origin.

Nor would Mr. Koller have been required to test the particular
bottle of olive oil he had purchased to see whether it would meet
the definition of "extra virgin" when he purchased it, Judge
Seeborg said. As long as he can prove that the oil generally did
not meet the standard, it wouldn't matter whether some bottles of
the oil had or had not met that same standard, the judge
concluded.

"In the event Koller is able to prove his allegations that the oil
generally does not warrant that label because of its quality when
first bottled and/or because of Deoleo's packaging and handling
practices, it would hardly be a defense that some bottles may
nevertheless meet the minimum standards when purchased," Judge
Seeborg wrote.

Mr. Koller's claims were sufficient to meet the heightened
standard for pleading fraud and to support a claim under the
"unlawful" prong of the state's Unfair Competition Law, the judge
said.  He deferred issues of whether Mr. Koller had standing to
represent classes who purchased different types of oil from what
he purchased to the class certification stage, and denied Deoleo's
bid to dismiss Mr. Koller's claim for punitive damages as
premature.

"This decision . . . vindicates the legal arguments underpinning
this important false food labeling case.  As the California
Supreme Court has held, labels do matter to consumers.  And
consumers are entitled to get what they think they are paying for
when they try to buy extra virgin olive oil from Italy," said
Hassan A. Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

The suit claims that the company falsely represents its oils as
being "extra virgin," when they are actually an inferior quality,
and misleads consumers into believing that the oils are made from
Italian olives because the labels claim the products are "imported
from Italy."  In reality, the olives originate from several
countries, according to the suit.

Mr. Koller is asking for certification of three classes of
consumers: two classes of California consumers who purchased
either the olive oil products or or any of the products purporting
to be imported from Italy, as well as a nationwide class of
consumers who purchased the olive oil products.

Mr. Koller claims he based his decision to buy a bottle of the
Bertolli extra virgin olive oil from a Safeway supermarket in
California for around $12 after seeing that it was labeled as
extra virgin and believing that the "Imported from Italy"
representation meant that the oil was made exclusively from olives
grown and pressed in Italy.

The suit includes various claims under California consumer
protection laws, as well as a claim for fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.

Deoleo USA is represented by Jeffrey B. Margulies --
jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Stephanie A. Stroup --
stephanie.stroup@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and Julia B. Glazer of
Norton Rose Fulbright.

Koller is represented by Adam J. Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com
-- Seth A. Safier, Marie McCrary, and Kristen G. Simplicio --
kristen@gutridesafier.com -- of Gutride Safier LLP; and by Hassan
A. Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

The case is Koller v. Med Foods, Inc. et al, case number 3:14-cv-
02400 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


DURHAM, CANADA: Regional Police Sued Over Racial Profiling
----------------------------------------------------------
Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the Black
Action Defence Committee has filed a C$200-million proposed class-
action lawsuit against the Durham Regional Police Services Board,
alleging that officers engaged in racial profiling.

The suit was launched by the activist group on behalf of two
complainants.  Thelma Vassal, an Oshawa resident, alleges she was
pulled over in 2012 by a Durham officer because he felt a BMW like
the one she was driving could be "a stolen car."  Nathaniel Ndem
claims he was stopped for no reason after leaving a movie theatre
last May.

Police charged Ms. Vassal after discovering she was driving with a
suspended license due to an unpaid fine, according to the
document, which was filed in Superior Court Dec. 29.  The suit
claims Ndem was illegally searched and then arrested for marijuana
possession.  The claims have not been tested in court.

Durham police said they are aware of the lawsuit, but can't
comment.

"We will be addressing it in court," said Durham police
spokesperson Dave Selby.  Officers with the force have received
training on bias-free policing for years, he said.

The lawsuit is the third proposed class-action suit filed by the
BADC against police in the GTA, each of which is awaiting
certification as a class action by a judge before it can move
forward.  None of the allegations in the suits have been proven.

In November 2013, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, as well as the
city's police services board, was targeted in a C$65-million
class-action suit, alleging that both Mr. Blair and the board
failed to address racial profiling and the disproportionately high
documenting -- or "carding" -- of residents with black or brown
skin.

The chief suspended the controversial practice Jan. 1, but won't
comment publicly on the move until the next police board meeting
Feb. 19, when Mr. Blair is supposed to present procedures that his
officers can follow to carry out a more restrictive community-
contacts policy adopted by the board last April.

That policy directs the chief to create narrow parameters for when
police may stop and document -- or "card" -- an individual, as
well how and when they will inform citizens that they are free to
disengage if they are not being investigated for a specific crime.

The order issued by Mr. Blair on New Year's Day eliminated the use
of Community Safety Notes, the new term used by police for carding
after officers were directed to record personal information
collected during such interactions in their notebooks instead of
on separate forms, or cards.  Mr. Blair issued the order because
officers were using the notes "inconsistently."

"There are ongoing confidential discussions between the board, our
lawyer and the chief regarding a procedure to implement the policy
concerning community engagements and voluntary contacts," Toronto
Police Services Board chair Alok Mukherjee said on Jan. 7.  "The
board seeks to achieve police-civilian interactions which are
grounded in respectful communication and which facilitate
intelligence gathering for the purpose of effective policing."

Mr. Mukherjee said the board remains committed to the
implementation of its community contacts policy.

Community members on a Toronto police advisory committee have been
pressuring senior officers to write new procedures for months,
without results.  Senior officers have said that a requirement to
inform citizens of their rights pertaining to carding would be a
"burden."  Police also don't want procedures that narrowly define
when they're allowed to approach an individual.

Star investigations show that between 2008 and November 2013,
police filled out 2.1 million contact cards, involving 1.2 million
individuals.  The vast majority of the contact card interactions
involved no arrest or charges. Personal details -- and the reasons
for the stops, such as "suspicious activity" -- were entered into
a massive police database.

Carding plummeted in July 2013 after the board said officers had
to issue receipts to the subjects of these interactions.

A second suit by the BADC, for C$125 million, also alleging racial
profiling, was filed in Superior Court late last year against the
Peel Police Services Board and former Peel police chief Mike
Metcalf, naming three civilian plaintiffs and two legal advocacy
groups that represent racial minorities.

Munyonzwe Hamalengwa, the lawyer who filed the lawsuits on behalf
of BADC, said he expects hundreds, if not thousands, of people to
join the class actions if they are certified by a judge.

"We are hearing all types of stories from Durham," said
Mr. Hamalengwa.  "We want to send a message, and many other people
are going to join."

The Law Union of Ontario and the Campaign to Stop Police Carding
are also targeting carding in Toronto and moving ahead with a
human rights complaint.

The two groups were actively seeking complainants early last year,
but suspended that activity after the board passed the community
contacts policy.  They decided to move ahead again after the
release of a largely negative survey about police interactions in
31 Division -- the Jane and Finch area -- conducted on behalf of
the board.  The survey, titled the Community Assessment of Police
Practices, found that many officers in the division weren't
following the board's policy.


ELI LILLY: Sued Over Injuries Arising From Cymbalta Withdrawal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jeannette Spearman and David Alan Spearman v. Eli Lilly and
Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00006-SA-SAA
(N.D. Miss., January 8, 2015) alleges personal injuries and
damages the Plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of Lilly's
failure to provide adequate instructions for stopping Cymbalta and
an adequate warning that fully and accurately informed the
Plaintiffs about the frequency, severity, or duration of symptoms
associated with Cymbalta withdrawal.

Cymbalta (generically known as duloxetine) is a prescription
antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Lilly.

Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation with its
headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Lilly is a pharmaceutical
company involved in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and
sale of numerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shane F. Langston, Esq.
          Rebecca M. Langston, Esq.
          John B. Hunt, IV, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC
          201 North President Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 969-1356
          E-mail: shane@langstonlawyers.com
                  rebecca@langstonlawyers.com
                  jack@langstonlawyers.com


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Unitholders Question Oiltanking Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that unitholders challenge
Enterprise Products Holdings' $6 billion purchase of Oiltanking
Holding Americas, in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Class Suit Over Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Arvin Temkar reports that a
class action lawsuit that claims Facebook illegally scans messages
for targeted advertising purposes will proceed in Federal Court,
despite Facebook's claims that it's stopped doing it -- mostly.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton on December 23, 2014, granted
in part and denied in part Facebook's motion to dismiss.

Lead plaintiff Matthew Campbell sued Facebook in December 2013. He
claims that the company treats web links in private messages as
"likes," and that if there's a link in a message, the linked
website received an additional "like" on its counter.

Facebook uses this data to deliver targeted advertising to users,
the class claims.

At a motion hearing in October Facebook claimed it had stopped
updating the link counter using messages in 2012, but still
conducts some analysis of users' messages to protect against
viruses and filter out spam.

But plaintiffs say that messages are supposed to relay private
communications, and that Facebook's scanning them violates the
federal Wiretap Act and California's Invasion of Privacy Act and
its Business and Professions Code.

Judge Hamilton wrote: "The fact that Facebook can configure its
code to scan message content for certain purposes, but not for
others, leaves open the possibility that the challenged practice
constitutes a separate 'interception.'"

She denied Facebook's motion to dismiss the Wiretap Act claim,
saying that users have not impliedly consented to interception of
their messages.

Hamilton also denied part of Facebook's motion to dismiss claims
under the state privacy act, as well as its request to strike the
plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive relief.

"Facebook moves to strike plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief, arguing that it ceased the challenged practice 'nearly two
years ago,'" Hamilton wrote.  "However, plaintiffs have adequately
alleged that there is a 'sufficient likelihood' that Facebook
could resume the practice, so the court denies Facebook's request
to strike the prayer for injunctive relief at this time."

The case is Matthew Campbell, et al. v. Facebook Inc., Case No.
4:13-cv-05996-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Shareholders Cannot Block Merger With Dollar Tree
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that Family
Dollar shareholders cannot block the company's proposed merger
with Dollar Tree, a Delaware court ruled, finding that Dollar
General's offer carried antitrust concerns.

A vote on the merger was scheduled on Dec. 23, but shareholders
instead decided to delay the vote for a second time, the Wall
Street Journal reported.

Family Dollar agreed in July to merge with Dollar Tree, one of its
two main competitors in the small-box discount retail market.  The
$8.5 billion merger pumped up Family Dollar's stock price from
$74.50 per share to $76.

Before the merger can be finalized, however, the Federal Trade
Commission must grant antitrust approval.  With Dollar Tree
promising to divest as many of its 4,900 retail store as necessary
to complete the deal, there is little room for error.

Dollar General, the third major company in the market, upped the
ante by offering $80 per share and agreeing to divest up to 1,500
of its stores in order to merge with Family Dollar.

When Family Dollar refused to consider the offer, Dollar General
took the offer directly to Family Dollar's shareholders.  They
sued Family Dollar's board of directors, seeking an injunction
against the merger and claiming that the board breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to consider the Dollar General offer.

The Delaware Chancery Court denied the injunction on Dec. 19,
stating that the stockholders did not "demonstrate a reasonable
probability of success."

"The record shows that the Board was motivated to maximize
Family's value and acted reasonably within the constraints of the
fiduciary out provision in the merger agreement when it decided
not to engage in negotiations with General because of the
antitrust risks associated with that proposal," Chancellor Andre
Bouchard wrote.

Family Dollar's board had been advised that the Dollar General
offer had only a 40 percent chance of approval and that divesting
1,500 stores would not be enough to avoid the antitrust issue, the
court found.

Bouchard also said that the Family Dollar shareholders have not
suffered irreparable harm.

"Nothing prevents General, which has been undeterred from bidding
to acquire Family since the company agreed to the merger, from
making an improved offer to address the antitrust risks associated
with a Family/General combination if it truly wanted to acquire
Family," he wrote.

Family Dollar, based in Charlotte, N.C., operates 8,100 stores.
Dollar Tree is based in Chesapeake, Va., and runs 4,900 stores.
Dollar General runs 11,300 stores and is based in Tennessee.

