CAR_Public/140902.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 2, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 174

                             Headlines


140 GREEN LAUNDROMAT: "Maximo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
1416 CHANCELLOR: "Herzfeld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
2N DRILLING: Faces "Cansler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
2N DRILLING: Faces "Cansler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

ACTAVIS PLC: Motion to Dismiss Actos End-Payor Litigation Filed
ACTAVIS PLC: Remanded Androgel Case Still in Early Stages
ACTAVIS PLC: Court Reopens Cipro(R) Action in Kansas
ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Not Set in Doryx Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Initial Case Conference Held in Lidoderm(R) Case

ACTAVIS PLC: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss in Loestrin 24 Case
ACTAVIS PLC: Final Hearing Held on Accord in Celexa/Lexapro Cases
ACTAVIS PLC: Opposition Brief Due in Calif. Lexapro Case Appeal
ACTAVIS PLC: Oct. 1 Hearing to Dismiss Minn. Lexapro Complaint
ACTAVIS PLC: Oct. 1 Hearing to Dismiss 3rd-Party Payors' Suit

ACTAVIS PLC: Bid to De-Certify "Luster" Case in Missouri Pending
ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument on Appeal in Columbia Labs Case in Q3
ACTAVIS PLC: MOU Reached in Forest Labs Securities Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: MOU Reached in Furiex Securities Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: No Trial Date Set in Medical West Action v. Anda

ACTAVIS PLC: Court Re-Enters Stay in TCPA Action v. Anda
ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against SLHC Suit v. Forest
ACTAVIS PLC: Motion to Dismiss "Barrett" et al. Suit Filed
ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott a Defendant in 218 Actonel(R) Cases
ACTAVIS PLC: 137 Alendronate Cases Pending Against Watson

ACTAVIS PLC: Served in Seven Pending Androderm(R) Actions
ACTAVIS PLC: Forest Labs Faces 12 Benicar(R) Actions
ACTAVIS PLC: 9 Trials Set in 2014-2015 Over Celexa & Lexapro
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Fentanyl Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Early Stages in Metoclopramide Suits

ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument Heard in 9th Cir. En Banc Appeal
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in Zarah Litigation
AMERICA-CV PRODUCTIONS: Removed "Pyzyk" Suit to S.D. Florida
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces "Silfee" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Defends Against "Cardoza" Action in Nevada

BLOOMIN' BRANDS: To Seek Dismissal of "Gehl" Action in California
BREITBURN ENERGY: Unitholder Files Class Action Against QR Energy
BUTH-NA BODHAIGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime Wages
CHEVRON CORP: Court Dismissed With Leave to Amend "Ogala" Suit
CHICAGO DRESS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

COCA COLA: Deceives Consumers Through False Ads, Class Says
COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act
COVIDIEN PLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Sale to Medtronic
CREATIVE FOOD: Faces "Tantawy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EASTERN ACCOUNT: Illegally Collects Debts, "Hanan" Suit Claims

EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Provides Update on "Original" Class Actions
EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Provides Update on "Second" Class Actions
ENERGYGUARD FOAM: Faces "Benton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Sued Over Lax Concussion Protocols
FEDEX GROUND: Misclassified 3,000+ Drivers, 9th Cir. Ruled

GENERAL MOTORS: "Kosovec" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GEO GROUP: Removed "Lopez" Suit to Central District of California
GRINGO'S MEXICAN: "Embry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HEIGHTS TOWER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime Wages
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Still Faces Action Over Baker Hughes Contract

INDIANA MUNICIPAL POWER: High Electric Rates Blamed on Coal
INTERACTIVE COLLEGE: Faces Suit in Ga. Alleging Discrimination
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Action in Massachusetts
J. C. PENNEY: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Statements
JASON & JOSEPH: "Cabral" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Gentium Acquistion
JW LEE: Misclassified Exotic Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says
KING KONG SUSHI: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act
LA ESTANCIA: "Jaunsolo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

LIBERTY GLOBAL: OneLink Indemnity Won't Cover Class Action Claim
LIBERTY MEDIA: All NY Cases Over Sirius XM Deal Dismissed
LIMOLINK INC: Does Not Pay Drivers Properly, Action Claims
MMR GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Ryals" Action Claims
NBTY INC: False Marketed Protein Products, "Mencer" Suit Claims

NCO FINANCIAL: Suit Seeks to Redress Unlawful Debt Collection
NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Employees Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
OHMS ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Segui" Suit Says
P N DRYWALL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Faces Class Action by Pines Nursing Homes

PREMIERE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
PRESTIGE IMPORTS: Faces "Shvartsman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Bused Patients to New Cities, Suit Says
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
RJR REALTY: Violates Disabilities Act, Paralyzed Patron Claims

ROYAL ENTERTAINMENT: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims
RUGFRIT 1350: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Minimum Wages
SALON PEOPLE: Faces "Blackthorne" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued Over Accused Illegal Business Practices
SILVERSTONE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Bias Against Paralyzed Patron

SNACK COMPANY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPRECHMAN & FISHER: Faces Suit in Florida Alleging Retaliation
SRIYANTRAA INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
SUPERVALU INC: Removed "Bjelajac" Class Suit to C.D. California
SUPERVALU INC: Faces "Hanff" Suit in D. Minn. Over Data Breach

TRINITY TRANSPORTATION: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says
WARRIOR ENERGY: "Naicker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, Cal. Suit Says
WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
YELP INC: Faces "Adam" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports


                            *********


140 GREEN LAUNDROMAT: "Maximo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Socorro Maximo, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 140 Green Laundromat, Inc. 824 Green
Laundromat, Inc., Green Laundromat, Inc., and Jae J. Kim, jointly
and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06948 (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in laundry services business located at
142 Hamilton Place, 824 Saint Nicholas Avenue, and 110 West 145th
Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


1416 CHANCELLOR: "Herzfeld" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Herzfeld, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. 1416 Chancellor, Inc. d/b/a The Gold Club, Does 1
Through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-04966 (E.D. Pa., August
26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

1416 Chancellor, Inc owns and operates The Gold Club at 1416
Chancellor Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      115 Federal St Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


2N DRILLING: Faces "Cansler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Cansler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 2N Drilling LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-00050 (N.D. Tex.,
August 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
work week.

2N Drilling LLC is an oilfield services company proving drilling
services to oil companies and operators throughout Texas,
Louisiana, and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH HAMPTON LEEBRON BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77000
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
              adunlap@fhl-law.com
              litkin@fhl-law.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


2N DRILLING: Faces "Cansler" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Cansler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 2N Drilling LLC, Case No. 6:14-cv-00051 (N.D. Tex.,
August 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
work week.

2N Drilling LLC is an oilfield services company proving drilling
services to oil companies and operators throughout Texas,
Louisiana, and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH HAMPTON LEEBRON BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77000
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
              adunlap@fhl-law.com
              litkin@fhl-law.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Burch
      BRUCKNER BURCH
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leteya Mason, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-05013-JG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., August 23, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268-2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


ACTAVIS PLC: Motion to Dismiss Actos End-Payor Litigation Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that two putative class actions were
filed on December 31, 2013 in the federal district court (United
Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers
Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltc. Et al.,
S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9244 and Crosby Tugs LLC v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9250)
against Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis,
Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical,
Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and
metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful.

Several additional complaints have been filed (Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0116;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-0644; A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-
1493; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.
Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1661; Painters District Council
No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,
et al., N.D.Ill. Civ. No. 14-1601; City of Providence v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 14-125; Minnesota
and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund
and Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-1691; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1788; New
England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-2424; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 14-2378; Dennis Kreish v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2137; Man-U Service
Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare
Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2846).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed.

Prior to the filing of the Painters District Council and City of
Providence complaints, plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal
court in New York filed a consolidated class action complaint.

Plaintiffs in the Painters District Council and City of Providence
cases subsequently voluntarily dismissed their complaints in
Illinois and Rhode Island, respectively, and refiled their
complaints in the Southern District of New York where all the
cases have been referred to the same judge.

Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20,
2014 (In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 13-
9244).  The amended complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges an
overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch
of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial
payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on July 11, 2014.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Remanded Androgel Case Still in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the September 2006 patent
lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote Androgel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties.

On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging
similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated
claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No.
EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228).

On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private
cases to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California
voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Watson without
prejudice.

The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs in the
Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on May 28,
2009.  The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include
allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of
Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et
al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed
Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et
al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240);
(Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No.
10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ.
No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).

On April 20, 2009, Watson was dismissed without prejudice from the
Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey.

On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.

On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the
consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted Watson's motions to dismiss the complaints, except
the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include
allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of
the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's
action on April 21, 2010.

On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On
June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that
the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which
include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor
must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and
ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court Androgel Decision").

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA's
"Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in
the direct purchaser actions.

On October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an
order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10,
2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other
indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made
subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion to
dismiss.

In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and
the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on
June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including
Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion
for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints.

On September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment
in favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims. The
plaintiffs then appealed.

On September 12 and 13, 2013, respectively, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and direct purchaser plaintiffs filed motions with the
district court, asking the court for an indicative ruling that it
would vacate its final order on the parties' summary judgment
motions and conduct further proceedings in light of the Supreme
Court Androgel Decision, should the Court of Appeals remand the
case to the district court.

On October 23, 2013, the district court granted the motions. The
court of appeals remanded the case back to the district court
which has granted plaintiffs relief under Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, vacating the ruling from which
plaintiffs appealed.

The remanded case is still in its early stages and the parties are
working on additional discovery matters for both the class
allegations and merits, Actavis plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Court Reopens Cipro(R) Action in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------
Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. and certain Company affiliates
including The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and
federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state
competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have
filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification.
Approximately 42 cases were filed against Watson, Rugby and other
Company entities. Many of these actions have been dismissed.

Actions remain pending in various state courts, including
California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally
allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive
conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior
to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"),
related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug
substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of
Bayer's brand drug, Cipro(R).

The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages,
injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of
certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The
action pending in Kansas, which the court previously terminated
administratively, has been reopened.

Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs' in that case moved
for class certification on February 21, 2014; defendants' filed
opposition to the class certification motion on May 23, 2014.
Class discovery ended on July 25, 2014 and plaintiffs' reply
briefs in support of certification were due on August 22, 2014.

There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and
Tennessee since 2003.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue their claims as a class.

On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the California
Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.

On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
in the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the
California Supreme Court granted review.

On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court entered a stay
of all proceedings in the case pending a decision from the United
States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis
matter involving Androgel.  The California Supreme Court lifted
the stay on June 26, 2013 following the ruling by the United
States Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs and Bayer recently announced that they have reached an
agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer. Plaintiffs
are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants,
including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter
briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court
Androgel Decision. Response briefs were submitted on February 14,
2014. Amicus briefs were submitted on March 18, 2014 and the
parties filed responses to such briefs on April 24, 2014.

According to Actavis, in addition to the pending actions, the
Company understands that various state and federal agencies are
investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has
agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in
connection with the claims and investigations arising from the
conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its
affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is
currently controlling the defense of these actions.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Not Set in Doryx Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne
prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner
Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective
economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. (Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., E.D.Pa. No. 12-cv-03824). In the complaint, Mylan seeks
unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported indirect purchasers, each
in the same court.

On December 5, 2013 an additional complaint was filed by the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund and on May 9, 2014, Laborers' Trust Fund for Northern
California filed a complaint each on behalf of additional groups
of purported indirect purchasers.

Warner has moved to dismiss each of these new complaints.

Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that in each case the plaintiffs
allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R)
products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. The court consolidated the purported class actions and the
action filed by Mylan and ordered that all the pending cases
proceed on the same schedule.

On February 5, 2013, four retailers, including HEB Grocery,
Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and Walgreen Co., filed in the same
court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities
against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). (Walgreen
Co., Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and HEB Grocery Co, LP. v.
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-
00658). On March 28, 2013, another retailer, Rite Aid, filed a
similar complaint in the same court. (Rite Aid Corp. v. Warner
Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-01644).
Both retailer complaints recite similar facts and assert similar
legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases
described above. Both retailer complaints have been consolidated
with the cases described above.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne moved to dismiss the claims of Mylan,
the direct purchasers, the indirect purchasers and the retailers.

On November 21, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed with the
court an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' theory of
relief.

On June 12, 2013, the court entered a denial, without prejudice,
of Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motions to dismiss.

On November 13, 2013, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an
agreement in principle to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives for $15.0 million. On
February 18, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and held a hearing for final approval on June 9, 2014.

On April 18, 2014, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement
to settle the claims of the opt-out direct purchasers for $10.9
million.

On May 29, 2014 Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff
class representatives for $8.0 million.

On July 11, 2014, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion
to approve the settlement with the court.

Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on
March 10, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, the court vacated the trial date. A new trial
date has not been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation, and the Company can offer no
assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the
Company will be successful in its defense and whether any
additional similar suits will be filed.

Actavis said the plaintiffs collectively seek approximately $1.2
billion in compensatory damages, which includes approximately
$1.05 billion in purported damages of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs and opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs with whom the
company has settlements in principle. The Company believes these
amounts are unfounded and without merit. However, any award of
compensatory damages could be subject to trebling. If these claims
are successful such claims could adversely affect the Company and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operation and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Initial Case Conference Held in Lidoderm(R) Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court (Drogueria Betances, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-06542) against
Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson
Pharmaceuticals' 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine
transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint,
asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser
plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for
substantial payments from Endo Pharmaceuticals in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional lawsuits contain similar allegations have followed on
behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers (Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa.
Civ. No. 13-7217; American Sales Co. LLC, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0022; Cesar Castillo, Inc. v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0569)
and suits filed on behalf of a putative class of end-payer
plaintiffs (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v.Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5257; Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Teikoku
Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5280; City of
Providence v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No.
13-771; Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers - Employees Health
and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., D.Minn.
Civ. No. 13-3399; Pirelli Armstrong Retiree Medical Benefits Trust
v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378;
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund
v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5938;
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0057;
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ.
No. 14-0092; Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare
Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., C.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-
0289; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0503; Teamsters Local Union 115
Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0772; Roller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0792; Welfare Plan of the International
Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378;
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-1141; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund
v. Endo Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-
1548; Irene Kampanis v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1562).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed.

On December 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the United Food and Commercial
Workers action filed a motion with the JPML to have all the
Lidoderm(R) antitrust cases consolidated in the Northern District
of California. Plaintiffs in several of the other actions filed
objections and argued for consolidation in districts where their
suits were filed.

The motion was heard by the JPML at a hearing on March 27, 2014
and on April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in the
Northern District of California. (In re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation, N.D. Cal., MDL No. 14-2521).

Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that an initial case conference was
held on May 9, 2014 after which the court issued a schedule order.
Pursuant to that order, on June 13, 2014 the direct and indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed amended and consolidated complaints.
The defendants had until July 28, 2014 to respond to the amended
and consolidated complaints.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss in Loestrin 24 Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew
its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health
Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa.,
Civ. No. 13-02000).

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors (A.F.
of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et
al., D.N.J 13-02456, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale
Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co.,
et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014). Electrical Workers 242 and 294
Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott
Public Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307).

In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC
v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347
and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US),
LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476).

On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these
cases in one federal district court.

After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order
conditionally transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the
federal court for the District of Rhode Island. (In re Loestrin 24
Fe Antitrust Litigation, D.R.I. MDL No. 13-2472).

A preliminary hearing was held on November 4, 2013 after which an
amended, consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2013.

On February 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs'
filed oppositions to the motion on March 24, 2014 and the Company
filed its responses on April 23, 2014.

A hearing was held on June 27, 2014 on the motion to dismiss,
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

On February 25, 2014, a group of opt-out direct purchasers filed a
complaint based on the same or similar allegations asserted by the
direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

The Company will have 45 days after the court rules on the pending
motions to dismiss the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
complaints to respond to the opt-out plaintiffs' complaint. If the
court denies the pending motions, the Company anticipates
additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar
allegations may be filed. The consolidated case is still in its
early stages and discovery has not yet begun on either the class
allegations or merits. The Company anticipates additional claims
or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities
vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Final Hearing Held on Accord in Celexa/Lexapro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that Forest Laboratories, Inc. and
certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court
actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R)
and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation."

These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative
nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative
California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid
illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar
claims, including claims under the Missouri and California
consumer protection statutes, respectively, and state common laws.

On February 5, 2013, the district judge overseeing the MDL denied
all plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

On February 18, 2013, the plaintiff in the California action filed
a petition seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On April 16, 2013, the First Circuit denied the petition.

On April 30, 2013, plaintiffs in the other two actions filed an
Amended Complaint seeking to certify state-wide class actions in
Illinois, Missouri, and New York under those states' consumer
protection statutes.

On January 13, 2014, the district judge denied plaintiffs' motion
with respect to the proposed Illinois and New York classes and
allowed it with respect to the proposed Missouri class.

"We filed a petition seeking leave to appeal this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 27, 2014,"
the Company said.  "On March 12, 2014, we reached agreement with
the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including
claim by both individuals and third party payors that purchased
Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December
31, 2013. In exchange for a release from class members, we will
pay $7.65 million into a fund that will cover (1) the settlement
benefits paid to class members, (2) administration costs, (3)
incentive awards to be paid to the representative plaintiffs, and
(4) attorneys' fees and costs. If valid claims are greater than
$4.215 million, we will pay up to $2.7 million more to pay for the
additional valid claims (our total settlement payment shall not
exceed $10.35 million)."

The district court judge preliminarily approved the settlement on
March 14, 2014 and issued an order enjoining all class members and
other persons from litigating claims relating to those covered by
the settlement. A hearing on whether the court should grant final
approval of the settlement was held on July 16, 2014.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Opposition Brief Due in Calif. Lexapro Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that an action was filed on May 3,
2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for
adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in
California and alleging that the Company's promotion of Lexapro(R)
for adolescent depression has been deceptive.  This action was
transferred to the Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation," and, on July 29, 2013, the Company moved to
dismiss the complaint.

The Company said, "The district court judge granted our motion to
dismiss on March 5, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on March 17, 2014
and filed its appeal brief on July 24, 2014. Our opposition brief
is due on August 25, 2014."

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Oct. 1 Hearing to Dismiss Minn. Lexapro Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that an action was filed on November
13, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor
entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric
use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest
engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R). This action was transferred to the Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation," and the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 15, 2014.

On February 5, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
complaint and filed a First Amended Complaint, which, among other
things, added claims on behalf of a Minnesota class of entities
and consumers under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on April
9, 2014. A motion hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2014,"
the Company said.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Oct. 1 Hearing to Dismiss 3rd-Party Payors' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that an action was filed on March 13,
2014, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of
persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state
consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R). This action was filed as a related action to the
action filed on November 13, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 30, 2014. A
motion hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2014," the
Company said.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these actions.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole."

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Bid to De-Certify "Luster" Case in Missouri Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that Forest Laboratories Inc. and
certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in two actions
filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or
reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit, and arising from similar allegations as those
contained in the federal actions described in the preceding
paragraphs.

The first action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St.
Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

"We have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve this
action for payments that are not material to our financial
condition or results of operations," the Company said.

The second action, filed on July 22, 2009 under the caption
"Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," and now known as
"Luster v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class
action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased
Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under
the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law,
and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury.

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was argued on January 8, 2014. On February 21, 2014, we
filed a motion to de-certify the class. Decisions on these motions
are pending," the Company said.

"On March 12, 2014, we informed the judge of the MDL Missouri
class settlement described above, including that the federal class
encompasses the members of the certified Missouri class in
Luster," the Company said.

At a status conference on April 2, 2014 the parties agreed that
the action is stayed in light of the injunction contained in the
MDL Preliminary Approval Order.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," the Company said.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument on Appeal in Columbia Labs Case in Q3
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 8, 2012, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its
officers were named as defendants in a consolidated amended class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of
Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers. The amended complaint
generally alleges that between December 6, 2010 and January 20,
2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia
Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and
misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia
Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve(R) progesterone
gel, Columbia Laboratories' developmental drug for prevention of
preterm birth. Watson licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from
Columbia Laboratories in July 2010.

The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants failed
to disclose material information concerning the statistical
analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia
Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of
Prochieve(R). The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
of the claims in the amended complaint, which the court granted on
June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July
11, 2013. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint on August 9, 2013.

On October 21, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the
court also ruled that if the plaintiffs seek to further amend the
complaint, they must file a motion within thirty days seeking
permission to do so.

On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the
district court's motion to dismiss ruling and filed their opening
appellate brief on March 20, 2014.

Respondents' briefs in the appeal were filed on April 9, 2014. The
oral argument on the appeal likely will be held in the third
quarter of 2014, Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
it intends to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company
maintains insurance to provide coverage for the claims alleged in
the action. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. The action,
if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient
coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: MOU Reached in Forest Labs Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that in February and March 2014, nine
putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest,
Forest's directors, Actavis plc, and certain of Actavis's
affiliates.

Four actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and have
been consolidated under the caption "In re Forest Laboratories,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation" (the "Delaware Action").

Five actions were filed in New York State Supreme Court and have
been consolidated under the caption "Turberg v. Forest
Laboratories, Inc. et al." (the "New York Action").

On April 4 and May 5, 2014, respectively, the Delaware and New
York plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in their
respective jurisdictions. The amended complaints seek, among other
remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or
damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails
to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction.
The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its
affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches.

On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and the New York Action
regarding a settlement of both Actions, and that agreement is
reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the
settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed transaction with Actavis, which are contained in a Form
8-K filed May 28, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of
Chancery will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

"At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," the Company said.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: MOU Reached in Furiex Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that in May 2014, four putative
stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Furiex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and Furiex's board of directors.

Two actions were brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery under
the captions "Steven Kollman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." and "Donald Powell v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."
(the "Delaware Actions").

Two actions were brought in North Carolina state court under the
captions "Walter Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." and "Christopher Shinneman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." (the "North Carolina Actions").

These actions alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Furiex Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate process. These actions also alleged that Forest
aided and abetted these alleged breaches. These actions sought
class certification, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex,
and an award of unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts'
fees, and other costs. The Kollman and Nakatsukasa actions also
sought recission of the acquisition and unspecified recissory
damages if the acquisition was completed.

On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions and the North Carolina
Actions regarding a settlement of all four actions, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding.

The Company said that "in connection with the settlement
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Furiex agreed to
make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed
transaction with us, which are contained in a Form DEFA14A filed
June 23, 2014."

"The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the North Carolina state court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.

"If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all four actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

"In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the actions. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the North Carolina state court
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.

"At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole."

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Trial Date Set in Medical West Action v. Anda
-------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of Actavis Plc, alleging conversion and alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  The
case is Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc.,
(Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case
No. 08SL-CC00257).

In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting
Anda as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated
the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of minimum
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if
the violations are found to be willful. The complaint seeks to
assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other
similarly situated third parties.

In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint,
denying the allegations.

In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand
the proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda
lacked evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant."

In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs.