Darrell Wickert, Stuart Friedman and Shiva Y. Stein filed the
class-action lawsuit on behalf of Family Dollar's shareholders.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com
                  jjr@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Toll Free: (800) 423-6013
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957
          Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
          E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
                  cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com
                  gmelwani@milberg.com

Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Mark R. Bernstein, Pamela
L. Davies, Sharon Allred Decker, Edward C. Dolby, Glenn A.
Eisenberg, Edward P. Garden, Howard R. Levine, George R. Mahoney,
Jr., James G. Martin, Harvey Morgan, and Dale C. Pond are
represented by:

          William M. Lafferty, Esq.
          John P. DiTomo, Esq.
          Lauren K. Neal, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
          Telephone: (302) 658-9200
          Facsimile: (302) 658-3989
          E-mail: wlafferty@mnat.com
                  jditomo@mnat.com
                  lneal@mnat.com

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq.
          Meredith Kotler, Esq.
          Matthew Gurgel, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 225-3999
          E-mail: mlowenthal@cgsh.com
                  mkotler@cgsh.com
                  mgurgel@cgsh.com

Defendants Dollar Tree, Inc. and Dime Merger Sub, Inc. are
represented by:

          Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
          A. Jacob Werrett, Esq.
          J. Scott Pritchard, Esq.
          Sarah A. Clark, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          One Rodney Square
          920 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7700
          Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
          E-mail: williams@rlf.com
                  werrett@rlf.com
                  pritchard@rlf.com
                  sclark@rlf.com

               - and -

          William Savitt, Esq.
          Andrew J.H. Cheung, Esq.
          A.J. Martinez, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
          E-mail: WDSavitt@wlrk.com
                  AJHCheung@wlrk.com
                  AJMartinez@wlrk.com

The consolidated case is captioned In re Family Dollar Stores,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 9985-CB, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.


FLUIDMASTER INC: "Wyble" Suit Consolidated in Water Connector MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Wyble v. Fluidmaster
Incorporated, Case No. 2:14-cv-01826, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00236
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Fluidmaster, Inc., Water Connector Components Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2575.

The cases in the litigation involve alleged defects in
Fluidmaster's NO-BURST water supply lines, which are used to
connect a wall water supply to a household device, such as a
toilet or dishwasher, that feature acetal plastic coupling nuts
and stainless braided steel supply lines.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that the lines fail in one of two ways: (1) the
braided stainless steel lines rupture due to the use of
substandard materials, or (2) the acetal coupling nut on the water
connector fractures as a result of inferior materials and its
sharp edged design.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry Lance Entrekin, Esq.
          ENTREKIN LAW FIRM
          1 E Camelback Rd., Suite 710
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 954-1123
          Facsimile: (480) 615-9869
          E-mail: lance@entrekinlaw.com

               - and -

          Glen Lawrence Abramson, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: gabramson@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net
                  scarson@bm.net

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa Anne White, Esq.
          Adam Arthur Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          550 Main Ave., Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Chang, Esq.
          Kimberly L. Buffington, Esq.
          Mark D. Litvack, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 488-7100
          Facsimile: (213) 629-1033
          E-mail: james.chang@pillsburylaw.com
                  kbuffington@pillsburylaw.com
                  mark.litvack@pillsburylaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Mustang Model Due to Possible Fuel Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           16
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014552
TC ID number:             2014552
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S27

On certain vehicles equipped with a 2.3 Litre engine, the fuel
pressure sensor may not have been properly seated to the fitting
on the fuel jumper line.  A partially seated fuel pressure sensor
could result in a fuel odor and/or a pressurized fuel leak.  A
fuel leak, in the proximity of a hot surface that might be a
potential ignition source, may result in a fire causing injury
and/or property damage.

Dealers will replace the fuel jumper line.

Affected products: 2015 Ford Mustang


GATES AUTOMOTIVE: "Mason" Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard L. Young dismissed the case captioned
R. SCOTT MASON on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GATES AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC., GATES
CHEVY WORLD, INC., GATES AUTOMOTIVE CORP., GATES MOTORS, INC.,
GATES CHEVROLET BUICK PONTIAC GMC, LLC, Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-
00426-RLY-DKL, (S.D. Ind.).

The Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Indiana
Wage Payment Statute.  Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, following Plaintiff's failure to
respond to Defendants' Rule 68 offer of judgment.

According to Judge Young's January 9, 2015 ruling, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/c8QNxefrom Leagle.com, "The court,
bound by Seventh Circuit precedent, finds that the Rule 68 offer
of judgment offered to Plaintiff that completely satisfied
Plaintiff's requested relief caused there to no longer be a
controversy for this court to decide. Therefore, the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the FLSA claim. The
court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the
remaining state law claim. That claim is also dismissed.
Therefore, the court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Furthermore, the court denies as moot Defendants' motion for oral
argument on this matter."

R. SCOTT MASON, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald E. Weldy --
weldy@weldylaw.com -- WELDY & ASSOCIATES.

GATES AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, represented by James
D. Johnson -- jdjohnson@jacksonkelly.com -- JACKSON KELLY PLLC &
Stacy K. Newton -- sknewton@jacksonkelly.com -- JACKSON KELLY
PLLC.

GATES CHEVY WORLD, INC., Defendant, represented by James D.
Johnson, JACKSON KELLY PLLC & Stacy K. Newton, JACKSON KELLY PLLC.

GATES AUTOMOTIVE CORP., Defendant, represented by James D.
Johnson, JACKSON KELLY PLLC & Stacy K. Newton, JACKSON KELLY PLLC.

GATES MOTORS, INC., Defendant, represented by James D. Johnson,
JACKSON KELLY PLLC & Stacy K. Newton, JACKSON KELLY PLLC.

GATES CHEVROLET BUICK PONTIAC GMC, LLC, Defendant, represented by
James D. Johnson, JACKSON KELLY PLLC & Stacy K. Newton, JACKSON
KELLY PLLC.


GRAND DADDY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Unpaid Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WSAW.com reports that a Federal Magistrate has denied a motion to
dismiss a lawsuit even after the owners of Grand Daddy's
gentleman's club agreed to pay a judgment to a former dancer
asking for unpaid overtime and unlawful deductions.

Elizabeth Mays is seeking a judgment alleging her former employer,
the owners of Grand Daddy's in Schofield, refused to pay dancers
and hourly wages or compensate them for overtime hours.  Ms. Mays
claims the dancers could be fined for violating club rules, had to
tip the bartenders, DJs and other club employees, and pay a
portions of their tips to the club. Mays states the practices are
a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Mays has a year to clarify her monetary demands.

Judge Stephen Crocker stated in court documents the offer made by
the club's owners did not cover the plaintiff's claim or future
claims.  Grand Daddy's owners, Julian Morrell and Edward Kraimer,
Jr. offered Mays $7,237 for back wages, overtime pay, liquidated
damages, improper deductions and punitive damages.  Because
Ms. Mays did not respond to the officer within 14 days, the owner
filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge denied.

Ms. Mays' attorney, Tim Burnett told NewsChannel 7 during a phone
interview his client is not only seeking a financial judgment but
is seeking to change the way that dance clubs do business and
treat performers -- citing a reason why she did not accepted the
settlement.

Grand Daddy's classified Mays' and its other employees as
independent contractors citing that she would be exempt from
various provisions of the law.

The plaintiff's are pursuing a class action settlement possibly
involving more entertainers. Burnett said later this year a judge
will address the class action case and issue a decision if it will
move forward.


GREAVES JAMS: Recalls Jam and Marmalade Products Due to Mold
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Greaves Jams & Marmalades Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9502


HARRIS & HARRIS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Massry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-00142-JAP-TJB (D.N.J., January 8, 2015) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

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


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Formally Resolves Federal Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2015,
that on January 13, 2015, Impax Laboratories, Inc., together with
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company,
formally resolved the federal securities class action lawsuit
filed against the Company and the other defendants in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Aruliah v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. et al, Case No.
3:14-cv-03673-JD (the "Securities Class Action").  The settlement
provides for the resolution of all the pending claims in the
Securities Class Action, without any admission or concession of
wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
The Company and other defendants agreed to the settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of
further litigation.   Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will
pay $4.75 million for a full and complete release of all claims
that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other
defendants in the Securities Class Action.  The Company currently
expects that the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by
the Company's insurance policy.  The settlement remains subject to
preliminary and final court approval and certain other conditions
and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative
litigations.


INVENSENSE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 7 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
InvenSense, Inc. common stock during the period between July 29,
2014 and October 28, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 7, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/invensense/

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.

The complaint charges InvenSense and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells Micro-Electro-
Mechanical Systems sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and
microphones, for use in smartphones and tablets, console and
portable video gaming devices, and other types of consumer
electronics.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and outlook.  Specifically,
defendants concealed the adverse effects the Company would
experience as a result of its agreement with Apple to supply
sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus at heavily discounted
prices.  The low prices charged to Apple, along with the low
prices charged to one of its other customers, had negatively
impacted, and would continue to negatively impact, the Company's
margins. Instead of revealing the Company's true condition and
prospects, defendants concealed these adverse facts from investors
and chose to issue strong guidance.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements and/or omissions, InvenSense
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $25.85 per share, allowing
certain of the Company's insiders to sell their personally held
stock at artificially inflated prices for aggregate proceeds of
over $5.3 million.

Then, on October 28, 2014, InvenSense announced disappointing
financial results for the quarter ended September 28, 2014, and
revealed a substantial drop-off in margins due in large part to
the low prices it had charged its customers, operational
inefficiencies with the iPhone 6 rollout, and a charge related to
old inventory.  The Company's announcements caused InvenSense
shares to plummet more than 25% in one day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
InvenSense common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


IRON ORE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Innu Communities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal has
refused to hear a motion by the Iron Ore Co. of Canada and the
Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Co. seeking to dismiss a
class action lawsuit filed by two Innu communities.

The Innu First Nations of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam (Uashaunnuat) and
Matimekush-Lac John claim the IOC, which is majority owned by Rio
Tinto (NYSE:RIO), has violated their rights for nearly 60 years
and are seeking C$900 million in compensation.  They allege the
companies have been running a large mining complex and railway on
traditional territory in northeastern Quebec and Labrador since
the 1950s without prior consent.  The operations are located in
the communities of Schefferville, Labrador City and Sept-Iles.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Marc-Andre Blanchard rejected IOC's
claim that the Innu had to sue the government instead of the
company in a ruling in September.

The Innu claim the mines and other facilities have ruined the
environment, displaced members from their territory and prevented
them from practicing their traditional way of life.  They also
said the 578-kilometre railway between Schefferville and Sept-Iles
has opened up their territory to "numerous other destructive
development projects."

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Rio Tinto owns a 58.7% sake in IOC, followed by Mitsubishi with
26.2% and Labrador Iron Ore Royalty Corp. at 15.1%, which also
receives a royalty on all IOC iron ore sales.

The Innu communities have reached agreements with miners
ArcelorMittal, Cliffs Natural Resources, Tata Steel, New
Millennium Iron and Labrador Iron Mines that provide financial
compensation for the mining activities.


JAYCO: Recalls Eagle HT Fifth Wheel Trailer Models
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           20
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014551
TC ID number:             2014551

On certain fifth wheel travel trailers, the certification, tire
and loading information labels do not contain correct tire size
information.  The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of
ST235/75R15D while the correct tire size is ST225/75R15D.  As a
result, the vehicle may inadvertently be fitted with incorrect
replacement tires.  Overloaded tires may lead to poor vehicle
handling characteristics, which could result in a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected vehicles,
along with instructions for proper installation.

Affected products: 2015 Jayco Eagle HT Fifth Wheel Trailer


JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Snider, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports that
a federal class action lawsuit was filed on Jan. 6 in Jacksonville
against Jimmy John's, alleging that the sandwich chain illegally
underpaid assistant store managers throughout the country.

According to the complaint, "Regardless of the number of hours
worked, Jimmy John's fails to pay [assistant store managers] any
overtime compensation."  The company requires assistant store
managers to perform food preparation and provide customer service
as their primary duty, but classifies them as "executives" exempt
from the overtime pay provisions, the lawsuit alleges.

"We're not saying they didn't perform any managerial duties," said
Justin Swartz of Outen & Golden of New York, part of a three-firm
law team that has brought the complaint.  "But their primary duty
is making sandwiches and serving customers."

A spokeswoman for Jimmy John's said via email that the company
declined comment.