On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the
plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members
who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant,
or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending
resolution of Anda's petition to the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC").

On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion.

On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed their motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008.

Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that the motion has been briefed.
However, the court granted Anda's motion to vacate the class
certification hearing until similar issues are resolved in either
or both the so-called Nack litigation or with the so-called FCC
Petition. No trial date has been set in the matter.

The Company also said that several issues raised in plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the Medical West matter were
addressed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated
case to which Anda is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460.
Nack concerned whether there is a private right of action for
failing to include any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express
permission, contrary to a FCC regulation that requires such notice
on fax advertisements. The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to
file an amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in
the matter, which was held on September 19, 2012.

In its ruling, issued May 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held that
Walburg's arguments on appeal amounted to challenges to the FCC's
regulation and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain
such challenges pursuant to the Hobbs Act and it would otherwise
not decide any similar challenges without the benefit of full
participation by the FCC.  The defendant in Nack has filed a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition
with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for
its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with
express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May
2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC
dismissed the FCC Petition.

On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the
Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to
vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC
Petition. The FCC has not ruled on the application for review.

On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at
issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the
FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC
regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA.

On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking
comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to
the one Anda filed in 2010.

Anda was one of several parties that submitted comments on the
Public Notice. Anda believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and
intends to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions,
if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Court Re-Enters Stay in TCPA Action v. Anda
--------------------------------------------------------
On May 1, 2012, an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") was filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.,
purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the
United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising
pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." (Physicians
Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. S.D. Fla., Civ. No. 12-60798).

On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses.

The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition and the FCC's recently filed Public
Notice, described below, which the court granted, staying the
action for sixty days.

On April 17, 2014 following the expiration of the sixty day
period, the court lifted the stay but re-entered it sua sponte on
May 23, 2014, Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against SLHC Suit v. Forest
--------------------------------------------------
In October 2012, Forest Laboratories Inc. and certain of its
affiliates were named as a defendant, along with The Peer Group,
Inc. ("TPG"), in a putative class action brought by the St. Louis
Heart Center ("SLHC") under the caption "St. Louis Heart Center,
Inc. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and The Peer Group, Inc." The
action is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

On May 17, 2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, alleging
that Forest and TPG violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227 ("TCPA"), on behalf of a proposed class that
includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of
the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material
advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or
services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an
opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). The Fourth Amended
Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA,
treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful,
knowing or intentional, interest, and injunctive and other relief.

On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to
stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by
the pending FCC Petitions, including any appeal therefrom.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Motion to Dismiss "Barrett" et al. Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In July 2012, Forest Laboratories Inc. and certain of its
affiliates were named as defendants in an action brought by Megan
Barrett, Lindsey Houser, Jennifer Jones, and Jennifer Seard,
former Company Sales Representatives, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption "Megan
Barrett et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc."

In November 2012, Plaintiffs amended the complaint, adding six
additional plaintiffs: Kimberly Clinton, Erin Eckenrode, Julie
Smyth, Marie Avila, Andrea Harley, and Christy Lowder, all of whom
alleged that they were current or former Company Sales
Representatives or Specialty Sales Representatives.

In March 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding
one additional plaintiff: Tracy Le, a now-former Company Sales
Representative.

The action is a putative class and collective action, and the
Second Amended Complaint alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII
gender class includes all current and former female Sales
Representatives (defined to include Territory Sales
Representatives, Field Sales Representatives, Medical Sales
Representatives, Professional Sales Representatives, Specialty
Sales Representatives, Field Sales Trainers, and Regional Sales
Trainers) employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to
the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-
class includes all current and former female Sales Representatives
who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the
Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment.
The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes
current, former, and future female Sales Representatives who were
not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees
during the applicable liability period.

The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.

"We filed a motion to dismiss certain claims on April 29, 2013,
which was argued on January 16, 2014. We intend to continue to
vigorously defend against this action. At this time, we do not
believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the
results of operations or financial position taken as a whole,"
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott a Defendant in 218 Actonel(R) Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that Warner Chilcott plc is a
defendant in approximately 218 cases and a potential defendant
with respect to approximately 383 unfiled claims involving a total
of approximately 609 plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs relating
to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel(R).
The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused
them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but
serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the
jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of
the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the
United States.

Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these
litigations.

The 383 unfiled claims involve potential plaintiffs that have
agreed, pursuant to a tolling agreement, to postpone the filing of
their claims against Warner Chilcott in exchange for Warner
Chilcott's agreement to suspend the statutes of limitations
relating to their potential claims.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product
liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott
in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification. Of the approximately 613 total Actonel(R)-related
claims, approximately 84 include ONJ-related claims, approximately
512 include AFF-related claims and approximately four include both
ONJ and AFF-related claims. In some of the cases, manufacturers of
other bisphosphonate products are also named as defendants.
Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is
reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

Sanofi, which co-promoted Actonel(R) with Warner Chilcott in the
United States through the end of 2013 pursuant to a collaboration
agreement, is a defendant in some of Warner Chilcott's Actonel(R)
product liability cases. Sanofi and Warner Chilcott continue to
co-promote Actonel(R) in other countries pursuant to the
collaboration agreement. Under the collaboration agreement, Sanofi
has agreed to indemnify Warner Chilcott, subject to certain
limitations, for 50% of the losses from any product liability
claims in Canada relating to Actonel(R) and for 50% of the losses
from any product liability claims in the United States and Puerto
Rico relating to Actonel(R) brought prior to April 1, 2010, which
included approximately 90 claims relating to ONJ and other alleged
injuries that were pending as of March 31, 2010.

Pursuant to the April 2010 amendment to the collaboration
agreement, Warner Chilcott will be fully responsible for any
product liability claims in the United States and Puerto Rico
relating to Actonel(R) brought on or after April 1, 2010. Warner
Chilcott may be liable for product liability, warranty or similar
claims in relation to products acquired from The Procter & Gamble
Company ("P&G") in October 2009 in connection with Warner
Chilcott's acquisition (the "PGP Acquisition") of P&G's global
branded pharmaceutical's business ("PGP"), including ONJ-related
claims that were pending as of the closing of the PGP Acquisition.

Warner Chilcott's agreement with P&G provides that P&G will
indemnify Warner Chilcott, subject to certain limits, for 50% of
Warner Chilcott's losses from any such claims, including
approximately 88 claims relating to ONJ and other alleged
injuries, pending as of October 30, 2009.

In May 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into a settlement agreement
in respect of up to 74 ONJ-related claims, subject to the
acceptance thereof by the individual respective claimants.

Warner Chilcott recorded a charge in the six months ended June 30,
2013 in the amount of $2.0 million in accordance with ASC Topic
450 "Contingencies" in connection with Warner Chilcott's entry
into the settlement agreement.  This charge represents Warner
Chilcott's current estimate of the aggregate amount that is
probable to be paid by Warner Chilcott in connection with the
settlement agreement.

In September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into a separate
settlement agreement in respect of up to 53 additional ONJ-related
claims, subject to the acceptance thereof by the individual
respective claimants. Assuming that all of the relevant claimants
accept the settlement agreements, approximately 560 Actonel(R)-
related claims would remain outstanding, of which approximately 31
include ONJ-related claims, approximately 512 include AFF-related
claims and approximately four include both ONJ and AFF-related
claims. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty (i)
the number of such individual claimants that will accept the
settlement agreement or (ii) the outcome of any litigation with
claimants rejecting the settlement or other plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs with ONJ, AFF or other Actonel(R)-related
claims, and the Company can offer no assurance as to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters.

An estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to
the Company relating to proceedings with (i) claimants rejecting
the settlement or (ii) other plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs
with ONJ, AFF or other Actonel(R)-related claims is not possible
at this time.

Actavis believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these
cases and Warner Chilcott maintains product liability insurance
against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain
and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.
These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: 137 Alendronate Cases Pending Against Watson
---------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in 2010, a number of
product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain
of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of alendronate, for personal injuries including femur fractures
and ONJ allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate.

Approximately 137 cases are pending against Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 183
plaintiffs. These cases are generally at their preliminary stages.

Fifty-four lawsuits also name as a defendant Cobalt Laboratories,
which Watson acquired in 2009 as part of its acquisition of the
Arrow Group, in connection with Cobalt's manufacture and sale of
alendronate. Twenty cases naming the Company and/or Cobalt were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district
litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Fosamax (Alendronate
Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243).

In 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases
then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third
Circuit affirmed. Any cases filed against the Company in the
District of New Jersey MDL after the Court's January 2012
dismissal are subject to a case management order that calls for
their dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims
should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order.

To date, no plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the
District of New Jersey against the Company has moved for such
exemption and all such cases have been dismissed. Eleven other
cases were part of an MDL in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, where the Company filed a
similar motion to dismiss.

The Court granted, in part, that motion to dismiss, which has
resulted in the dismissal of eight cases. Watson and/or Cobalt
have also been served with nine cases that are part of
consolidated litigation in the California Superior Court (Orange
County).

The Orange County Court partially granted a similar motion to
dismiss, but the Company has not yet been able to determine how
that will affect the cases filed against and served on it.

Generic drug manufacturers similarly situated to the Company have
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the California
decision. All cases pending in the state court of Missouri have
been discontinued against the Company.

The remaining 125 active cases are part of a mass tort coordinated
proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County.
In that state court proceeding, the Court recently granted, in
part, a motion to dismiss. As a result, the Company has obtained
the stipulated dismissal of 293 cases.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.

"These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification
arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows," the Company
said.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Served in Seven Pending Androderm(R) Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in 2014, a number of
product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain
of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of testosterone products, for personal injuries including but not
limited to cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use
of Androderm(R).

Actavis, Inc. and one or more of its subsidiaries have been served
in seven currently pending actions, six in federal court (Laney v.
Actavis, Inc., et al., No. 2:14cv-02809 (D.N.J.); Roberts v. Abbot
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-3910 (N.D.Ill.);
Couwenhoven v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-0667
(C.D.Cal.); Gendron v. Actavis Pharma, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-05119
(N.D. Ill.), Szalkowski v. Actavis, Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00530 (W.D. NY), and a proposed personal injury class action
McGill, et al. v. Actavis, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-02177 (E.D.
Pa.)) and one in state court (Smyer v. Actavis plc, et al., No.
BC537755 (Cal. Super. Ct. L.A. County)).

On June 6, 2014 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all federal actions claiming injury from testosterone
products be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (MDL 2545).
Accordingly, the aforementioned federal actions have been
consolidated into MDL 2545.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. These
cases are in the initial stages and discovery has not yet
commenced. The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance
does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Forest Labs Faces 12 Benicar(R) Actions
----------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that Forest Laboratories Inc. and its
affiliates are defendants in approximately 221 product liability
actions.  Approximately twelve actions involve allegations that
Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that Forest co-promoted
with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain
gastrointestinal injuries.

"Under Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is
defending us in these lawsuits," the Company said.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: 9 Trials Set in 2014-2015 Over Celexa & Lexapro
------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that Forest Laboratories Inc. and its
affiliates are defendants in thirteen actions involving
allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused or contributed to
individuals committing or attempting suicide, or caused a violent
event.

The MDL that was established for the federal suicidality-related
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri has concluded and the remaining cases have been remanded
to the federal district courts in which they were filed
originally. Nine trials have been scheduled in these actions in
2014 and 2015.

Approximately 194 of the actions against Forest and its affiliates
involve allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various
birth defects. The majority of these actions have been
consolidated in Cole County Circuit Court in Missouri. One action
is set for trial in Cole County in April 2015. Fifteen actions
were recently remanded to New Jersey state courts from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (nine actions are
now pending in Atlantic County, New Jersey and six actions are now
pending in Hudson County, New Jersey). Approximately five actions
remain pending in New Jersey federal court. One action is pending
in Orange County, California and is set for trial in March 2015.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Fentanyl Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in 2009, a number of
product liability suits were filed against Actavis and other
Company affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and
distributors of fentanyl transdermal system products, for personal
injuries or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of the
fentanyl transdermal system products.  Actavis settled the
majority of these cases in November 2012.  Since that time,
additional cases have been resolved individually and/or are in the
process of being resolved. There are approximately four cases that
remain pending against the Company in state and federal courts
that have not been resolved. Discovery is ongoing.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Early Stages in Metoclopramide Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in 2009, a number of
product liability suits were filed against certain Company
affiliates, including legacy Actavis and Watson companies, as well
as other manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide, for
personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of
metoclopramide. Approximately 1,180 cases remain pending against
Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts,
representing claims by multiple plaintiffs. Discovery in these
cases is in the preliminary stages as the Company is actively
moving to dismiss the suits and either initiating or defending
appeals on such motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company
believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these
cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do
not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument Heard in 9th Cir. En Banc Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that beginning in 2011, a number of
product liability suits were filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers
and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal injuries including
adverse cardiovascular events or deaths allegedly arising out of
the use of propoxyphene. Cases are pending against Watson and/or
its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing
claims by approximately 1,385 plaintiffs.

Approximately 77 of the cases naming Watson were consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL)
matter pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky (In re: Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2226). Four of the MDL
cases were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs with prejudice.

On June 22, 2012, the court hearing the MDL cases granted the
generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL
cases. Approximately 34 of the dismissed cases were appealed by
the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion affirming
the District Court's dismissal of the generic defendants in all
respects.

It is anticipated that the plaintiffs will seek further review by
the United States Supreme Court. They have 90 days from the
issuance of the Sixth Circuit's decision within which to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court.

In addition to the 77 consolidated cases, the MDL court remanded
seven additional cases to California state court. Defendants
jointly filed a petition with the Sixth Circuit to appeal that
remand, which petition was denied, as was the subsequently filed
petition for rehearing on the petition to appeal.

The Sixth Circuit's Order denying Defendants' petition for
rehearing was recently vacated due to the Ninth Circuit's granting
of a petition for en banc rehearing on the same issue.

The Ninth Circuit case involves remand by a federal court in
California to state court in a propoxyphene case involving the
same defendants.

The Sixth Circuit has now stayed these 7 cases pending the ruling
of the Ninth Circuit on the issue.

Approximately 35 of the cases naming Watson or its affiliates have
been consolidated in a state court proceeding pending in the
Superior Court of California in Los Angeles.

After the consolidation, the defendants jointly removed all of the
cases to various US District Courts in California after which
counsel for the plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state
court. The various US district Court Judges granted the motions.

The defendants jointly appealed the remand of these cases to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
granting of the motions to remand.

The defendants then jointly petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an en
banc rehearing of the defendants' appeal. The Ninth Circuit
recently granted the defendants' Petition and oral argument was
heard on June 26, 2014.

Depending on the Ninth Circuit's ruling, these cases will either
be sent back to the MDL court (which is expected to dismiss them
on the same basis on which it dismissed the other cases against
the generic defendants) or they will be remanded to the California
state court to be litigated in that forum.

The Company said, "If the cases return to state court, they will
be in their preliminary stages and we intend to file demurrers
and/or motions to dismiss. The Company believes that it has
substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains
product liability insurance against such cases. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or
if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such
claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows."

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in Zarah Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a number of product liability
suits, nine (9) in total, are pending against the Company and/or
certain of its affiliates as well as other manufacturers and
distributors of oral contraceptive products for personal injuries
allegedly arising out of the use of the generic oral
contraceptive, Zarah(R).

Eight of those actions are consolidated in the Yaz/Yasmin
Multidistrict Litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois: Camp v. Bayer Pharma
AG, et al., No. 3:13-cv-10765; Edwards v. Bayer Corp., et al., No.
3:12-cv-10318; Emeson v. Bayer Healthcare Corp., et al., No. 3:12-
cv-11088; Hagar v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:12-
cv-20116; Janousek v. Bayer Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-10320;
Mueller v. Bayer Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-10315; Tidwell v.
Bayer Pharma AG, et al., No. 3:13-cv-10584; and York v. Bayer
Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-10051.

In addition, one such case is pending in the Superior Court of
Bergen County, New Jersey: Farrell v. Bayer Corp., et al., No. L-
635-14.

The injuries alleged include, but are not limited to, pulmonary
emboli, deep vein thrombosis, and gallbladder disease.

These cases are in the initial stages and discovery has not yet
commenced. The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our insurance
does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.

Actavis is an integrated global specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in the development, manufacturing, marketing, sale and
distribution of generic, branded generic, brand name, biosimilar
and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.


AMERICA-CV PRODUCTIONS: Removed "Pyzyk" Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Oscar Pyzyk v. America-CV
Productions, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-18324-CA-01, was removed
from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
23107-FAM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher P. Hammon, Esq.
          Claudia A. Brea, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-0506
          Facsimile: (305) 374-0456
          E-mail: chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com
                  claudia.brea@ogletreedeakins.com


AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces "Silfee" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Silfee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
04908-TON (E.D. Pa., August 22, 2014) is brought under the Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          115 Federal St., Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Defends Against "Cardoza" Action in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that two then current
employees (the "Nevada Plaintiffs") filed on October 4, 2013, a
purported collective action lawsuit against the Company, OSI
Restaurant Partners, LLC, and two of its subsidiaries in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada (Cardoza, et al. v.
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:13-cv-01820-JAD-NJK).

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
by requiring employees to work off the clock, complete on-line
training without pay, and attend meetings in the restaurant
without pay. The suit seeks to certify a nationwide collective
action that all hourly employees in all Outback Steakhouse
restaurants would be permitted to join. The suit seeks an
unspecified amount in back pay for the employees that join the
lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs, expenses,
and attorney's fees. The Nevada Plaintiffs also filed a companion
lawsuit in Nevada state court alleging that the Company violated
the state break time rules.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and is
vigorously defending all allegations. However, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this case.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc. was formed by an investor group comprised of
funds advised by Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton
Management Company, LLC, Chris T. Sullivan, Robert D. Basham, J.
Timothy Gannon and certain members of management. Bloomin' Brands
is a holding company and conducts its operations through OSI
Restaurant Partners, LLC ("OSI"), the Company's primary operating
entity, and New Private Restaurant Properties, LLC, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that leases certain
Company-owned restaurant properties to a subsidiary of OSI.

The Company owns and operates casual, polished casual and fine
dining restaurants primarily in the United States. The Company's
restaurant portfolio has five concepts: Outback Steakhouse,
Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill, Fleming's Prime
Steakhouse and Wine Bar and Roy's. Additional Outback Steakhouse,
Carrabba's Italian Grill and Bonefish Grill restaurants in which
the Company has no direct investment are operated under franchise
agreements.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: To Seek Dismissal of "Gehl" Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that three employees of the
Company's franchisee (collectively, the "California Plaintiffs")
filed on November 8, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit
against the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC and OS
Restaurant Services, LLC, two of its subsidiaries, and T-Bird
Restaurant Group, Inc. ("T-Bird"), one of its franchisees in the
California Superior Court, County of Alameda. The defendants
removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in December 2013 (Holly Gehl, et al. v.
Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 4:13-cv-05961-KAW).

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation, and violations
of California's Business and Professions Code. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate.

The Company does not believe the California Plaintiffs have any
standing to bring claims against the Company or its subsidiaries
as all were employed by the Company's franchisee. The Company
intends to request that the court dismiss it and the Company's
subsidiaries from this action. Should the court deny the Company's
request for dismissal it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
However, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
case.

Bloomin' Brands, Inc. was formed by an investor group comprised of
funds advised by Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Catterton
Management Company, LLC, Chris T. Sullivan, Robert D. Basham, J.
Timothy Gannon and certain members of management. Bloomin' Brands
is a holding company and conducts its operations through OSI
Restaurant Partners, LLC ("OSI"), the Company's primary operating
entity, and New Private Restaurant Properties, LLC, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that leases certain
Company-owned restaurant properties to a subsidiary of OSI.

The Company owns and operates casual, polished casual and fine
dining restaurants primarily in the United States. The Company's
restaurant portfolio has five concepts: Outback Steakhouse,
Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish Grill, Fleming's Prime
Steakhouse and Wine Bar and Roy's. Additional Outback Steakhouse,
Carrabba's Italian Grill and Bonefish Grill restaurants in which
the Company has no direct investment are operated under franchise
agreements.


BREITBURN ENERGY: Unitholder Files Class Action Against QR Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Breitburn Energy Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a unitholder class
action complaint was filed against QR Energy and other defendants
on July 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in connection with the Merger alleging,
among other things, a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company said, "Such litigation is inherently uncertain and the
results cannot be predicted.  Regardless of the outcome, such
litigation could have an adverse impact on us because of legal
costs, diversion of management and other personnel and other
factors. In addition, it is possible that such litigation could
delay or prevent the completion of the Merger, which could
materially and adversely affect our business, operating results
and financial condition."

The Company is an independent oil and natural gas partnership
focused on the acquisition, exploitation and development of oil
and natural gas properties in the United States.

On July 23, 2014, the Company, its General Partner and Boom Merger
Sub, LLC, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Partnership
("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") with QR Energy, LP ("QR Energy") and QRE GP,
LLC ("QRE").

QR Energy is a publicly traded, Delaware limited partnership
engaged in the acquisition, exploitation, development and
production of oil and natural gas properties located in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico,
Oklahoma and Texas.  As of December 31, 2013, their total
estimated proved reserves were approximately 109.1 MMBoe, of which
approximately 77% were oil and NGLs and 85% were classified as
proved developed reserves. Their average production for the year
ended December 31, 2013 was 17.9 MBoe/d.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company will acquire QR
Energy in exchange for the Company's Common Units, implying a
transaction value of approximately $3.0 billion, including the
assumption of approximately $1,012 million of QR Energy's existing
net debt and the payment of $350 million cash to the holders of
the outstanding Class C Convertible Preferred Units of QR Energy
(each, a "Class C Unit"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into QR Energy, with
QR Energy continuing as the surviving entity and a direct wholly
owned subsidiary of the Partnership (the "Merger").


BUTH-NA BODHAIGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa McElwain, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Buth-Na Bodhaige, Inc., a foreign corporation, d/b/a
The Body Shop, Case No. 1:14-cv-02763 (N.D. Ga., August 26, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Buth-Na Bodhaige, Inc. is a foreign corporation that owns and
operates The Body Shop stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


CHEVRON CORP: Court Dismissed With Leave to Amend "Ogala" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Slamming a group of Nigerians for copying their $5 billion lawsuit
against Chevron over a weeks-long oil blaze "almost verbatim from
the original complaint," a federal judge warned that he may
dismiss the case with prejudice, reports Jonny Bonner at
Courthouse News Service.

Dr. Foster Ogala and others, on behalf of an estimated 65,000
residents of the Niger Delta region of southern Nigeria, sued the
energy giant in San Francisco earlier this year.  They claimed the
KS Endeavor, an offshore natural-gas rig drilling in North Apoi
Field, exploded on Jan. 16, 2012, igniting a fire that burned for
46 days.

Ogala and others said they were "directly affected by, interested
in and having claims arising out of the incident," and suffered
"losses to their livelihood, environmental damage, and health
problems as a result of the explosion and fire," according to a
summary of the case by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti.