The legal team will seek to have the suit certified as a
collective action to recover unpaid wages, service awards,
interest and attorneys fees for eligible assistant store managers
who worked at Jimmy John's since January 2012.  Lawsuits under the
Fair Labor Standards Act allow for up to double damages.

In FLSA suits, plaintiffs must opt in to a class, or collective,
action.  Mr. Swartz said the legal team will ask the judge to
compel Jimmy John's to hand over names and addresses of people
eligible to join the suit, then reach out to them and see if they
care to join.  He estimated that the potential plaintiffs number
in the thousands, and that cases such as this one generate an opt-
in rate of 20% to 30%.

Three plaintiffs -- Jay Rodriguez in Jacksonville, and one each in
Chicago and Tuscaloosa, Ala., -- brought suit in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
They are represented by Outten & Golden's New York office; Shavitz
Law Group of Boca Raton; and Klafter Olsen & Lesser of Rye Brook,
N.Y.


JM SMUCKER: Florida Court Refuse to Certify Class in Crisco Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Kevin Lessmiller reports that
a federal judge sided with the maker of Crisco food oils by
denying class certification to plaintiffs claiming the company
lied about the oils being "all natural."

Melissa Leigh Randolph sued The J.M. Smucker Co. individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated in 2013, claiming that some
of the company's Crisco cooking oil products are not "all natural"
as advertised.

Instead, the oils are "made from genetically modified plants and
processed with harsh chemicals," Randolph claimed.

The proposed class consists of "all persons in Florida who, from
May 2009 to the present, purchased Crisco Pure Vegetable Oil,
Crisco Pure Canola Oil, Crisco Pure Corn Oil, and Crisco Natural
Blend Oil," excluding anyone who purchased for resale or
associated with Smucker, according to Randolph's complaint.

The court allowed the proposed class to amend its warranty claims
in March 2014, but U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom denied
Randolph's motion to certify the class.

The judge found that the proposed class can't be ascertained.

"At this juncture, plaintiff has failed to set forth an
administratively feasible method of determining class membership,"
Bloom wrote.  "The variety of Crisco products and inconsistent
labeling complicates the viability of self-identification via
affidavit, and, at this stage, plaintiff has failed to present
evidence on whether subpoenas may be utilized to overcome this
issue.  Accordingly, on the record presented here, the court
cannot certify the class proposed."

Even if the class were ascertainable, Randolph hasn't demonstrated
that she can prove class-wide measurable damages at trial, Bloom
ruled.

"Plaintiff has not been [sic] established whether the use of the
'All Natural' in this context would deceive an objectively
reasonable consumer," Bloom wrote.  "Thus, any predominant issues
succumb to individualized issues of fact, namely, whether the
individual believes a product labeled as 'All Natural' derived
from GMOs is indeed 'all natural,' and whether the class member
actually purchased a product containing the challenged label."

Bloom also denied Smucker's motion to strike new evidence and an
expert report that was submitted with Randolph's reply brief.

The case is Melissa Leigh Randolph, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. The J.M. Smucker Co., an Ohio
corporation, Case No. 13-CIV-80581-BLOOM/Valle, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Mikhlin" Suit in Missouri Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie L. White granted Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and/or Strike in the case captioned DENIS MIKHLIN and ERIN
HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, No. 4:14-CV-881 RLW (E.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiffs filed a two-count Class Action Complaint on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated Missouri customers who
have purchased Johnson's(R) Baby Powder in Missouri claiming for
Damages Under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA")
and alleging that they suffered injury in fact and lost money as a
result of the unfair practices alleged in the form of the purchase
price paid for Johnson's(R) Baby Powder.

Plaintiffs alleged they suffered injury in fact and a loss of
money in that they have been deprived of the benefit of their
bargain and have spent money on Johnson's Baby Powder when it
contained serious risks, which were known to Defendants but
undisclosed, concealed, and misrepresented by Defendants.

Defendants argued that Plaintiffs either lack of standing or
cannot state a claim because they have not alleged any injury
based upon their purchase of Johnson's(R) Baby Powder and
contended that Plaintiffs received exactly what they expected and
the risks they complain of never affected them. Further,
Defendants asserted that the Court should hold Plaintiffs lack
standing and their entire Complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice.

In his Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and/or Strike, Judge White ruled that Plaintiffs have suffered no
injury and failed to allege that they have suffered any medical
consequences.

Judge White elaborated further that while Plaintiffs contended
that they would not have purchased and used Johnson's(R) Baby
Powder had they known about the increased ovarian cancer risk, the
Court holds that Plaintiffs received 100% use and benefit from the
products and had no quantifiable damages suffered.

A copy of the Order dated November 13, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1vovZfK from Leagle.com.

Denis Mikhlin, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Paul Green,
GOLDENBERG AND HELLER, P.C., Thomas P. Rosenfeld, GOLDENBERG AND
HELLER, P.C., Daniel F. Harvath, THE DANIEL HARVATH LAW FIRM, LLC
& Mark C. Goldenberg, GOLDENBERG AND HELLER, P.C..

Erin Hoffmann, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Paul Green,
GOLDENBERG AND HELLER, P.C., Thomas P. Rosenfeld, GOLDENBERG AND
HELLER, P.C., Daniel F. Harvath, THE DANIEL HARVATH LAW FIRM, LLC
& Mark C. Goldenberg, GOLDENBERG AND HELLER, P.C..

Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Dan H. Ball --
dnball@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Matthew D. Powers,
O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP & Richard Blair Goetz, O'MELVENY AND
MYERS.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Dan H. Ball, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Matthew D. Powers, O'MELVENY AND
MYERS LLP & Richard Blair Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com  -- O'MELVENY AND
MYERS.


KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN: Dist. Ct. Ruling in Travelers Case Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, ST. PAUL FIRE
AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Counter, Defendants-
Appellees, v. THE KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN, L.L.C., d.b.a. Budget Rent
a Car, A BETTERWAY RENT-A-CAR, INC., Defendants-Counter Claimants-
Appellants, NO. 14-11006, the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit address whether the appellee insurers owe a duty
to defend their appellant insureds against a lawsuit alleging that
the insureds willfully violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1), a
provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA)
that prohibits "print[ing] more than the last five digits of the
[credit] card number or the expiration date upon any receipt
provided to the cardholder. . . ."

In its January 12, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/llSKZyfrom Leagle.com, the Eleventh Circuit held
that the answer to this inquiry depends on whether the underlying
lawsuit against the insureds arguably alleges two things: (1) that
the insureds acted with an intent that could be characterized as
"willful" though not "knowing" and (2) that the insureds provided
non-truncated receipts of credit-card account owners to people
other than the owners of the credit cards used to conduct the
transactions.

The Eleventh Circuit said the answer to the first question is
"yes."  However, it must also address the second issue, which
turns on whether Section 1681c(g)(1), the statute that the
insureds are alleged to have violated, prohibits vendors from
providing non-truncated credit-card receipts to their customers
for credit-card accounts that their customers do not own. If the
answer to this question is "yes," the insurance companies have a
duty to defend, but if it is "no," they do not.

"This question appears to be one of first impression, and we think
that it would likely benefit from briefing focused directly on it.
In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, which is charged with
administering the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which FACTA amended,
may wish to be heard on the issue. For these reasons, we reverse
the judgment of the district court ruling that the insurance
companies had no duty to defend the insureds, and we remand for
the district court to determine whether [Section] 1681c(g)(1)
prohibits vendors from providing their non-credit-card-account-
holding customers with non-conforming receipts of their credit-
card-account-holding customers," ruled the Eleventh Circuit.


KPMG US: 1 Out of 10 Female Staff to Join Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Reed, writing for Accountancy Age, reports that one-in-ten
KPMG US current and former female fee-earners, contacted to join a
class-action suit against the firm, have signed up.

Lawyers contacted 9,000 current and former fee-earning female
staff from KPMG in the US, in October 2014, to join the class
action.  A former KPMG manager, Donna Kassman, spent 17 years in
the firm's New York office before resigning, claiming that she and
other women had suffered gender discrimination.

A statement from law firm Sanford Heisler, which is representing
the class action, revealed that nearly 900 women had opted to join
the case.  The proportion of current to former female employees
opted into the class action is currently unknown.  The response
period for joining the case ends on January 31.

In response, KPMG stated: "We will not comment on pending
litigation, except to say that KPMG thoroughly and repeatedly
reviewed the allegations in this case and found them totally
unsupported by the facts.

"KPMG is deeply committed to the career advancement of women and
confronting the challenges women too often face in the workplace,
and we take very seriously any concern about discrimination or
unfair treatment.  KPMG is replete with and led by many talented
and successful women and, as we have noted previously, diversity
and inclusion have long been priorities for the firm."

The opportunity to enter the class action was granted by a US
district judge on October 3.


LHC GROUP: "Chapman" FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown granted Plaintiff's Motion
to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action in the case captioned
CORINNE CHAPMAN, v. LHC GROUP, INC., Section: "G" (3), Civil
Action Case No. 13-6384 (E.D. La.).

Chapman worked for LHC as an office manager whose responsibilities
includes scheduling, recording, and reporting the work hours of
LHC's hourly employees.  Chapman filed a Motion to Certify Class
and seeks to represent a collective class of individual plaintiffs
in their claims against LHC for unpaid overtime and minimum wages
for off-the-clock work pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Chapman alleged that for several years, LHC implemented a record
keeping and compensation policies that prohibits payment of
overtime wages by instructing its hourly employees not to record
any overtime hours on their time sheets, even if the employees
worked hours in excess of the 40 hour work week.

Chapman filed a request for conditional certification, arguing
that it is proper because LHC's allegedly unlawful record-keeping
and compensation policies and practices were enforced against all
of LHC's nonexempt employees nationwide and that the aggrieved
Plaintiffs, including herself, were assigned workloads that
required working in excess of 40 hours a workweek to complete.

LHC argued that Chapman's motion must be denied because she does
not come close to meeting the admittedly lenient standard for
conditionally certifying an FLSA collective action. Further, LHC
argued that Chapman offered only conclusory allegations that
certain unidentified employees worked off the clock at the
direction of unidentified supervisors and senior management at
unspecified points in time and that Chapman failed to demonstrate
that members of the putative class are "similarly situated" to
her.

District Judge Brown ruled that Plaintiff meet the burden of
demonstrating a reasonable basis for believing that aggrieved
individuals exist, those aggrieved individuals are similarly
situated to her, and those individuals desire to opt-in to the
lawsuit. Also, Chapman met that burden by demonstrating a class of
similarly situated individuals performing the same job functions
in the field under the same employment scheme.

A copy of the Order dated November 13, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/tWjPy5from Leagle.com.

Corinne Chapman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chad A. Danenhower, Law Office
of Dale Edward Williams & Dale Edward Williams, Law Office of Dale
Edward Williams.

LHC Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glenn G. Patton --
glenn.patton@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, Brett E. Coburn --
brett.coburn@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, Christopher S.
Mann, Jones Walker, Jennifer Lynn Anderson, Jones Walker & Mary
Margaret LeBato, Jones Walker.


LIFE PARTNERS: Securities Class Actions Stayed Pending SEC Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that a court has
stayed all proceedings in a securities class action until the
Court issues a ruling on the SEC's motion for judgment in
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Life Partners Holdings,
Inc., et al.

In February and March of 2011, six putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division. On July 5, 2011, these
actions were consolidated into the case styled Selma Stone, et al.
v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden,
and David M. Martin, Civil Action No. DR-11-CV-16-AM in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio
Division. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar, and at times
identical, facts and allegations to those asserted by the SEC in
its complaint in the SEC action and seek damages and an award of
costs on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired our common stock between May 26, 2006, and June
17, 2011.

On March 26, 2012, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaint which the court denied on March 15, 2014. On
September 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay all
proceedings in this case until the Court issues a ruling on the
SEC's motion for judgment in Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., et al.

The Court granted the motion on September 17, 2014 and ordered all
proceedings in this case stayed until a ruling is issued in the
SEC case. The Court further ordered that, within the 45-day period
following the entry of a judgment in the SEC Action, the
Plaintiffs shall either 1) file a motion to dismiss this action,
or 2) file a motion for class certification.