They said KS Drilling negligently operated the KS Endeavor under
the management of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.

Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. were named
as defendants in the lawsuit, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Investments.

Conti dismissed the original action in May, however, over a
failure to state claims against the defendant companies as alter
egos of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.

Tossing claims on behalf of unnamed nonparties, Conti also said
that the plaintiffs failed to "claim anywhere in the complaint to
represent a class."  He said the plaintiffs failed to cite
property damage and personal injury specifics, as well, or show
how their alleged injuries resulted from the defendants' conduct.

"There is no discussion whatsoever of how a fire on an offshore
rig damaged the businesses, livelihoods, property, or health of
Dr. Ogala or any of the other plaintiffs in this case," Conti
wrote.  "Plaintiffs make claims about damage to fish, livestock,
contamination of water and soil, and 'general health breakdown.'
But there are no allegations that the damaged livestock belonged
to plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' livelihoods depended on
fisheries, that the contaminated water or soil harmed them or
their property, or that the 'general health breakdown' affected
them.  As for the claims of property damage and physical injury,
there are no allegations that the fire ever spread from the KS
Endeavor.  Plaintiffs need to allege facts that make their damages
claims plausible; in this case, they need facts that indicate how
the fire actually harmed them."

Dismissing the first amended complaint, or FAC, on August 21,
2014, Conti again found that the plaintiffs failed to state injury
specifics.

"Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been
injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified
members of the class to which they belong and which they purport
to represent,'" Conti wrote.  "Plaintiffs appear to be aware of
that requirement.  But their FAC includes only allegations of
injury to unidentified class members. Nowhere does the FAC ever
describe any injury to any of the named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
must describe a specific injury to each of the named plaintiffs.
Because they fail to do so, their FAC is insufficient to establish
standing for their negligence claims."

In alleging that they "suffered: losses to their livelihood;
environmental disaster impacting upon food and water supplies;
health problems all arising out of the gross negligence of the
defendant," the plaintiffs "copied almost verbatim from the
original complaint," according to the 15-page decision.

Conti declined to strike or dismiss the class allegations, and
dismissed the lawsuit with leave to amend.

Failure to properly amend their claims by Aug. 28 "may result in
dismissal of this action with prejudice," Conti warned.

Joining Ogola as named plaintiffs are Elder Endure Humphrey Fisei,
Mr. Fresh Talent, Matthew Kingdom Mieseigha, Chris Wilfred Itonyo
and Natto Iyela Gbarabe.

"To establish standing, plaintiffs must explain specifically how
each of these people was injured," the 15-page ruling states.
"Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been
injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified
members of the class to which they belong and which they purport
to represent.'"

The case is Foster Ogola, et al. v. Chevron Corporation, Case No.
14-cv-173-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


CHICAGO DRESS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Myriah Hall, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Chicago Dress To Impress,
d/b/a Dress To Impress, Jerusalem International Inc., and Osama
Nimmer, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06587 (N.D. Ill., August
26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provides retail services within the State of
Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


COCA COLA: Deceives Consumers Through False Ads, Class Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Marino and Damiano DiPaola, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company and
Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13446-MPK (D.
Mass., August 22, 2014) alleges that sales of Coca-Cola are fueled
by false and deceptive representations that Coca-Cola is not only
a healthy product, but one free of artificial flavoring and
chemical preservatives.

Faced with clear evidence that it was losing market share because
consumers increasingly preferred beverages without artificial
flavoring and chemical preservatives, Coca-Cola responded, not by
providing consumers with what they wanted -- a natural and healthy
drink -- but by deceiving them into thinking that Coca-Cola was
natural and healthy when, in fact, it contained artificial
flavoring and chemical preservatives, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiffs contend that rather than reformulate Coca-Cola and
their other soft drinks to appeal to changing consumer preferences
for natural and healthy beverages, the Defendants adopted a global
campaign of disinformation, false advertising, false labeling and
misbranding that was dubbed "Pemberton" after the pharmacist who
invented Coca-Cola.

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company.
The Company's product, Coca-Cola, is the world's most popular soft
drink and is one of the most well-known and trusted brand names in
the world.  The Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. are
Delaware corporations headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Coca-
Cola Refreshments is the Company's bottling and customer service
organization for North America.  Coca-Cola Refreshments
manufactures, distributes, and sells approximately 88% of the
Company's unit case volume in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Toll Free: (877) 816-4443
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Daye, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Community Financial Service Centers, LLC dba Speedy Loan, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00759-LH-SCY (D.N.M., August 22, 2014) alleges
violations of the Truth in Lending Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
          Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
          FEFERMAN & WARREN
          300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2000 West
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 243-7773
          Facsimile: (505) 243-6663
          E-mail: rfeferman@msn.com
                  nmattison@swcp.com


COVIDIEN PLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Sale to Medtronic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosenfeld Family Foundation, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Covidien, PLC, Jose E. Almeida, Joy A.
Amundson, Craig Arnold, Robert H. Brust, Christopher J. Coughlin,
Randall J. Hogan, III, Dennis H. Reilley, Stephen H. Rusckowski
and Joseph A. Zaccagnino, Case No. 1:14-cv-13490 (D. Mass., August
26, 2014), arises from Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of
the Covidien, PLC to Medtronic, Inc. at an unfair price and
through an unfair and oppressive process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010


CREATIVE FOOD: Faces "Tantawy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaa Tantawy, Luis Carvajal, Carolina Meres, Nicolas Peralta, and
Noel Flores, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Creative Food Group HD, LLC, Creative Food
Group SYR, LLC, Saniya Enterprises, Inc., Altaf Isani, Saniya
Isani, Ikramuddin Mandani also known as: Ikram Mandani and Siraj
Himani, Case No. 1:14-cv-05062 (E.D.N.Y., August 26, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, stolen tips, payment for
laundering uniforms, liquidated damages, interest and reasonable
attorney's fees and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate food service establishments
including Le Bon Cafe, Le Bon Cafe II, Primo Cappuccino, Sierra
Cafe and Cafe 34.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 267-2101
      Facsimile: (212) 267-8115
      E-mail: rw@rwapc.com


EASTERN ACCOUNT: Illegally Collects Debts, "Hanan" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Hanan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc. and Correction
Officers John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-05037 (E.D.N.Y., August
25, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's actions of using an
unfair and unconscionable means to collect debt.

Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc. is a collection agency
with its principal office located at 75 Glen Road, #110, Sandy
Hook, Connecticut 06482.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Asbury Park, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: arimarcus2@gmail.com


EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Provides Update on "Original" Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that five putative class
actions, or the "Original Class Actions," were filed in March 2012
in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in
certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and
the non-controlled entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1,
2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19,
2012.

According to Empire State Realty, "The plaintiffs asserted claims
against our predecessor's management companies, Anthony E. Malkin,
Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating
partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment
and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged,
among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the
process by which it was structured (including the valuation that
was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing
entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin
Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-
draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the
consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate
disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the
consolidation.  The complaints sought money damages and injunctive
relief preventing the consolidation."

"The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme
Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying
premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions
among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the
consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would
cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60
East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates
L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs") immediately to incur substantial tax
liabilities.

"The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The
Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was
approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing
entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for
the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of
the named class representatives intends to support the
consolidation as modified.

"The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the
plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax
implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values
of the properties that would be consolidated into our company, and
the interests of the investors in the existing entities, have been
addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to
consider the proposed consolidation on the basis of revised
consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the
best interests of the plaintiff class.

"The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.
The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and
maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or
freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed,
after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million
settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock
and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of
specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities
pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for
plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would
be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during
the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage
of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by
defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total
gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering,
defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further
approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to
make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation
with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which
are included therein).

"Investors in the existing entities will not be required to bear
any portion of the settlement payment. The payment in settlement
of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona
M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that
none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our
direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any
liability for such payment) and certain investors, in the existing
entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the
settlement payment.

"The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and
other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of
the members of the class against the defendants and related
persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors.
The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including
but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any
supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is
declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in
writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed,
so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to
review such supplement. There was no such supplement that
plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was
subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court
approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal.
Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.

"On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to
preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original
Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on
behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such
objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such
objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the
Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely
to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-
consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of
"fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability
Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion
that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.

"Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability
Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that
such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and
that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New
York Limited Liability Company Law.

"On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of
which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.
On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court
rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement
in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are
investors in all of the existing entities included in the
consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out
will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can
pursue separate claims for monetary damages. They are bound by the
settlement agreement regarding equitable relief, so they cannot
seek an injunction to halt the consolidation or the Offering. The
settlement will not become final until resolution of any appeal.

"Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on
attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0
million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced
to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are
included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

"The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice
of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before
the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the
settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On
May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was
denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in
opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the
appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013,
these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on
their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to
perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC
filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the
appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue
it.

"Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not
entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company
Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have
such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or
consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in
those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building
Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company,
the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin
Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of
the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that
settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated
bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin
Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to
pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class
action settlement.

"On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on
the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19,
2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to
dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion
to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the
appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to
the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court
heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order
dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court's ruling.

"In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one
additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the
Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the
trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices
of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013
granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action
settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the
order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order
to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the
consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the
motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf
of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the
order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show
cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out
of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment
and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17,
2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the
order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss
these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely
perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6,
2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are
perfected by March 17, 2014.

"On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout
provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the
alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the
New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on
April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22,
2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for
leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was
filed on July 11, 2014, and it is awaiting a ruling from the
court.

"We cannot predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings, or,
if a motion for leave is granted, the appeal process or any
related relief, if such further appeal were successful. If the
trial and appeals courts' decisions were reversed by the Court of
Appeals, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse
effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or
other equitable relief, and the court could order some or all of
the relief that the objecting investors have requested, as
described above. Although there can be no assurance, we believe
that the trial and appeals courts' decisions were correct, that
they will be upheld on any further appeal.

"On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class
Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court's May 17,
2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original
Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. Responses to this appeal were filed April 16, 2014, and
the appellate court has not yet scheduled oral argument, which we
anticipate will be in the fall.

"We cannot predict the timing or outcome of an appeal. If the
court's decision were reversed by an appellate court, there is a
risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, including
the imposition of monetary damages, injunctive relief or both.
Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial
court's decision was correct, and that it will be upheld on
appeal. No other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline
set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order."


EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Provides Update on "Second" Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that commencing December
24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class
Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E.
Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.

According to Empire State Realty Trust, "the Second Class Actions
alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us
and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class
Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was
appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our
operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages."

"On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was
granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have a
right to appeal this ruling.

"We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an
appeal is successful and the court were ultimately to rule against
the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material
adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary
damages or other equitable relief."


ENERGYGUARD FOAM: Faces "Benton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Benton, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Energyguard Foam Insulators, LP, Case No. 4:14-cv-02457 (S.D.
Tex., August 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Energyguard Foam Insulators, LP is engaged in the insulation
installation business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Sued Over Lax Concussion Protocols
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
youth soccer players and their parents claim in a federal class
action that the Federation Internationale de Football Association
and U.S. soccer leagues fail to protect young players from head
injuries by encouraging them to return to the field after they
suffer concussions.

"FIFA and U.S. soccer and various youth soccer organizations are
failing to adhere to a long-recognized international consensus on
concussions in soccer," attorney Derek Howard with Minami Tamaki
in San Francisco said in an interview on August 27, 2014.