LIFE PARTNERS: LPI's Appeal in "McDermott" Rejected
---------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that Life
Partners, Inc.'s appeal on the designation of the class in the
case, Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., was recently rejected
by the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas.

On March 11, 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, styled
Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966. The
original petition asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative
class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased
any portion of a life settlement that matured earlier than the
estimated maximum life expectancy. Pursuant to three amendments to
the Petition, the plaintiff revised the putative class of persons
on whose behalf the plaintiff seeks to represent to be limited to
all persons residing in the United States who purchased any
portion of one particular life settlement. The plaintiff seeks as
purported damages the amount of funds placed in escrow for policy
maintenance that was allegedly not needed or used for policy
maintenance and was not returned or paid to the plaintiff or the
putative class members as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The
plaintiff also seeks certain equitable relief, including
injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement.

Following briefing by the parties and a hearing before the court,
the court certified a class consisting of 38 persons residing in
the United States that purchased any portion of a life settlement
interest in the designated policy. LPI appealed the designation of
the class, but the appeal was recently rejected by the Fifth
District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas. The case will eventually
be returned to the 191st District Court for further proceedings.


LIFE PARTNERS: Fifth Court of Appeals Stays Bellwether Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that the Fifth
Court of Appeals issued an order staying the bellwether trial
which had been set for September 29, 2014 until further order of
the Court.

On April 8, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the 40th Judicial District Court of Ellis County, Texas, styled
John Willingham, individually and on behalf of all other Texas
citizens similarly situated, v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No.
82640 (MR). On July 27, 2011, by agreement of the parties, the
Willingham case was transferred to the 101st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County under Cause No. DC-11-10639. All of the
plaintiff's claims are based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization" on behalf of all Texas residents
that purchased an interest in a life settlement facilitated by
LPI.

On March 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed his fourth amended petition
in which eight new named-plaintiffs were added to the suit, and
we, Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden were added as defendants.
In addition to the putative class claims concerning the alleged
overpayment of premiums, the amended petition asserts individual
claims of breach of fiduciary duty against LPI arising from the
alleged overpayment of premiums and the alleged use of
underestimated life expectancies provided by Dr. Donald Cassidy,
as well as aiding and abetting claims against us, Pardo and Peden.

On January 22, 2013, a petition was filed in the 162 nd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas, styled Stephen Eccles, et al
vs. Life Partners, Inc., Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D.
Pardo and R. Scott Peden on behalf of 23 individuals, all of whom
were represented by the same counsel for the plaintiff in the
Willingham case. On March 20, 2013, the parties filed a joint
motion to consolidate the Eccles case with the Willingham case,
which was granted on March 25, 2013. On April 15, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed their fifth amended petition dropping all
putative class claims and asserting individual claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, common law fraud, civil conspiracy, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty and common law fraud, and
negligence against us, LPI, Pardo and Peden. The plaintiff seeks
economic and exemplary damages, disgorgement and/or fee
forfeiture, attorneys' fees and costs, and post and pre-judgment
interest.

On April 9, 2013, an original petition was filed in the 352 nd
Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, styled Todd
McClain, et al v. Life Partners, Inc., Life Partners Holdings,
Inc., Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden. This suit is virtually
identical to the Willingham case. On May 15, 2013, the defendants
filed a motion to transfer the McClain and Willingham cases to a
Multi-District Litigation Panel for the purposes of transferring
and consolidating the Willingham case and the McClain case to a
single forum for pretrial purposes. On August 16, 2013, the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an opinion granting the
motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2013, the Panel issued an
Order transferring the McClain case to Judge Slaughter of the
191st District Court of Dallas County and consolidating the
McClain case (and any tag along cases subsequently filed) with the
Willingham case. The consolidated MDL case is styled In re Life
Partners, Inc. Litigation (the "MDL Proceedings "). In the MDL
Proceedings, all of plaintiffs' claims are based upon the alleged
failure to engage in "premium optimization," as well as the
alleged provision of underestimated life expectancies by Dr.
Donald Cassidy to LPI and LPI's use in the facilitation of life
settlement transactions in which plaintiffs acquired interests in
life insurance policies. Plaintiffs seek economic and exemplary
damages, disgorgement and/or fee forfeiture, attorneys' fees and
costs, and post and pre-judgment interest. On August 9, 2013, the
Court entered a scheduling order setting a bellwether trial
consisting of ten plaintiffs, five selected by plaintiffs and five
selected by defendants, with the remaining plaintiffs trying their
claims in groups of 16 approximately 90 days after the conclusion
of each trial.

On September 10, 2014, Defendants filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Fifth Court of Appeals concerning the issue of whether the
Court abused its discretion by not excluding certain expert
witnesses. On September 12, 2014, the Fifth Court of Appeals
issued an order staying the bellwether trial which had been set
for September 29, 2014 until further order of the Court.


LIFE PARTNERS: No Trial Set in "Steuben" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2014, that no trial
has been set in the case, Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself
and all other California citizens similarly situated v. Life
Partners, Inc.

On November 8, 2011, a putative class action suit was filed,
styled Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself and all other
California citizens similarly situated v. Life Partners, Inc.,
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953. This suit asserts claims of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of California's
Unfair Competition law based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization."

On December 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their motion to
intervene in the Turnbow case whereby the plaintiffs sought to
join the putative Turnbow class and subclass and to create a new
subclass asserting claims for damages related to the defendants'
alleged overpayment of premiums. The Federal District Judge in the
Turnbow case denied the plaintiffs' motion to intervene on
February 5, 2013 and the Turnbow case was voluntarily dismissed in
December 2013.

On June 5, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report with the
court, and the court continued to stay the case pending resolution
of the Willingham suit. No trial date has been set.


LIONSTONE HOLDINGS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Roland, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated v. Lionstone Holdings Group LLC and Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00061-N (N.D. Tex., Jan. 8,
2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wood, Esq.
          THE WOOD FIRM PLLC
          103 N Goliad, Suite 204
          Rockwall, TX 75087
          Telephone: (682) 651-7599
          Facsimile: (888) 598-9022
          E-mail: jeff@mmlaw.pro


LOC-SKY TRADING: Recalls Macau Honghong Cracker Due to Allergen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Expanded Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sesame Seeds, Allergen - Tree
                          Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loc-Sky Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9495

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning people with
an allergy to sesame or almond not to consume the products
described below because they may contain sesame or almond which is
not declared on the label.

Check to see if you have the products in your home.  If the
products are in your home, do not consume them.

If you have an allergy to sesame or almond, do not consume the
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

The warning was triggered by a consumer complaint.  The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of these or other products.  If products are recalled, the
CFIA will notify the public through a Food Recall Warning.

Affected products:

   -- 300 g. Macau Honghong Rice Cracker with 6 924535 411091 UPC
   -- 500 g. Macau Honghong Almond Cracker with 6 924535 UPC
   -- 200 g. Macau Honghong Salted Almond Cracker with 924535
      409180 UPC


MAY COSMETICS: Recalls Mon-Platin Strengthening Hair Spray
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 5, 2014
Posting date:             December 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Cosmetics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42773

Affected products: Mon-Platin - Classic Strengthening Hair Spray

The recall involves Mon-Platin - Classic Strengthening Hair Spray
distributed by M.A.Y. Cosmetics Canada.

The product is packaged in a red and white pressurized metal
container with a spray nozzle and with UPC 7290011078126.

The recalled cosmetics do not meet labelling requirements for
cosmetic products under Canadian Law.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
this recalled product does not meet labeling requirements for
potentially flammable and explosive products under Canadian law.
This lack of labeling information, including appropriate warnings,
could result in misuse of the product and lead to serious injury.

Neither Health Canada nor M.A.Y. Cosmetics has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
the affected products.

Approximately 23,500 units of the recalled cosmetic products were
sold to Canadians.

The recalled cosmetics were manufactured in Israel and sold from
2006 to present at various salons across Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Meshi Cosmetic Industries
                    Israel

   Distributor      M.A.Y. Cosmetic Inc.
                    Concord
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cosmetics.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls E Class, GLK Class and Sprinter Models
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           5138
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014546
TC ID number:             2014546

On certain vehicles equipped with four-cylinder diesel engines,
the timing chain tensioner gasket could fail, causing an oil leak.
If the vehicle is operated in this condition, this could cause
engine failure, which would result in a loss of motive power.  Oil
leaking onto hot engine surfaces could also increase the risk of a
fire.  These issues could increase the risk of injury and/or
damage to property.

Dealers will replace the timing chain tensioner gasket.

Affected products:

   Maker               Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----               -----         ----------------------
   MERCEDES-BENZ       E CLASS       2014, 2015
   MERCEDES-BENZ       SPRINTER      2014, 2015
   MERCEDES-BENZ       GLK CLASS     2014, 2015


MOTORCITY CASINO: 6th Cir. Upholds FLSA Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth Circuit on
Jan. 7 backed a lower court's dismissal of a class action alleging
that a Detroit casino should have paid security guards for
monitoring radios during meal breaks, ruling that no reasonable
jury would find the breaks primarily benefited the casino.

The three-judge panel found that the MotorCity Casino did not
violate the Fair Labor Standards Act when it chose not to pay
overtime wages to security workers, who had alleged that a
30-minute lunch break during which they were required to stay on
the premises, listen to radio communications and respond to
emergencies constituted compensable working time.

The panel cited plaintiffs' acknowledgment that emergencies during
meal breaks rarely occurred, with one guard saying he missed only
one meal period in 10 years on the job.

"The evidence is undisputed that plaintiffs perform no substantial
job duties during meal breaks, emergency calls rarely -- if ever
-- interrupt the guards' meals, and the guards pursued their
'mealtime adequately and comfortably,'" the panel wrote.  "In
these circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that
plaintiffs' meal periods predominantly benefitted MotorCity."

The class action was filed in Michigan federal district court in
April 2012. The plaintiffs sued for violations of the FLSA's
overtime provision, claiming they worked 41.25 hours per week,
comprising five eight-hour shifts and a daily 15-minute roll call
meeting, but were only paid for 40 hours of work.

Although MotorCity had already acknowledged the roll call meeting
was compensable, the crux of plaintiff's argument was that they
were also entitled to compensation for spending their meal periods
working.

However, evidence showed that security guards were free to eat,
read, make phone calls, watch TV and surf the Internet while
listening to the casino security's radio chatter, which very
rarely required emergency action, court documents said.

The district court granted MotorCity summary judgment in March
2014, ruling that the lunchtime duties were a de minimis activity
and not a substantial job duty, according to court documents.

The district court found that the time security guards spent
attending roll call meetings was offset by the lunch breaks and
determined that the plaintiffs only worked 38.75 hours per week,
making them ineligible for overtime pay.

Chief Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., Circuit Judge Richard Allen Griffin
and District Judge James G. Carr of the Northern District of Ohio
sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher P. Desmond of
Johnson Law PLC.

MotorCity is represented by Eric J. Pelton -- epelton@kohp.com --
Thomas G. Kienbaum -- tkienbaum@kohp.com -- and Thomas J. Davis --
tdavis@kohp.com -- of Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton PLC.

The case is Angelia Ruffin et al. v. MotorCity Casino, case number
14-1444, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


NAT'L HOCKEY: Judge Hears Motion to Dismiss Concussion Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the N.H.L.'s motion to dismiss a
class-action lawsuit brought by former players over concussion-
related injuries has been heard by the federal judge assigned to
the case.

Lawyers for the league and the former players gave oral arguments
on Jan. 8 in the courtroom of Judge Susan Richard Nelson of United
States District Court in St. Paul.  The hearing lasted about five
hours, and Judge Nelson did not make a ruling or give a timetable
for her decision.

The players have been seeking unspecified financial damages and
league-funded medical monitoring for neurological disorders.  They
have accused the N.H.L. of failing to warn players of the risks of
head injuries and promoting the violent play that led to them.

The suit, a combination of several from more than 200 former
players, was formally filed in October.  As a class-action
complaint, the litigation covers the estimated 5,000 living former
N.H.L. players.