"Instead of changing the rules to make sure they are kept current
with the medical evidence of how much danger these children,
adolescents and teens are in, they have kept the rules the same.
We are asking for injunctive relief and one of the things we're
asking for is to stop rules which are hazardous to the players'
health and are continuing to be implemented."

Howard, who has coached soccer for two decades, said he has seen
"numerous episodes of players who have suffered concussive
injuries and they've been allowed to return to the match.  That's
just got to stop.  We're asking for the recognized medical
protocol, that once a player suffers a blow to the head, that that
player should not be allowed to return to any soccer match for at
least 24 hours."

At least 30 percent of concussions in soccer are caused by
"headers," when a player hits the ball with his or her head.  This
maneuver is legal and encouraged by the world governing body for
football and U.S. soccer leagues, the complaint says.

In the 14 years since plaintiff Kira Akka-Seidel has been playing
youth, she says, she has seen friends and fellow teammates return
to the field after being hit in the head.

"Talking with them after the game, they've had intense headaches
and confusion, and they can't focus in school.  It's been brushed
under the rug and not given the proper care," Akka-Seidel said in
an interview.  "This summer, watching the Word Cup, I was outraged
after watching three players get knocked out cold, clearly
suffering a concussion, and placed right back on the field.  If
that's happening on the global scale, what example does that set
for younger players?"

She added, "Every time concussions go undetected and players are
let back on the field after suffering a blow to the head, we're
gambling with life.  We're born with one brain and I don't think
any title or trophy is worth risking that."

Akka-Seidell, 19, attends the University of Santa Cruz and played
for its women's club team in 2013.  She has also played for Mill
Valley Soccer Club, which is connected to both US Club Soccer and
the US Youth Soccer Association and the Tiburon Peninsula Soccer
Club, which is affiliated with the California Youth Soccer
Association.

The complaint claims that FIFA has done little more than pay lip
service to concussion concerns.

"Despite FIFA's pronouncements to the contrary, it has not taken
appropriate actions in regards to protecting the safety of players
at any level, including in the United States," the lawsuit states.

"One commentator has called FIFA's approach to concussion
management 'barbaric.'  There is an epidemic of concussion
injuries in soccer at all levels around the world, including in
the United States, from youth to professionals, from elite players
to children playing for the first time, women and men, girls and
boys.  FIFA presides over this epidemic, and is one of its primary
causes.  By this lawsuit, plaintiffs seek to require FIFA to
become part of the cure."

The lawsuit cites extensive medical research that children's
brains take longer to recover from blows to the head, as they have
yet to develop the amount of myelin coating that protects an adult
brain.  Studies also show that in high school soccer, the girls'
concussion rate was 68 percent higher than the rate for boys, and
that girls took longer to recover.

The plaintiffs say FIFA's "Laws of the Game," which are enforced
by U.S. youth soccer leagues, do not allow a team to take a
potentially concussed player out of the game for evaluation.

"As a result, teams leave in concussed players who are placed at
risk for aggravating brain injuries that would resolve, had they
been evaluated and removed from the game.  FIFA's failure in this
regard has caused leagues lower in the hierarchy either to limit
substitution or to not emphasize in their Laws of the Game the
mandate to substitute for concussion evaluation," the complaint
states.

The players and their parents seek an injunction requiring FIFA,
The United States Soccer Federation, US Youth Soccer Organization,
US Club Soccer and California Youth Soccer Association to enforce
proper concussion management practices and rules that allow
players to be taken out of a game and medically evaluated without
penalty.

They also seek a limit on headers by players under 17.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derek Howard, Esq.
          Jack Lee, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-4903
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
          E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com
                  JLee@MinamiTamaki.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: Misclassified 3,000+ Drivers, 9th Cir. Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx misclassified more than 3,000 delivery drivers in California
and Oregon as independent contractors rather than employees,
reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit
ruling entered on August 27, 2014.

The decision upends a finding from a multidistrict litigation
court in Indiana against three separate class actions on behalf of
2,300 California-based drivers for FedEx Ground and FedEx Home
Delivery and 363 in Oregon that were consolidated with similar
complaints from 40 states.

In both the California and Oregon cases, the drivers claimed that,
between about 1999 and 2009, FedEx forced drivers to purchase
company-approved trucks, uniforms and other equipment as if they
were independent contractors, while controlling minute details of
their appearance and behavior, right down to their body odor.

FedEx argued that the operating agreement at issue offered drivers
entrepreneurial opportunities beyond those available to employees,
and said that it controlled the drivers only to a point -- noting
that, among other things, it did not require them to follow
specific routes or deliver packages in order.

The Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) court granted FedEx summary
judgment in most of the cases, including those from California and
Oregon.  It found that the drivers were independent contractors as
a matter law because of their "class-wide ability to own and
operate distinct businesses, own multiple routes, and profit
accordingly."

Reversing the MDL court in separate opinions on August 27, 2014, a
three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit returned the two cases to
their respective district courts for summary judgment in the
drivers' favor.

FedEx's operating agreement, which controlled "drivers' clothing
from their hats down to their shoes and socks" and required that
they be "clean shaven, hair neat and trimmed, [and] free of body
odor," failed the "right-of-control" test in both states, the
unanimous panel found.

"The drivers must wear FedEx uniforms, drive FedEx-approved
vehicles, and groom themselves according to FedEx's appearance
standards," Judge William Fletcher wrote in both rulings.  "FedEx
tells its drivers what packages to deliver, on what days, and at
what times.  Although drivers may operate multiple delivery routes
and hire third parties to help perform their work, they may do so
only with FedEx's consent."

"Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to FedEx, the OA
grants FedEx a broad right to control the manner in which its
drivers' perform their work," Fletcher added.  "The most important
factor of the right-to-control test thus strongly favors employee
status."

FedEx said on August 27, 2014, that it no longer uses the same
operating agreement at issue in the cases.

"Since 2011, FedEx Ground has only contracted with incorporated
businesses, which treat their drivers as their employees," the
company said in a statement.

FedEx added that it plans to "transition to new independent
service provider agreements in the states of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Nevada."

Nevertheless, the company will file a petition for review of the
ruling by a full, 11-judge panel of the appellate court, FedEx
said.

"We fundamentally disagree with these rulings, which run counter
to more than 100 state and federal findings . . . upholding our
contractual relationships with thousands of independent
businesses," said Cary Blancett, FedEx Ground's senior vice
president and general counsel, in a statement.  "The operating
agreement on which these rulings are based has been significantly
strengthened in recent years, and we look forward to continuing to
work with service providers across our network to provide
customers the industry's most reliable service."

The drivers' attorney, Beth Ross of Leonard Carder, said in
statement that "FedEx Ground built its business on the backs of
individuals it labeled as independent contractors, promising them
the entrepreneurial American Dream."

"Nationally, thousands of FedEx Ground drivers must pay for the
privilege of working for FedEx 55 hours a week, 52 weeks a year,"
Ross added.  "Today, these workers were granted rights and
benefits entitled to employees under California law.  To be clear,
the Ninth Circuit exposed FedEx Ground's independent contractor
model as unlawful."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees are represented by:

          Mark A. Friel, Esq.
          Steve Douglas Larson, Esq.
          Scott Alden Shorr, Esq.
          STOLL BERNE
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OREGON 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: mfriel@stollberne.com
                  slarson@stollberne.com
                  sshorr@stollberne.com

The Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant is represented by:

          Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5285
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: jhacker@omm.com

               - and -

          Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert Schwartz, Esq.
          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: rschwartz@omm.com
                  svoelz@omm.com

Amicus Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Oregon
Trucking Associations, Inc., are represented by:

          Richard Pianka, Esq.
          ATA LITIGATION CENTER
          AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.
          950 N. Glebe Road
          Arlington, VA 22203
          Telephone: (703) 838-1889
          Facsimile: (703) 838-1705
          E-mail: rpianka@trucking.org

The appellate cases are Edward Slayman, et al. v. FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., dba Fedex Home Delivery, Inc., Case Nos. 12-
35525 and 12-35559, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The District Court cases are Edward Slayman, et
al. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., dba Fedex Home Delivery,
Inc., Case Nos. 3:05-cv-01127-HZ and 3:07-cv-00818-HZ, in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Kosovec" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kosovec v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00354, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
06830-JMF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose,
indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM
vehicles.  Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout
the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which
the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the
"run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in
a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a
failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the
complaint.

General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan.  GM
was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired
substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of
General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Mougey, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, FAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32507
          Telephone: (850) 435-7068
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6068
          E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com


GEO GROUP: Removed "Lopez" Suit to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Lopez v. The GEO Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC 552481, was removed from the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06639 to the
proceeding.

The action challenges the Defendants' alleged policy and practice
of requiring their nonexempt employees to work substantial amounts
of time without pay and failing to provide their non-exempt
employees with the meal and rest periods to which they are
entitled by law at their facilities in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Rouen, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 1021
          Unionville, PA 19375
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
          E-mail: downeviustice@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
          Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
                  mrapoport@littler.com


GRINGO'S MEXICAN: "Embry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Embry and Gabriel Martinez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gringo's Mexican Kitchen No. 1,
Inc., Gringo's Mexican Kitchen No. 2, Inc., Gringo's Mexican
Kitchen No. 3, Inc., Little Gringo's Kitchen, Inc., Gringo's
MEXICAN KITCHEN NO. 5, INC.; GRINGO'S MEXICAN KITCHEN #7, INC.;
Gringo's Mexican Kitchen No. 8, Inc., HRMA Group, LLC d/b/a
Gringo's Mexican Kitchen NO. 9; Gringo's Mexican Kitchen #10, LLC;
Gringo's Mexican Kitchen #11, LLC; Gilbert Ybarra, Individually;
Joel Perkins, Individually; Kevin Carroll, Individually; and
Joseph Ivey, Individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-00276 (S.D. Tex.,
August 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate nine food restaurants in Texas under the
name Gringo's Mexican Kitchen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Wayne Hodges, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama St
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      E-mail: dhodges@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, Texas 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


HEIGHTS TOWER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Pietrzycki, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Heights Tower Service, Inc. and Mark Motter,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06546 (N.D. Ill., August 25, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

Heights Tower Service, Inc. is in the business of servicing
towers, such as cellular towers and silos.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Main Street Promenade
      55 S. Main Street, Suite 341
      Naperville, IL 60540
      Telephone: (630) 355-7590
      Facsimile: (630) 929-7590
      E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Still Faces Action Over Baker Hughes Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2012, Hi-Crush Operating LLC, a subsidiary of Hi-Crush
Partners LP, entered into a supply agreement for frac sand with
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.  On September 19, 2012,
Baker Hughes provided notice that it was terminating the contract
and on November 12, 2012, Hi-Crush Operating LLC formally
terminated the supply agreement and filed suit in the State
District Court of Harris County, Texas.

On October 8, 2013, Hi-Crush Operating LLC entered into a
settlement agreement with Baker Hughes pursuant to which Hi-Crush
Operating LLC and Baker Hughes agreed to jointly dismiss the
lawsuit between the parties and, in connection with the
settlement, the parties entered into a six-year supply agreement
that requires Baker Hughes to purchase minimum volumes of frac
sand each month.

Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement
by Baker Hughes, Hi-Crush Partners LP, its General Partner,
certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were
named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits
brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On February 11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one
lawsuit, styled In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities
Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint
was filed on February 15, 2013.

That complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act,
and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with the
Partnership's Registration Statement and a subsequent
presentation.  Among other things, the consolidated amended
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to the market
certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes' repudiation
of the supply agreement. On March 22, 2013, the Partnership filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On December 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the
claims relating to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but
did not dismiss the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations
concerning the Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after
the Partnership's initial public offering.

Hi-Crush Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Partnership and the
remaining defendants in the lawsuit have filed answers to the
complaint.

The Partnership believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. The Partnership cannot provide
assurance, however, as to the outcome of this lawsuit.

Hi-Crush Partners LP is a pure play, low-cost, domestic producer
and supplier of premium monocrystalline sand, a specialized
mineral that is used as a proppant to enhance the recovery rates
of hydrocarbons from oil and natural gas wells.


INDIANA MUNICIPAL POWER: High Electric Rates Blamed on Coal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action, residents of a far west Chicago suburb claim they are
overcharged for electricity because a slew of utility companies
and agencies misrepresented the problems of producing power with
polluting, high-sulfur coal.

Lead plaintiff Joe Marconi, on behalf of the residents of Batavia,
sued the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, IMPA Services Corp., CEO
Rajeshwar Rao, and Sargent & Lundy and Skelly and Loy, consulting
firms, in Kane County Court.

Eighteen other companies and agencies, including Peabody Energy,
Bechtel Corp., Science Applications International Corp., and
Batavia are named as respondents in discovery in the tangled, 37-
page lawsuit.

"Beginning in the 1990s and continuing into the 2000s, Peabody
mines in southern Illinois began exporting high-sulfur coal, which
was unsaleable in the United States, to China and other Asian
countries," the complaint states.

"In 2001, Peabody announced plans to construct a mine-mouth,
pulverized-coal-fueled power generating facility with two unites
adjacent to its existing high-sulfur coal reserves in southern
Illinois called the Prairie State Energy Campus (PSEC).  The
construction of PSEC was part of a scheme by Peabody to create a
market for its high-sulfur, high-ash coal reserves in Southern
Illinois."

Peabody marketed the project as an affordable, long-term source of
electricity, prompting the Indiana Municipal Power Authority
(IMPA) to acquire a partial ownership in facility, the complaint
states.

Batavia then hired IMPA to suggest electric supply options for the
city, and IMPA recommended participating in the PSEC project --
allegedly without disclosing its own stake in the plant.

At IMPA's suggestion, Batavia signed an agreement obligating it
"to purchase from NIMPA [Northern Illinois Municipal Power
Authority] 50 megawatts of electric capacity and energy which was
to be generated by the to-be-built PSEC. . . .

"Under this agreement, Batavia ratepayers are charged for
Batavia's pro-rata costs of PSEC and related debt whether PSEC
produces power or not.

"Under this agreement, if PSEC is not providing NIMPA its
entitlement share of electricity.  NIMPA must purchase additional
power from a separate source, and Batavia is required to pay for
that additional power in addition to its pro rata share of PSEC
costs and debt payments.

"Under this agreement, if Batavia does not need all of its
entitlement share of electricity, it must sell it.  If Batavia is
forced to sell electricity from PSEC, it generally must do so at a
loss, as the cost of the electricity from PSEC is more expensive
than the price at which Batavia can sell that electricity in the
wholesale market at any given time," according to the complaint.

By 2006, Batavia had spent $1.8 million on the project, and could
not withdraw without all losing its money, the residents say.

They claim the price of power generated by the plant is
significantly more than the $46/megawatt-hour represented to the
city when it entered the contract, and that the price for building
the plant escalated drastically over a 10-year period.

"The estimated total coast of construction for PSEC has increased
from $2.754 billion in 2004 to $4.095 billion in 2007, to $4.933
billion in 2010, and to $5.1 billion as of 2013.  The current
estimated cost of construction for PSEC is unknown," the lawsuit
states.

"These increased reflect the industry-wide experience where,
starting in the years before 2005, the costs of constructing new
coal-fired power plants began to increase significantly, and was
thus known to defendants in 2007 when defendants were pressuring
Batavia to finalize its commitment to the PSEC project.

"Specifically, during 2007, while defendants were pressuring
Batavia to finalize its commitment to the PSEC project, several
major industry reports warns of the skyrocketing construction
costs of coal plants.  While these reports were no doubt closely
watched by industry insiders, defendants did not provide this
information to Batavia."

PSEC has never achieved full capacity, and operated a net 60
percent capacity in 2013, the class claims.

"Additional capacity for storage of the coal ash wastes produced
by PSEC will also be required.  The cost of acquiring this
additional ashfill capacity will be passed on to Batavia's
ratepayers and will mean further increases in the cost of power
from PSEC," the residents claim.

"Contrary to what Batavia was told, it was known to defendants
that the poor quality of the high sulfur, high ash, unwashed coal
would lead to shutdowns and reduced operational efficiency.  On
information and belief, the poor quality of the high sulfur, high
ash, unwashed coal has indeed led to such shutdowns and reduced
operational capacity."

Plaintiffs seek class certification and punitive damages for
negligent misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Childress, Esq.
          CHILDRESS DUFFY
          500 N. Dearborn, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-0200
          Facsimile: (312) 494-0202
          E-mail: mchildress@childresslawyers.com


INTERACTIVE COLLEGE: Faces Suit in Ga. Alleging Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carl A. Robertson, Sr., and all others similarly situated v.
Interactive College of Technology/Interactive Learning Systems,
Inc., a Georgia For Profit College; Elmer Smith, individually and
in his capacity as Owner and Campus President; and Thomas Blair,
individually and in his capacity as Vice President/Dean of
College, Case No. 1:14-cv-02728-TCB-JSA (N.D. Ga., August 22,
2014) accuses the Defendants of job discrimination based on race.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Action in Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Invivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, that a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on
July 31, 2014, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and its former Chief
Executive Officer, Frank Reynolds, as defendants.

"We have not yet been served with process in this matter," the
Company said.  "The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the
clinical study of our scaffold product. The plaintiff seeks class
certification for purchasers of our common stock during the period
from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified
damages.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit."


J. C. PENNEY: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan P. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., Myron E. Ullman,
III and Kenneth H. Hannah, Case No. 6:14-cv-00722 (E.D. Tex.,
August 26, 2014), alleges that the Defendants make materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's liquidity,
business operations, and financial condition in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is one of the largest apparel and home
furnishing retailers in the United States.

Myron E. Ullman, III is the CEO of J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
since April 2013.

Kenneth H. Hannah is the Executive Vice President and CFO of J. C.
Penney Company, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. Mckey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, Texas 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214)7 44-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

         - and -

      Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
      Benjamin D. Bianco, Esq.
      Bridget V. Hamill, Esq.
      FRANK & BIANCO LLP
      275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: 212-628-1853
      Facsimile: 212-682-1892
      E-mail: mfrank@frankandbianco.com
              bbianco@frankandbianco.com
              bhamill@frankandbianco.com


JASON & JOSEPH: "Cabral" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Viviana Cabral, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jason & Joseph Corp. d/b/a Cafe O, and Hong Ki Kim,
jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06912 (S.D.N.Y., August
25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
premium pay pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jason & Joseph Corp. owns and operates a deli located at 622 3rd
Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Gentium Acquistion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in
January 2014, the Company became aware of a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in connection with the Gentium Acquisition.

The Company said, "The lawsuit, captioned Xavion Jyles,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gentium S.P.A. et al., names Gentium, each of the Gentium's
directors, us and our Italian subsidiary as defendants. The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Gentium's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Gentium's shareholders in
connection with the Gentium tender offer agreement that Gentium
entered into with us and our Italian subsidiary valuing Gentium
ordinary shares and ADSs at $57.00 per share, and that we and our
Italian subsidiary violated Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly
overseeing Gentium's preparation of an allegedly false and
misleading Section 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement.
The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, class action status,
rescission, and unspecified costs, attorneys' fees and other
expenses. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of this matter."

On January 23, 2014, pursuant to a tender offer, the Company
became the indirect majority shareholder of Gentium S.p.A., or
Gentium, thereby acquiring control of Gentium on that date.

In February 2014, the Company completed a subsequent offering
period of the tender offer, resulting in total purchases pursuant
to the tender offer of approximately 98% of the fully diluted
voting securities of Gentium.

In June 2014, the Company acquired a further 1.7% interest in
Gentium for cash consideration of $17.5 million, resulting in an
aggregate acquisition cost to the Company of $993.7 million,
comprising cash payments of $1,010.8 million offset by proceeds
from the exercise of Gentium share options of $17.1 million.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, a public limited company formed under
the laws of Ireland, is a specialty biopharmaceutical company
focused on improving patients' lives by identifying, developing
and commercializing differentiated products that address unmet
medical needs.


JW LEE: Misclassified Exotic Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adonay Encarnacion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J.W. Lee, Inc. dba Scarlett's Cabaret dba
Scarlett's of Hallandale, FL; J.W. Lee Properties, LLC; Ybor
Operations, L.C. dba Scarlett's of Ybor Strip; BZLY, Inc.; M.S.B.
Land Holdings, Inc.; SVC Joint Ventures LLC; Benore Ventures,
Inc.; SB Productions, Inc.; Brandon Samuels, individually; John
Blanke, individually; and William Beasley, individually, Case No.
0:14-cv-61927-WPD (S.D. Fla., August 22, 2014) alleges that the
Defendants have a longstanding policy of misclassifying their
employees, including the Plaintiff, as independent contractors and
refusing to pay the employees at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rate.

Ms. Encarnacion worked as exotic entertainer and dancer for the
Defendants.

The Defendants, headquartered in Hallandale Beach, Florida,
operate adult entertainment clubs.  The Individual Defendants are
officers or managers of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


KING KONG SUSHI: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Herspold, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. King Kong Sushi Bar & Grill, LLC; TKM Enterprises,
LLC; and Kyuwon Choi, individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-03418-PMD
(D.S.C., August 22, 2014) seeks to recover minimum wages and
overtime compensation as well as other relief allowed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

King Kong Sushi Bar & Grill, LLC and TKM Enterprises, LLC are
South Carolina limited liability companies maintaining offices and
agents and otherwise doing businesses in the County of Horry,
state of South Carolina.  Kyuwon Choi is the owner of KKS and TKM.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, King Kong Sushi Bar &
Grill, which has two locations, in or near Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: (843) 579-7373
          Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Breach of Securities Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen D. Valentino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., Michael
T. Strianese, and Ralph G. D'Ambrosio, Case No. 1:14-cv-06939
(S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2014), seeks to pursue remedies against the
Defendants and certain of its senior executives for violation of
the Securities Exchange Act.

L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. supplies command and control,
communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
systems and products, avionics, ocean products, training devices
and services, instrumentation, space, and navigation products to
the United States Departments of Defense and Homeland Security,
the United States government intelligence agencies, and NASA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
      ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
      212 East 39th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 889-3700
      Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
      E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


LA ESTANCIA: "Jaunsolo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Silvia Jaunsolo and Arturo Tourn v. La Estancia Aventura,
LLC and La Estancia Argentina, Case No. 1:14-cv-23122 (S.D. Fla.,
August 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

La Estancia Aventura, LLC and La Estancia Argentina own and
operate a restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John de Leon, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & DE LEON, P.A.
      5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 605
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 740-5347
      Facsimile: 740-5348
      E-mail: jdeleon@chavez-deleon.com


LIBERTY GLOBAL: OneLink Indemnity Won't Cover Class Action Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2012, Liberty Global PLC completed a business
combination that resulted in, among other matters, the combination
of its then operating subsidiary in Puerto Rico with San Juan
Cable, LLC dba OneLink Communications (OneLink). In connection
with this transaction (the OneLink Acquisition), Liberty Puerto
Rico, as the surviving entity, became a party to certain claims
asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against OneLink based
on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to the OneLink
Acquisition (the PRTC Claim), including a claim that OneLink acted
in an anticompetitive manner in connection with a series of legal
and regulatory proceedings it initiated against the incumbent
telephone operator in Puerto Rico beginning in 2009.