NEW YORK, NY: Settles Class Action Over Public Housing Policing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Mueller and J. David Goodman, writing for The New York
Times, report that New York City reached a preliminary settlement
in a federal class-action lawsuit over the Police Department's
trespassing-enforcement tactics in public housing developments,
according to court papers.

Under the proposed settlement, filed in United States District
Court in Manhattan, the city agreed to alter the way the police
patrol inside public housing buildings, acceding to many of the
demands of the plaintiffs, who argued that basic behavior in
public housing had become subject to aggressive scrutiny and
unwarranted trespassing arrests.

The decision to settle the case is the latest step in an effort by
Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration to conclude lawsuits
involving police conduct that were pending from earlier years.

The settlement is subject to approval by Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  If the settlement is approved, it is expected to
become part of a federal monitoring process ordered in a parallel
case decided by Judge Scheindlin in 2013 over the department's
stop-and-frisk policies.

The Police Department would revise its patrol guide to curb
practices that officers have long relied upon, forcing them to
fill out new forms when they make arrests for trespassing, and
clarifying when officers should simply leave residents alone.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2010, charged that residents of
public housing and their visitors faced police scrutiny and
unwarranted stops for mundane activities like talking in the
hallways or dropping off children.

These mostly came from officers engaged in so-called vertical
patrols, when officers sweep buildings floor by floor.

For decades, in addition to looking for crime, police officers
patrolling public housing developments have also been told to
watch for violations of the New York City Housing Authority's
rules of conduct.

Rather than fight the plaintiffs' claims in court, as the
Bloomberg administration often had, the city decided to revise
tactics that the Police Department had long leaned on to stop and
question tenants in public housing.

The plaintiffs had been in settlement negotiations with the city
since the summer, said Seymour James, attorney-in-chief of the
Legal Aid Society, which filed the suit with the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, and the firm of Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

"They've been treating people like criminals in their own homes,
or the homes of their friends and loved ones," Mr. James said.

He added that the revisions to police tactics could help repair
relations between the police and minority communities that have
frayed in recent months over the deaths of unarmed black men,
including Akai Gurley, who was shot in the stairwell of the Lewis
H. Pink Houses in Brooklyn by an officer conducting a vertical
patrol.

In a statement, a spokesman for the city's Law Department said the
settlement "appropriately balances the need to maximize public
safety while respecting the constitutional rights" of Housing
Authority residents and their guests.

One practice that came under particular scrutiny in the federal
case was the way officers used a prohibition on "lingering" in the
lobbies and stairwells of public housing buildings to make stops
and, sometimes, arrests for trespassing.

An analysis by the plaintiffs found that "lingering" was often
used as a basis for the initial interaction that resulted in an
arrest, even though alone it would not provide a constitutional
basis for a stop. (Lingering differs from the penal law violation
of loitering, which applies only in a public place, though
officers and residents often use the terms interchangeably.)

As part of the preliminary settlement, the Housing Authority
amended its rules to include a lengthy definition of "lingering."

"Lingering occurs," the proposed new rules state, when a person is
inside a Housing Authority building "for an unreasonable period of
time in light of the area's intended purpose."  Officers would now
be told explicitly that it does not include checking the mail or
"waiting for food deliveries," and that a person cannot be
subjected to a stop or an arrest for mere lingering.

Officers would be instructed not to arrest someone for trespassing
in restricted areas like the building's roof "in the absence of
conspicuously posted rules," unless they have reason to believe
the person is knowingly flouting them.  Instead of making an
arrest, officers would simply be instructed to ask the person to
leave.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over SUV Defective Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Federal class action lawsuit was filed against Nissan North
America, Inc. on December 15, 2014 for selling and leasing SUVs
with seriously dangerous and defective transmissions.  The suit
alleges that Nissan concealed the problems with the transmissions,
and continued to sell the vehicles.

The failure to disclose the dangers caused by the faulty
continuously variable transmission (CVT) could potentially put
tens of thousands of people in danger.  Consumers experienced
heavy vibrations, shuddering, and a dangerous and unexpected
failure to accelerate as a result of the transmission defect.

Even though consumers were experiencing the problems, Nissan
refused to honor the express and implied warranties to fix the
troubled transmissions.  Vehicles equipped with the faulty
transmission include the Nissan Pathfinder, model years 2013-2014.

The Consumer Class Action Complaint seeks over $5,000,000 in
damages for breach of contract, failure to honor warranties,
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

F. Jerome Tapley, Ryan Lutz and Adam W. Pittman of Cory Watson,
P.C. filed the suit along with attorneys from the law firms of
Newsome Melton LLP in Orlando, Florida and the offices of Weil
Quaranta McGovern PA in Miami, Florida and Los Angeles,
California.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Weil Quaranta Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weil Quaranta McGovern, a law firm with offices in Miami and Los
Angeles, on Jan. 7 disclosed that it has filed a federal class
action lawsuit in South Florida against Nissan North America
alleging failure to warn consumers about dangerously defective
transmissions in 2013-2014 Pathfinder vehicles.

"This poses a potentially serious problem at any time,
particularly when a car is merging onto high-speed traffic on a
freeway."

The suit alleges that, on acceleration from 15 to 30 mph, the
vehicles are subjected to unexpected shaking and violent jerking
("juddering" or "shuddering"), preventing the vehicles from
accelerating.  The suit states: "This transmission defect creates
an unreasonably dangerous situation and increases the risk of a
crash; it is inevitable that an individual will be injured or
killed due to a collision caused by this safety defect."

Ronald P. Weil -- RPW@wqmlaw.net -- partner at Weil Quaranta
McGovern's Miami office, says this defect potentially affects tens
of thousands of consumers not only in Florida and California, but
throughout the country.

"Nissan continues to sell and lease the Pathfinder despite its
awareness of the defect and the danger it poses to consumers and
other drivers," Mr. Weil says.

Says Mary Olszewska -- mary@wqmlaw.net -- of Weil Quaranta's Los
Angeles office: "This poses a potentially serious problem at any
time, particularly when a car is merging onto high-speed traffic
on a freeway."

The suit alleges that Nissan concealed and knowingly sold and
leased vehicles with the dangerously defective transmissions, and
through its dealers failed to honor express and implied warranties
to repair and replace the dangerously defective transmissions.
Instead, the 77-page lawsuit claims, consumers' complaints were
delayed, deflected, and ultimately denied.

The Consumer Class Action Complaint seeks damages in excess of $5
million, injunctive and declaratory relief, and punitive damages
for claims of breach of express and implied warranties, violations
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The action, filed Dec. 15, 2014, is styled Batista vs. Nissan
North America, Inc., no. 1: 14-cv-24728-RNS, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Mr. Weil and Ms. Olszewska of the Miami and Los Angeles law firm
of Weil Quaranta McGovern PA, Richard C. Newsome and Will Ourand
of Newsome Melton LLP in Orlando, Florida, and F. Jerome Tapley,
Ryan Lutz, and Adam W. Pittman of Cory Watson, P.C. in Birmingham,
Alabama, filed the suit.

Cory Watson represented customers in a class action settlement
with Nissan North America, tentatively approved in Northern
California federal court Dec. 24.  Nissan has agreed to reimburse
current or former owners of 350,000 Nissan vehicles nationwide
over an electrical component defect that caused brakes to fail
without warning.

In March 2014, Nissan announced the recall of more than 1 million
vehicles -- including 2013-14 Pathfinders -- after learning their
airbags may fail to inflate in a crash.

Please call 305-372-5352 for more information on whether you may
be eligible for compensation for your 2013-2014 Nissan Pathfinder.

             About Weil Quaranta McGovern, PA

Weil Quaranta McGovern -- http://www.wqmlaw.net-- has offices in
Miami, Florida and Los Angeles, CA.  Landmark cases have been won
in sexual abuse, business torts, class actions, employment
litigation and construction litigation.


NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS and LFS ARTIC Models
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           124
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014545
TC ID number:             2014545
Manufacturer recall
number:                   CR3280

On certain vehicles, fasteners used to secure side-facing fold-up
seats may have been improperly installed.  This could allow one
side of the seat to partially separate from the wall, which could
increase the risk of injury seat occupants and bystanders.

Dealers will replace affected fasteners.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----       ----------------------
   NOVA       LFS         2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   NOVA       LFS ARTIC   2010, 2011, 2012, 2013


PACIFIC BELL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Rest Period Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Gipson, Esq., Maria C. Rodriguez, Esq., and Eric S. Beane,
Esq. of DLA Piper LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that
recently two seemingly similar cases were decided with very
different results:  Koval v. Pacific Bell (published opinion) and
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc.

In Koval, the Alameda court decided against certification of a
putative class of service technicians who claimed that they were
not totally relieved of their duties on meal or rest periods.  The
appellate court affirmed the denial of certification.

In Augustus, the Los Angeles court decided to certify a class of
security guards who claimed that because they were required to be
on alert and respond during a rest break if certain safety or
security issues occurred, they were not relieved of their duties
during the breaks.  In Augustus, the trial court also granted the
plaintiffs' summary judgment, took the case out of a jury's hands
and issued a $93 million dollar award.  The appellate court
reversed the summary judgment (vacating the $93 million award) and
affirmed the class certification.

What is different about these two cases besides their outcomes
(thus far), and what can we learn from them?

In Koval, the employer's policies on which the plaintiff sought
certification were written policies that were not distributed to
employees, but delivered to the employees verbally by supervisors.
While the written policies did include some limitations on
employees during their meal and rest periods, the court held that
the plaintiffs could not show that the policies were consistently
and uniformly applied to the putative class because they were
issued verbally by numerous supervisors.  In Augustus, the
policies on which the plaintiffs sought certification were
published and provided to all of the putative class members and
the employer's representative testified that the policies were
applied to all.

While one may want to conclude from the above that perhaps it is
best not to have policies in writing, that is not the lesson here.
The takeaways for human resources and with regard to instituting
policies from these cases are as follows:

1. Company policies can and will be used against employers  --
craft them carefully with a clear focus on compliance, and keep
them as simple as possible.

2. Train supervisors and provide them autonomy to run their
business units.

3. Have a communication strategy for delivering and discussing
policies.

If litigation ensues, the key lessons from these cases are:

1. The facts of the case and how they are presented very much
matter.

2. To be effective in the defense of a class action, an employer
must have a strong, clearly delineated strategy from the outset
that includes the presentation of documentary evidence,
testimonial evidence and leveraging the law and procedure.

3. Make sure company witnesses are properly prepared for
depositions.

4. The cost of wage-hour class actions can very quickly add up
(because of penalties, generally)  to tens of millions of dollars
-- employers must act with urgency at the outset of a case, work
closely with accomplished counsel to develop an offensive plan --
and take control of the case.


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Faces Class Action Over Credit Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline.com, reports that on Jan. 7
Paramount Pictures was hit with a lawsuit over allegedly not
telling job applicants exactly how deep into their past it intends
to look.  "This class action alleges that certain policies and
practices followed by Defendants Paramount Pictures Corporation
and the Doe Defendants in furnishing, using, procuring, and/or
causing to be procured consumer reports for employment purposes
violate the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act," said the
complaint from Michael Peikoff filed in federal court on Jan. 7.

While Mr. Peikoff applied for an unspecified gig at the studio
back in 2011, the Jan. 7 jury trial-seeking action says he only
learned in the last couple of years that that "Defendant Paramount
had in fact procured and/or caused to be procured a 'consumer
report' regarding him for employment purposes based on the illegal
disclosure and authorization form."

As in similar cases involving the likes of Whole Foods and the
Publix supermarket chain, which had to pay out over $6.8 million
in a settlement last year, Paramount is accused of not holding
strictly to its obligations and responsibilities under the federal
Act.  With an estimated class membership of more than 500, the
Jan. 7 filing is looking for statutory damages from $100 to $1,000
for each violation of the FCRA as well as punitive damages and
legal fees.  All of which could add up to a big chunk of change
for Paramount if the case is given the reclassification
Mr. Peikoff is seeking and past Paramount job seekers over the
years really get on board.

"Paramount violated . . (a portion of the FCRA) . . by procuring
or causing to be procured consumer reports for employment purposes
regarding Plaintiff and other class members without making the
required disclosure 'in a document that consists solely of the
disclosure' by including the disclosure and authorization form in
an application for employment and to obtain a release of claims
from Plaintiff and other class members," notes the 8-page filing.

Peter Dion-Kindem of the self-titled Woodland Hills law firm and
Lonnie Blanchard of the LA's Blanchard Law Group are representing
the plaintiff in the case.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Stockholders Suit as Stock Prices Fall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bribery allegations have led to an investigation of Brazil's
"largest corporation," Petroleo Brasileiro, as stock prices fall,
a federal class action alleges, according to Barbara Leonard,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

The city of Providence, R.I., hopes to represent the class of
investors suing Petrobas, as its name is abbreviated in the 69-
page complaint filed in the Southern District of New York. It
notes that Petrobas has sold $98 billion in securities on the New
York Stock Exchange during the class period, which it puts from
Jan. 22, 2010, to Nov. 21, 2014.

That end date marks the most public reprisal of Petrobas for its
scheme: an announcement that the Securities and Exchange
Commission had subpoenaed Petrobas and was investigating it
"relating to material weaknesses in its internal controls,"
according to the Dec. 24 complaint.

Common and preferred American depository shares of Petrobas fell
in the wake of that announcement to close at $10.50 and $11.06,
Providence says.

Petrobas, which began in 1953 as a corporate vehicle for the
Brazilian federal government, had allegedly been eyeing
"substantial capital investment" to fund the expansion of
production capacity.

For that purpose, Petrobas paid $360 million in 2006 for a 50
percent interest in an oil refinery in Pasadena, Texas, according
to the complaint.  Providence also says that the 2010 expansion of
a Petrobas construction project in Brazil more than quadrupled the
price tag to $26.87 billion.  The Portuguese name of this Rio de
Janeiro facility is abbreviated in the class action as COMPERJ.

Investors say what is now becoming clear to them is that these
projects came at a hidden cost.

Providence says people with influence at Petrobas took bribes from
contractors for the lucrative contracts, and Petrobas returned the
favor "by paying inflated amounts under the contracts."

Petrobas allegedly treated these "bribe repayments" as
construction-related costs, recording them as assets on corporate
balance sheets.

The company is now in regulatory hot water for calculating its net
income based in part on such expenses, Providence says.

"Had the illegal bribe-related repayments been properly accounted
for, the company would have recognized materially greater expenses
and less net income in certain periods," the complaint states.

Providence says earlier disclosures hinted at scheme, pointing to
a March 17, 2014, press release in which Petrobas noted that one
director had objected to the approval of the company's 2013
financial statements based in part on the "lack of information and
apparent accounting inadequacy of refinery investments."

Days later a former Petrobas senior executive was arrested in
Brazil in connection to a money-laundering scheme that law
enforcement there had code-named Lava Jato, or Car Wash, according
to the complaint.

In April, the CEO of Petrobas, Maria das Gracas Silva Foster,
testified before the Brazil Senate about allegations of bribery in
the company's purchase of the Pasadena refinery, the complain
continues.

Providence says Brazil's federal accountability office in October
criticized the construction of the COMPERJ facility "identifying
concerns about inflated contract costs."

Reaction to such reports allegedly caused company stock to fall as
much as 7.87 percent.

In the weeks before the SEC investigation was announced, Petrobas
revealed that it had to delay the release of its third quarter
earning results, Providence says.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, its auditor, had refused "to approve the
company's financial reports for the third quarter of 2014 due to
concerns related to the accounting effects of the bribery scheme
involving Petrobas, according to the complaint.

This allegedly led to a two-day decline of 5.78 percent in share
prices.

Stock fell 6.23 percent when Petrobas acknowledged during a
November 17, 2014, conference call that it faced the risk of asset
write-downs where asset values had been inflated by corruption,"
Providence says.

In addition to Petroleo Brasileiro, and its wholly owned
subsidiary Petrobras Global Finance, the complaint names various
individuals and underwriters as defendants.

BB Securities Ltd.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Itau BBA USA
Securities Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC; Santander Investment Securities Inc.; Banco Votorantim Nassau
Branch; Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.; HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc.; Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.; Standard
Chartered Bank; Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd.; Banco Bradecso BBI
Sa; Banca IMI SpA; Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.; are all named as
defendants.

The class is represented by:

          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0882
          Facsimile: (212) 883-7082
          E-mail: mstocker@labaton.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Over All-Terrain Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Polaris RZR all-terrain vehicle shows that it is in Park
though it may be in neutral, a class action claims in California
Federal Court.


PREVOST: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome, Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014544
TC ID number:             2014544
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SR15-01

On certain vehicles equipped with an automatic fire suppression
system (AFSS), the cylinder pressure release valve may not
withstand engine compartment temperatures, which could result in a
loss of the extinguishing agent.  As a result, the fire
suppression system would no longer be operational in the event of
a fire, which could increase the risk of injury.

Dealers will relocate the AFSS cylinder and ensure the cylinder is
charged.

Affected products:

   Maker       Model                     Model year(s) affected
   -----       -----                     ----------------------
   PREVOST     XL2-45 COACH              2009, 2010
   PREVOST     XL2-40 MOTORHOME          2010, 2011
   PREVOST     XL2-45 MOTORHOME          2010, 2011
   PREVOST     X3-45 COACH               2009, 2010
   PREVOST     X3-45 VIP MOTORHOME       2009, 2010


REITMANS (CANADA): Recalls Infant Sleepers
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 8, 2014
Posting date:             December 8, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42811

Affected products: Thyme Maternity 100% cotton infant sleepers

The recall involves 100% cotton infant sleepers sold in one size
and identified by Model number T28-57726H, UPC Bar Code number
736597 and CA number 00655.  The sleepers come in four solid
colours, Grey mix (SKU 83585298), Dark Sapphire (SKU 83585285),
Fuchsia (SKU 83585322) and Cream (SKU 83585307), with four
different prints on the front.

Testing by Reitmans (Canada) Limited has determined that these
products do not meet the flammability requirements for children's
sleepwear under Canadian law.

Neither Reitmans (Canada) Limited nor Heath Canada has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of this product.

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

Approximately 2,557 units were sold at Thyme Maternity stores
across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold between
October 2014 and December 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Reitmans (Canada) Limited
                   Montreal
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sleepwear and
return the product to any Thyme Maternity Store for a full refund.


RJ REYNOLDS: "Drake" Suit Transferred From M.D. to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Sam Drake, Jr., as personal representative of
the Estate of Sam Drake v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-11090, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach).  The
Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:15-cv-80021-KLR to
the proceeding.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
accordance with the Florida Wrongful Death Act, the Florida
Survival Statute, and with the Florida Supreme Court's class
action decision and mandate in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945
So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).

Sam Drake (the "Decedent") was a citizen and resident of the state
of Florida, who was addicted to cigarettes containing nicotine,
and as a result of that addiction, suffered from Lung Cancer,
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and other Engle diseases
and other smoking-related illnesses within the time frames defined
by the Engle Court, and otherwise was a member of the Engle class.
The Decedent suffered from and died from one or more Engle
diseases on May 11, 1997.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Migliori, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          321 S Main Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457-7700
          E-mail: dmigliori@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          Frederick C. Baker, Esq.
          Robert Haefele, Esq.
          James W. Ledlie, Esq.
          Liza Ward, Esq.
          Lance V. Oliver, Esq.
          Rebecca M. Deupree, Esq.
          Lisa M. Saltzburg, Esq.
          P. Graham Maiden, Esq.
          Sara Couch Bryant, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
                  fbaker@motleyrice.com
                  rhaefele@motleyrice.com
                  jledlie@motleyrice.com
                  lward@motleyrice.com
                  loliver@motleyrice.com
                  rdeupree@motleyrice.com
                  lsaltzburg@motleyrice.com
                  gmaiden@motleyrice.com
                  sbryant@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Nathan D. Finch, Esq.
          Elizabeth Smith, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          1000 Potomac Street, NW, Suite 150
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 232-5504
          Facsimile: (202) 232-5513
          E-mail: nfinch@motleyrice.com
                  esmith@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
          Michael J. Pendell, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          20 Church St., 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: mjasinski@motleyrice.com
                  mpendell@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          Richard Heimann, Esq.
          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
                  rheimann@lchb.com
                  rnelson@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com

               - and -

          Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue North
          One Nashville Place, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
          E-mail: kbarnett@lchb.com
                  kbyrd@lchb.com

               - and -

          Norwood S. Wilner, Esq.
          Richard Jason Lantinberg, Esq.
          WILNER HARTLEY & METCALF
          444 East Duval Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 446-9817
          Facsimile: (904) 446-9825
          E-mail: nwilner@wilnerfirm.com
                  Rlantinberg@whmlegal.com

Defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris U.S.A,
Inc., are represented by:

          Dana Gibson Bradford, II, Esq.
          SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 N Laura Street, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6100
          Facsimile: (904) 598-6300
          E-mail: dgbradford@sgrlaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Monde, Esq.
          John Fachet Yarber, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1420 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 581-3939
          Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
          E-mail: dmmonde@jonesday.com
                  jyarber@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Joshua R. Brown, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          450 So. Orange Avenue, Suite 650
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1000
          Facsimile: (407) 841-1295
          E-mail: brownjr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Terri L. Parker, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          100 N. Tampa St., Suite 2900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 202-7100
          Facsimile: (813) 221-8837
          E-mail: tparker@shb.com

Defendant Philip Morris U.S.A, Inc. is also represented by:

          Mark Jurgen Heise, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          100 SE 2 Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131-2144
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 357-8560
          E-mail: mheise@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          M. Sean Laane, Esq.
          ARNOLD, PORTER LLP
          555 12th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          E-mail: laanese@aporter.com

Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Company is represented by:

          Aviva L. Wernick, Esq.
          Rafael Cruz-Alvarez, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131-4332
          Telephone: (305) 379-5570
          Facsimile: (305) 371-8759
          E-mail: wernick@hugheshubbard.com
                  ralvarez@shb.com

               - and -

          Jeff H. Galloway, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED
          1 Battery Park Plaza
          New York, NY 10004-1482
          Telephone: (212) 837-6000
          E-mail: galloway@hugheshubbard.com

               - and -

          John A. DeVault, III, Esq.
          Patrick Power Coll, Esq.
          BEDELL DITTMAR DEVAULT PILLANS & COXE
          101 E Adams Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353-0211
          Facsimile: (904) 353-9307
          E-mail: jad@bedellfirm.com
                  ppc@bedellfirm.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Suit by Nude Protesters Continues
----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge handed Christmas gifts to both nudists and San Francisco
officials on December 24, 2014, whittling down the 2-year battle
over the city's ban on sidewalk nudity to two instances in which
police targeted protesters at City Hall, and dismissing the rest
of the suit.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted in November 2012 to
prohibit "genital exposure" on all city sidewalks, plazas,
parklets, streets and public transport, except during permitted
activities such as the Pride Parade, Folsom Street Fair and Bay to
Breakers race.

Nudists struck back by filing a federal class action to prevent
the ordinance from taking effect, claiming that nudity is an
integral part of their personal and political expression and
protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen dismissed the case entirely in
early 2013, finding San Francisco's ban narrowly tailored enough
to permit some nude expression in the proper settings.  But he
allowed the nudists to amend their complaint, which they have done
twice in the nearly two years since.

On Christmas Eve, Chen dismissed the bulk of the nudists' second
amended complaint, which detailed a number of instances where the
nudists disrobed throughout the city and were cited or detained by
police.

In only two cases -- both outside City Hall during an organized
protests against the ordinance -- did Chen find that police had
selectively targeted the nudists to suppress their political
views, and only because of the temporal proximity to the law's
passage.

"Plaintiffs have alleged three different groups that engaged in
publicly nude conduct, that were treated favorably by the SFPD --
e.g. the SFPD did not issue citations to members of those groups,"
Chen wrote.  "Two of the control groups alleged -- participants in
Critical Mass and World Naked Bike Ride -- engaged in publicly
nude bike riding.  The third control group -- participants in the
'Naked Sword film shoot' -- was shooting a film involving public
nudity, and is not alleged to have been riding bikes."

The plaintiffs claimed that each control group violated the law
"in a prominent manner," by being nude in public without a permit.

San Francisco police were at each event "and presumably aware of
each control group's nude conduct," the complaint stated --
perhaps a reasonable inference for a naked bike peloton and a
naked swordfight.

"For purposes of the anti-nudity ordinance, these groups are
similarly situated to plaintiffs; there is no obvious reason why
other groups who violate the ordinance should not have been
subjected to enforcement," Judge Chen wrote.  "The court finds
that each of these groups engaged in sufficiently comparable
conduct to the plaintiffs' alleged protests outside of City Hall
on Feb. 1 and March 22, 2013."

Chen declined to stop enforcement of the ordinance however, noting
that as time passes the nudists' ability to legally rely on the
political free speech argument fades.

The city will be able to defend its selective enforcement of the
nudity ban at trial, slated for early 2015.

The case is Mitch Hightower, et al. v. City and County of San
Francisco, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-05841-EMC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Conference Settlement Scheduled for June 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Duda, writing for Redding, reports that a Shasta County
agency has filed a lawsuit against its former director alleging
she misrepresented facts in order to defraud the agency before
parting ways in 2013.

The Shasta Local Area Formation Commission, or Shasta LAFCO, is
seeking repayment of $4,740.98 it says former executive officer
Amy Mickelson-Beadle was paid after she allegedly overstated her
accrued paid time off when negotiating a separation agreement in
July 2013, according to a complaint filed in Shasta County
Superior Court.

"Defendant caused the mistake, knew of the mistake, knew a mistake
would be made, and knew a mistake was made, yet took and kept the
mistaken overpayment," for about 111 hours of paid time off, the
complaint alleges.

Shasta LAFCO contends Ms. Mickelson-Beadle overstated the length
of her tenure at the agency to receive increased compensation,
surpassed a 160-hour cap for accrued leave and continued to
accumulate paid time off hours she was not entitled to while on
paid maternity leave in 2007.

The agency in early August 2014 demanded the former executive
director repay the overage after it was discovered by staff after
her departure, but she has since refused, according to the court
document.

Ms. Mickelson-Beadle defended her actions at a Shasta LAFCO
meeting in Anderson on Jan. 8 before the seven-person commission
convened in closed session to discuss the litigation.

"First and foremost, the claim indicates that this action is based
on a breach of our employment separation agreement.  That, my dear
friends, is malarkey," she said during the meeting.  "The only
reason that claim is being made is because you would like to avoid
the reality that if indeed any unintended miscalculation was made
by our payroll provider during my tenure at Shasta LAFCO, you
would be required to cover such a mistake under your Errors and
Omissions Insurance coverage."

Ms. Mickelson-Beadle contends that third-party payroll providers
were tasked with tracking employees' paid time off while she
headed the agency and any miscalculation would be their
responsibility.  Yet in the lawsuit, Shasta LAFCO attorney
Jim Underwood says part of her responsibilities as executive
officer was to oversee day-to-day operations, including managing
outside venders contracted with the public agency.

"Mickelson was negligent in failing to properly report, maintain
and otherwise administer both directly and overseeing third-party
vendors for which she was responsible as executive officer in the
management of payroll records affecting accrued leave during her
employment with Shasta LAFCO," the lawsuit alleges.

Ms. Mickelson-Beadle threatened the commission with legal action
on Jan. 8 if it pursued the challenge, noting attempts she had
made to work with Shasta LAFCO to resolve the dispute were
rebuffed by the commission earlier this year.

A conference settlement in the case is scheduled for 1:30 p.m.
June 29, and a tentative trial date is set for 8:45 a.m. Sept. 29
in Shasta County Superior Court.

Ms. Mickelson-Beadle left the organization after a series of
performance evaluations in 2013 after nearly 10 years on Shasta
LAFCO payroll.  She was at the center of complaints that the
independent agency, which is tasked with establishing boundaries
and approving annexations for special districts and cities in the
county, failed to perform mandatory studies and reviews over more
than eight years.

A class-action lawsuit was filed against Shasta LAFCO in the
months after her departure, and the agency spent 2014 scrambling
to complete about 50 overdue municipal service reviews and sphere
of influence updates for districts and cities throughout Shasta
County to comply with a stipulated settlement agreement.  It
wrapped up studies for all but two districts, which should be back
on the agenda at its next meeting on Feb. 5 in the Shasta County
Board of Supervisors' chambers at 1450 Court St. in Redding

Coming out of closed session on Jan. 8, Shasta LAFCO agreed to
continue its contract with current CEO Jan Lopez through the end
of February, when it will be revisited.


SIMPLICITY BANCORP: Entered Into MOU to Settle "Bushansky" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simplicity Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2015,
that on January 8, 2015, Simplicity Bancorp, the individual
director defendants of Simplicity and HomeStreet, Inc. entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Plaintiff regarding
the settlement of the putative class action lawsuit captioned
Bushansky v. Simplicity Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. BC560508
pending before the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

As described in the definitive proxy statement of Simplicity,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6,
2015, the Action was filed in response to the announcement that
Simplicity and HomeStreet had entered into a definitive agreement
wherein Simplicity will merge with and into HomeStreet. Pursuant
to the MOU, Simplicity agreed to provide additional information to
Simplicity stockholders in the Proxy Statement.

Simplicity, HomeStreet and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Action.  Simplicity and the individual director
defendants of Simplicity believe the disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement of Simplicity filed with the SEC on
December 10, 2014 are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Simplicity, HomeStreet and the other defendants have agreed to
additional disclosures in the Proxy Statement to settle the Action
in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of
further litigation.


RUIDOSO, NM: Settles Class Action Over Wasterwater Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Stallings, writing for Ruidoso News, reports that typical
of many settlements of class action lawsuits, customers of
Ruidoso's wastewater treatment division won't see any money in a
proposed settlement with Tierra Realty, but the lawyers will be
paid.

What customers will receive in the settlement is a requirement
that over the next five years, before the village council approves
any ordinances increasing water or wastewater and/or sewage rates,
Ruidoso will hire an independent consultant to "assist in
establishing rates that are reasonable, considering the regulatory
environment in which the village must operate its wastewater
treatment plant and consistent with the fees charged by private
enterprise operating similar facilities," according to documents
authorized by the state court and sent to Ruidoso utility
customers,

The settlement also provides $70,000 to be paid to Tierra Realty
and its lead counsel to offset fees incurred in the action.  The
court-appointed lead counsel is Kurt Wihl of Kelcher & McLeod.
The attorney of record who filed the suit in August 2009, is
Richard B. Cole.  The original suit asked for permanent and
preliminary injunctive relief and damages, contending the water
and wastewater treatment rates charged by the village to Tierra's
multiple-unit property were too high.

If customers remain class members in the suit and settlement, they
cannot sue the village or be part of a future suit against the
village dealing with the treatment fee claims covered in the
settlement.  "Opt-out" papers were included in the notification
mailed to customers.  They must be filed by Feb. 2.

In February 2010, steps were initiated to switch the lawsuit to a
class action.  As recently as August 2013, the village attempted
unsuccessfully to have the case dismissed.  In November of 2014,
12th Judicial District Judge Karen Parsons granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement.  The hearing on the
proposed settlement is set for 10:00 a.m. April 13, in Carrizozo.

Objections to the settlement can be lodged by any class member who
did not submit a request for exclusion, but must be filed with the
clerk of court and sent to the lead council and Ruidoso's counsel.

The addresses are Lincoln County Courthouse, P.O. Box 725,
Carrizozo, NM 88301-0725; Kurt Wihl, Tina Muscarella Gooch,
Keleher & McLeod PA, P.O. Box AA, Albuquerque, NM 87103; and Bryan
Evans, Carla Williams, Atwood, Malonem Turner & Sabin PA, P.O.
Drawer 700, Roswell, NM 88202-0700; and Daniel A. Bryant, Bryant
Law Office LLC, 159 Mescalero Trail, Suite 8, Ruidoso, NM 88345.

A member of the "class" can attend the hearing and/or can ask the
judge for permission to speak, if those requests are received by
the clerk of court no later than Feb. 2.  Anyone who opts out
cannot speak.

If the lawsuit proceeds to trial, the plaintiff would have to
overcome defense assertions that the claims are barred by the
New Mexico Tort Claims Act, the claims are moot, Ruidoso's base
rates charged are presumed to be reasonable, the claims are barred
by the voluntary payment rule, there is no contract between the
plaintiff and Ruidoso, and the statute of limitations bars the
claims.


SPARTAN: Recalls Gladiator Model Due to Broken Cooling Fan
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           41
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014555
TC ID number:             2014555
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14018

On certain vehicles equipped with Cummins ISX engines, the engine
cooling fan may fail and break apart.  If this occurs while the
hood is open, a person in the vicinity of the engine could be
struck by the blade and injured.

The correction is to be determined.

Affected products: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 Spartan Gladiator


STARCRAFT RV: Recalls Launch 17SB Model
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           18
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014554
TC ID number:             2014554

On certain travel trailers, the Federal Certification label, Tire
and Loading Information label and CSA data card do not contain
correct tire pressure information.  The labels incorrectly
indicate the tires be inflated to a pressure of 60 psi, but
instead should read 50 psi.  Improper tire pressure can lead to
tire failure which, in turn, can result in a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Updated labels will be mailed to dealers or to owners of affected
vehicles, along with instructions for proper installation.

Affected products: 2015 Starcraft Launch


SWEET SENSATIONS: Fails to Give Required Overtime Pay, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shalisha Hill v. Sweet Sensations Fashion Ltd, Imagination
Trading, Inc., Inspiration Trading, Inc., Temptation Fashion,
Ltd., Shlomit Vaknin, Gavriel Ben Zikry, and Eli Zikry, Case No.
1:15-cv-00089-NG-JO (E.D.N.Y., January 8, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants committed violations of federal and state wage and hour
laws by engaging in a systematic scheme of failing to provide the
Plaintiff with statutorily required overtime pay, as well as
failing to compensate the Plaintiff for her work at the proper
rate of pay.

The Corporate Defendants are New York domestic corporations
headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.  The Individual Defendants
are officers or agents of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George T. Peters, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS
          402 West 145th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10031
          Telephone: (347) 751-0157
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0921
          E-mail: george.peters@myatty1.com


SYNGENTA CORP: "Sanders" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sanders v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 14-1076, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02070-JWL-JPO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph C. Portera, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202-3775
          Telephone: (214) 754-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
          E-mail: jportera@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Manmeet Walia, Esq.
          Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          First Interstate Bank Plaza
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: mwalia@susmangodfrey.com
                  vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3880
          E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          654 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10065
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Stuart Halkett McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          P.O. Box 2294
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-1401
          Facsimile: (662) 234-3060


SYNGENTA CORP: West Brooklyn Suit Included in MIR162 Corn MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned West Brooklyn Farmers
Cooperative Company v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-09133, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02071-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.

The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects.  Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait.  The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  earonowitz@gelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jordan Mitchell Heinz, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS
          300 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 469-7027
          E-mail: jordan.heinz@kirkland.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Corn Growers' Class Action Gains Momentum
--------------------------------------------------------
Herald-Review reports that although legal gears sometimes grind
slowly, speed is picking up on a class-action lawsuit against
global seed company Syngenta, designed to recover damages suffered
by corn growers when China halted imports of U.S. corn and corn
products.  China's reasoning was that it had not approved the
biotech traits in certain Syngenta hybrids, but those were showing
up in U.S. corn shipments purchased by Chinese importers.

Based on the estimate by the National Grain and Feed Association,
which represents the grain elevator industry, the U.S. corn market
lost $1 billion to $2.9 billion in value due to the loss of the
Chinese market.  While that statistic is quoted in a lawsuit
moving forward against Syngenta, there is no specific request for
damages being sought at this time.

Decatur attorney Chris Ellis (no relation to this columnist), said
the recent Chinese approval of the Syngenta genetics will help
establish a time span for the halt in the imports and the
potential loss of income to farmers.  He is one of the leaders in
the action against Syngenta, and has set a meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Tuesday, Jan. 13, at the Mount Zion Convention Center, to discuss
the case.  Farmers who did not plant either Syngenta Viptera or
Duracade hybrids in the past several years would be eligible to
become part of the class of plaintiffs in the action.

Multiple lawsuits from various attorney groups around the Corn
Belt have been filed against Syngenta and those are being merged
into a single lawsuit that will be handled in a federal court in
Kansas.  A preamble to the suit, designed to inform the federal
judiciary about the complexities of biotech seed and its impact on
the market when not approved by an importer, indicated Syngenta
made the wrong decision:

"Syngenta had a decision to make.  It could wait until China
approved its new genetic trait and temporarily forego its monopoly
profits.  That is what it had pledged to do. Or it could break its
pledge, immediately commercialize Agrisure Viptera, and create an
enormous risk that U.S. corn farmers would lose one of their large
and growing export markets.  Sadly, Syngenta opted for its
monopoly profits over responsibility to its stakeholders.  It
commercialized Viptera in 2010 for the 2011 crop year."

The suit quotes multiple organizations promoting responsibility in
the release of biotech products for use in the marketplace, of
which Syngenta held memberships.  The suit also quotes the
Syngenta Foundation For Sustainable Agriculture, which said,
"Until a country issues a registration approval for cultivation
and/or food and/or feed consumption, there is a clear
responsibility and liability, even if the government scientific
assessments show that there are no safety or environmental
concerns," and recognizes that stewardship, among other things,
"works to prevent trade disruptions."

Attorneys in the class-action suit contend that once the U.S. had
approved the release of the biotech traits in the U.S. market,
Syngenta then applied for the same approval in China, but did not
tell U.S. farmers that their crop growing in the field would not
be marketable in China.  However, the suit also said Syngenta
pulled its Duracade hybrids from being planted in Canada in 2014
because of the lack of approval in the Chinese and European
markets, but supplied Duracade to U.S. corn growers for the 2014
planting season.

Subsequent to Syngenta's release of Durcade hybrids into the U.S.
market, the National Grain and Feed Association said the expected
loss of the Chinese market would be $1.2 billion to $3.4 billion,
because the Durcade genetics also would be found in U.S. exports
to China.

Attorneys for the Syngenta action are seeking court approval to
include farmers who did not plant Viptera or Duracade hybrids and
who sold corn after Nov. 18, 2013, when China closed its doors to
U.S. corn and distillers' grains made from U.S. corn.

Farmers entering the class-action lawsuit will not be charged any
fees, but would share in any proceeds if collected from Syngenta.


THOMAS BUILT: Recalls Minotour School Bus Model
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              School Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           717
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014549
TC ID number:             2014549
Manufacturer recall
number:                  FL-675

On certain vehicles, an unsecured fuel tank strap could allow the
fuel tank to contact the ground, potentially causing a fuel leak.
Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result
in a fire causing injury and/or damage to property.

Daimler Trucks dealers will inspect and affect repairs as
required.

Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 Thomas Built Minotour School
Bus


TRINITY COAL: Judge Certifies Security Guards' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Plummer, writing for Register-Herald Reporter, reports that
the class-action suit against a security company contracted at
Trinity Coal Co.'s Frasure Creek Mine in Oak Hill has been
certified by a Kanawha County judge, and the defendants admit
liability.

TMK Security, based in St. Albans and Delbarton, W.Va., left about
40 contracted mine security guards at the Frasure Creek Mine
without a final paycheck, although other employees at other
locations were also left without pay in November.  An injunction
hearing scheduled on Jan. 6 to prevent Trinity Coal from
submitting a final payment to TMK was canceled when owners George
King and Dwayne Toler admitted liability.

Charleston lawyer Ben Salango commented, "From here, we will
aggressively pursue TMK's accounts receivable to ensure that its
146 employees are paid."

Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge James C. Stucky certified the
class action on Jan. 6, giving the green light for the suit to
proceed as a class-action.  In a judgment holding the defendants
responsible, he ordered them to hand over their accounts
receivable to establish a settlement fund.

The suit asserts the company violated the Wage Payment and
Collection Act by terminating employees on Nov. 29 and failing to
pay them for wages earned within four businesses day as required
by West Virginia Code.  In addition, employees claim security
guards had $3 deducted from every paycheck for uniforms that were
never provided.


UNITED NATIONS: Dist. Court Dismisses Suit Over Cholera Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
DELAMA GEORGES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED NATIONS, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 13-CV-7146 (JPO), (S.D. N.Y.) is a class action
diversity suit alleging various tort and contract claims against
Defendants the United Nations (UN), the United Nations
Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), United Nations
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and former Under-Secretary-General
for MINUSTAH, Edmond Mulet.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants are responsible for an epidemic of cholera that broke
out in Haiti in 2010, killing over 8,000 Haitians and making over
600,000 ill.

Before the Court are two issues: First, Plaintiffs have been
unable to serve the UN in person, and they request affirmation by
the Court that service has been made, or, in the alternative, an
extension of time for service of process by alternative means; and
second is the question whether, under international treaties to
which the United States is a party, Defendants are immune from
Plaintiffs' suit.

In an opinion and order entered January 9, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/UGwNWWfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge J. Paul Oetken concluded that the United Nations, MINUSTAH,
Ban Ki-moon, and Edmond Mulet are absolutely immune from suit in
this Court. Plaintiffs' claims against these defendants are
therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' motion for affirmation that service has been made, or,
in the alternative, for service of process by alternative means is
denied as moot.


WAL-MART STORES: Suit Over Contaminated Baby Wipes Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that with plans to pursue
multidistrict litigation in New York, attorneys voluntarily
dismissed a federal class action against Wal-Mart over Nutek's
Simply Right baby wipes that may allegedly be contaminated with
bacteria.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          A Professional Corporation
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
          633 W. Fifth Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
                  pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

The case is Sam Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Nutek
Disposables, Inc.; First Quality Enterprises, Inc.; and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-04669-MMC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


* ERISA Class Action Settlements Tops 1.3 Billion in 2014
---------------------------------------------------------
BenefitsPro.com reports that the largest class-action settlements
in claims brought under the Employee Income Retirement Security
Act topped $1.3 billion in 2014, almost 10 times the sum of the
biggest settlements from the previous year.

No other area of employment workplace law saw that kind of
explosive growth last year.  In fact, settlement numbers in other
areas of workplace class-action claims were down, according to the
2015 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, published by
Seyfarth Shaw, a Chicago-based law firm.

The settlement figures for the biggest ERISA cases were higher in
2014 than at any other time in recent history.  In 2011, sponsors
settled nearly $900 million in the largest cases, the only time
since 2009 when the figures were remotely close to last year's
record numbers.

Settlement figures for other areas of labor law paled in
comparison: $215 million was settled in wage and hour class-
actions, and about $228 million in employee discrimination cases.

By the close of 2014, ERISA lawsuits totaled 7,163, down
marginally from 2013.  Several "mega-settlements" pushed the ERISA
tab for the 10 largest settlements beyond the billion-dollar mark.
Among them:

In August 2014, a $480 million settlement was reached in Meyers
vs. Daimier Trucks North America LLC, in a class-action filed by
retired UAW workers alleging the truck manufacturer illegally cut
benefits.

The next month, a $415 million settlement was approved in
Healthcare Strategies Inc. vs. ING Life Insurance & Annuity Co.

And in December, a tentative $140 million settlement was reached
in Haddock vs. Nationwide after 13 years of litigation. It's
believed to be the largest ever in a service-provider revenue-
sharing case.


* Florida Emerging as Plaintiff-Friendly Forum, Proskauer Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer L. Jones, ESq. and Jennifer Yang, Esq. of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that while
California historically has a reputation as the most plaintiff-
friendly forum for alleged consumer class action deceptive
advertising cases, Florida is emerging as stiff competition for
the title after a recent trio of orders denying motions to dismiss
consumer fraud actions emerged out of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Luxury beauty brand Clarins will be defending efficacy claims with
respect to two of its skin creams after District Judge Paul C.
Huck denied, in part, a motion to dismiss in Garcia v. Clarins USA
Inc. et al. on September 4, 2014.  Although the Court limited
plaintiff's complaint to the two products she actually purchased,
rather than allowing her to proceed as a putative class
representative for the full "line" of both products, the Court
refused to dismiss the suit, which alleges that defendants
deceived customers through a sophisticated marketing campaign that
promised to "firm and tone skin, restore deep luminosity" and
"boost microcirculation to ensure waking to a healthy-looking and
revitalized complexion" when allegedly, none of the ingredients in
the products, either alone or in combination, could provide such
benefits.

Beer giant Anheuser-Busch also had limited success in the
district, knocking out only an injunctive relief claim after
Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan rendered his opinion in Marty
et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Cos. on September 5.  Plaintiffs' claims
that they had been misled into believing that Beck's is still
brewed in Germany, despite statements on the cans and bottles
specifying that this was a "Product of USA," were deemed
sufficient to state a claim under California, New York and
Florida's consumer protection laws.

Johnson & Johnson achieved a similar disappointing result before
District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. in Lombardo v. Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc. et al. on September 9.  Although the
Court sided with J&J to the extent it trimmed the injunctive
relief claim from the complaint, it left intact the remainder of
plaintiff's attack under Florida's consumer protection law
regarding the advertising and labeling of certain J&J sunscreens.
Although the FDA recently promulgated a rule that prohibits labels
from claiming that a sunscreen is "sunblock", "waterproof",
"sweatproof" or that it provides "continuous" protection, the
Court found that plaintiff's claims, which were limited to
products purchased before the rule was enacted, were not
preempted.  The Court also found that plaintiff's challenge to
J&J's SPF claims were not preempted where, even if plaintiff
prevailed, sunscreen manufacturers could still comply with FDA
labeling regulations for sunscreen by labeling sunscreen with SPF
values based on testing results, but simply would not be able to
claim that certain higher SPF values provide significantly greater
protection.


* Top Class Actions Unveils Biggest Settlement Payments
-------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions, a leading source of class action lawsuit news,
on Jan. 7 announced the biggest class action settlement payments
awarded to consumers in 2014.

1.  $1.1 Billion LCD Panel Settlement

Payments from this historic settlement were mailed to Class
Members in October.  The settlement resolved multiple class action
lawsuits filed in 2006 accusing 10 manufacturers of conspiring to
fix and raise the prices of flat-panel monitors and televisions
since 1999.

The settlement included consumers in 24 states who purchased
electronics with LCD screens from 2007-2008.  Some claimants
reported receiving more than $500.

2.  $53 Million Apple iPhone/iPod Warranty Settlement

Apple iPhone and iPod owners received checks in September between
$122 and $250 from a 2013 settlement with Apple.  Plaintiffs
accused the company of refusing to honor warranties for devices
based on assessments that they made contact with water.  The
lawsuit was filed after the manufacturer of the Liquid Contact
Indicators used in these devices admitted that humidity could
cause malfunction.

3.  Honda Engine Misfire Settlement

For years Honda Accord, Odyssey, Pilot and Crosstour owners
complained that their vehicles excessively burned oil.  Honda
Motor Co. denied the problem, but agreed in November 2013 to a
settlement to resolve the litigation.

Thousands of Honda owners filed claims and received free warranty
extensions and refunds for repairs.  Average payouts between $235
and $294 were mailed to claimants in July.  The total class action
settlement was undisclosed.

4.  Gerber Childrenswear Settlement

This summer, hundreds of parents received checks up to $200 from a
settlement involving Gerber Childrenswear.  Plaintiffs claimed
that Gerber apparel manufactured by Jay Jay Mills and Kitex from
2005 to 2009 contained chemicals that caused skin irritation.
Gerber denied allegations but agreed to provide consumers
reimbursement for related out-of-pocket costs.  The total class
action settlement amount was undisclosed.

5.  $18.6 Million Intellicorp Background Check Settlement

Job seekers who had their criminal background report submitted to
a potential employer by Intellicorp Records Inc. or Insurance
Information Exchange (IIX) were eligible to claim between $50 and
$2,000 from a settlement over allegations the reports violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Payments varied depending upon
inaccuracies in the reports.

Top Class Actions connects consumers to class action settlements
and publishes breaking news on new lawsuits as they're filed.  It
helps consumers find, submit claims and receive compensation for
settlements they qualify to participate in.


                             *********

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 2015. 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  * * *