In December 2013, an additional claim was asserted against OneLink
alleging harm to consumers based on the purported conduct of
OneLink that formed the basis for the PRTC Claim.  The claimant in
the December 2013 action sought to join the PRTC Claim as a
representative of the entire class of consumers who are alleged to
have suffered harm as a result of the purported OneLink conduct.

In February 2014, the court ruled that the December 2013 action
could not be joined with the PRTC Claim. The court ruling did not
preclude the claimant from pursuing a class action claim in a
separate action, Liberty Global PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

In March 2014, the claimant in the December 2013 claim filed a
separate class action claim in Puerto Rico (the "Class Action
Claim") substantially similar to the claims asserted in the
December 2013 claim.

Liberty Global said, "The former owners of OneLink have partially
indemnified us for any losses we may incur in connection with the
PRTC Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the
indemnity does not cover any potential losses resulting from the
Class Action Claim.  Liberty Puerto Rico has recorded a provision
and a related indemnification asset representing its best estimate
of the net loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of
the PRTC Claim."

"While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount required to
satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ from the
estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be given that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have an adverse
impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial
position in any given period," the Company said.

Liberty Global plc is a public limited company organized under the
laws of England and Wales.  Liberty Global is an international
provider of video, broadband internet, fixed-line telephony and
mobile services, with consolidated operations in 14 countries.


LIBERTY MEDIA: All NY Cases Over Sirius XM Deal Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in early to mid-January
2014, a series of stockholder class actions were filed in Delaware
and New York state courts against Sirius XM, Liberty, Liberty
Radio LLC, and certain present and former Sirius XM board members
(Joan L. Amble, Anthony J. Bates, George W. Bodenheimer, David
J.A. Flowers, Eddy W. Hartenstein, James P. Holden, Gregory B.
Maffei, Evan D. Malone, John C. Malone, James E. Meyer, James F.
Mooney, Carl E. Vogel, Vanessa A. Wittman. David Zaslav).

In Delaware, the cases are captioned: Roy v. Meyer, et al., Case
No. 9248-VCN (Del. Ch.); Ebenau v. Meyer, et al., Case No. 9249-
VCN (Del. Ch.); Ricciardi v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Case
No. 9253-VCN (Del. Ch.); Western Washington Laborers-Employers
Pension Trust v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 9269-
VCN (Del. Ch.); and Varvolis v. Malone, et al., Case No. 9283-VCN
(Del. Ch.).

In New York, the cases are captioned: Freedman v. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc., et al., Index No. 650038/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Adoni v. Amble, et al., Index No. 650085/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Goodman v. Amble, et al., Index No. 650141/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.);
Hartleib v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Index No. 650158/2014
(N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Shenk v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Index
No. 650188/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); The Booth Family Trust v. Meyer,
et al., Index No. 650235/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); Corso v. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc., et al., Index No. 650253/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.); and
Sciortino v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc., et al., Index No.
650268/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

The cases involved Liberty's former proposal (the "Proposal") to
acquire the remaining shares of Sirius XM that it does not already
own (which was subsequently withdrawn).  The plaintiffs alleged
that in pursuing this Proposal, Liberty and the individual
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Sirius
XM shareholders.

On January 13, 2014, a notice of voluntary discontinuance was
filed in the Adoni case.  On January 27, 2014, a motion for
consolidation (of all of the New York cases) and appointment of
lead counsel was filed in the Shenk case.

On January 31, 2014, defendants filed a cross-motion to dismiss
the New York actions, or in the alternative to stay the New York
actions, in favor of the substantially similar actions pending in
Delaware.

On March 13, 2014, before the New York Supreme Court heard oral
argument on the pending motion and cross-motion, Liberty issued a
press release stating that it had withdrawn the Proposal.  In
light of this withdrawal, plaintiffs' cases became moot.

On April 1, 2014, notices of voluntary discontinuances were filed
in the Freedman, Goodman, Hartleib, The Booth Family Trust, Corso,
and Sciortino cases.  In the Shenk case, a stipulation of
voluntary discontinuance was faxed to the court on April 2, 2014,
and on April 10, 2014, Judge Lawrence Marks "So Ordered" the
stipulation.

All of the New York cases were voluntarily dismissed on or before
April 10, 2014.

Liberty, through its ownership of interests in subsidiaries and
other companies, is primarily engaged in the media, communications
and entertainment industries primarily in North America. The
significant subsidiaries include Sirius XM Holdings, Inc. ("SIRIUS
XM"), the Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. ("ANLBC")
and TruePosition, Inc. ("TruePosition").  Its significant
investments accounted for under the equity method include Charter
Communications, Inc. ("Charter") and Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc. ("Live Nation").


LIMOLINK INC: Does Not Pay Drivers Properly, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Chebotnikov, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Limolink, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-13475 (D. Mass.,
August 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation, to distribute the total proceeds of
gratuities to its drivers, and to compensate drivers for expenses
incurred in connection with their employment.

Limolink, Inc. is an Iowa corporation that provides limousine
services in numerous states like Massachusetts, New York,
Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary A. Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      450, 4th Floor, 192 South Street
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607-3260
      E-mail hillary@fairworklaw.com

         - and -

      Edward L. Manchur, Esq.
      KNUDSEN, BURBRIDGE & MANCHUR, P.C.
      401 Edgewater Place, Suite 140
      Wakefield, MA 01880
      Telephone: (781) 246-3030
      Facsimile: (781) 246-3050
      Email: elm@kbmlawfirm.com


MMR GROUP: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Ryals" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Ryals and Kenneth Ward, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MMR Group, Inc. and MMR Constructors,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00531 (M.D. La., August 26, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime for
hours worked in excess of 50 in any workweek.

The Defendants are specialty instrumentation and electrical
contractors currently engaged in various projects throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick G. Earles, Esq.
      BP AMERICA INC.
      P. O. Box 3092, 501 Westlake Park Blvd
      Houston, TX 77253-3092
      Telephone: (318) 253-0900
      Facsimile: (318) 253-5666
      E-mail: digger@caubarreaux.com


NBTY INC: False Marketed Protein Products, "Mencer" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Mencer, Vincent Dougherty, Tim Harrold, Ross Hepburn, Josh
Frasier, and Cody Walden, individually and on behalf of members of
the proposed Classes v. NBTY, Inc., Nutrition, Inc., and
Healthwatchers, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05030 (E.D.N.Y., August 25,
2014), alleges that the Defendants add cheaper free form amino
acids and non-protein ingredients to increase the nitrogen content
of the Product's protein powder to reduce protein manufacturing
costs.

The Defendants are manufacturers of vitamins and nutritional
supplements which are distributed under many third party brands in
the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street, Suite 1380
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


NCO FINANCIAL: Suit Seeks to Redress Unlawful Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Willemsen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., GE Capital Retail Bank,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-05296 (D.N.J., August 25,
2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's actions of using unfair
and unconscionable means to collect debt in violation of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

NCO Financial Systems, Inc. is a collection agency located at 4740
Baxter Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23462.

GE Capital Retail Bank is a banking institution within the State
of Florida.

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


NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Employees Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled New York State Thruway Employees
Local 72, et al. v. New York State Thruway Authority, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-04356, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York.  The New York Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01043-FJS-CFH to
the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven Gerber, Esq.
          GONZALEZ, SAGGIO LAW FIRM
          155 Willowbrook Boulevard, Suite 300
          Wayne, NJ 07470
          Telephone: (973) 256-9000
          Facsimile: (973) 256-9001
          E-mail: steven_gerber@gshllp.com


OHMS ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Segui" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar F. Segui, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OHMS Electrical Contractors Inc. and Gustavo Ocello,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05300 (D.N.J., August 25, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

OHMS Electrical Contractors Inc is a New Jersey corporation that
contracts residential and commercial electrical services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com


P N DRYWALL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Hernandez, Adrian Sanchez, Oscar Alonso Sandobal and
Antonio Sanchez Sandobal, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals v. P N Drywall Contractor, LLC and
P & D Contractors, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01467 (D.D.C., August 26,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages.

The Defendants provide construction services in the District of
Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Derek Zelikovitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
      519 H Street, NW, 2nd Floor
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 803-6083
      Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
      E-mail justin@dcwagelaw.com

         - and -

      Virginia R. Diamond, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
      4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 23221
      Telephone: (703) 931-5500
      Facsimile: (703) 820-0630
      E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com


PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Faces Class Action by Pines Nursing Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PharMerica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a complaint was filed
on October 29, 2013, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Pines Nursing Homes (77), Inc.
This is a putative class action brought on behalf of individuals
or entities who have received facsimile communications from the
Corporation that are purportedly promoting the Corporation's goods
and/or services.

The Complaint alleged that the Corporation sent unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile, and that such communications did not
include an opt-out clause, all in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The Complaint does not specify
the amount of damages sought, but the TCPA provides a statutory
remedy of $500 per facsimile communication sent in violation of
the statute, which may be trebled in the event that a party acts
with willfulness.  The Corporation disputes that all of the
facsimile communications at violate the TCPA, and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.

PharMerica Corporation is a pharmacy services company that
services healthcare facilities, provides pharmacy management
services to hospitals, provides specialty infusion services to
patients outside a hospital setting, and offers the only national
oncology pharmacy in the United States. The Corporation is the
second largest institutional pharmacy services company in the
United States based on revenues and customer licensed beds under
contract, operating 93 institutional pharmacies, 14 specialty
infusion pharmacies, and 5 specialty oncology pharmacies in 45
states.


PREMIERE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan T. Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premiere Credit of North America, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-23095-FAM
(S.D. Fla., August 22, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert William Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          1212 SE 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


PRESTIGE IMPORTS: Faces "Shvartsman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Shvartsman v. Prestige Imports, Inc., a Florida corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23140 (S.D. Fla., August 26, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prestige Imports, Inc. is a luxury pre-owed car dealer doing
business in the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Bused Patients to New Cities, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Often drugged and disoriented, patients at a Las Vegas psychiatric
hospital found themselves involuntarily discharged, bused to a new
city and left with no means to continue treatment or even live,
according to a class action lawsuit, reports Mike Heuer, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff James Flavy Coy Brown claims officials at the
state-run Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas booted out
patients and sent them to out-of-state destinations, where
hospital officials knew the patients "would be unable to obtain
proper treatment, care and housing."

Brown claims that says he and other patients "were medicated
before their discharge and required to leave the facility under
the influence of powerful anti-psychotic/tranquilizing
medication."

He claims that he and others "were in a drugged and sometime
psychotic state and incompetent to give informed consent" when
hospital staff "physically escorted them from the facility to
waiting taxis bound for the Greyhound bus station in Las Vegas.
They were then directed and required to travel on pre-paid tickets
which had been previously ordered and paid for by Southern Nevada
Adult Mental Health Services."

Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, lead defendant in
the lawsuit in Clark County Court, runs the Rawson-Neal hospital,
which opened in August 2006 and has about 190 beds for patients.

Brown says he was admitted to the hospital on Feb. 9, 2013, and
was involuntarily discharged and sent on a Greyhound bus to
Sacramento two days later.

Before sending him to Sacramento, Brown says, the defendants gave
him "three days of powerful anti-psychotic medications and bottles
of Ensure for the 15-hour bus ride."

Upon arrival, Brown says, he was "homeless, confused and anxious"
and was taken by local police to a homeless service center that
could not provide housing, treatment or transportation.  Staff at
the University of California at Davis Medical Center eventually
got him into the Heritage Oaks psychiatric hospital, which placed
him in a group home.

Brown's lawsuit, filed on August 25, 2014, claims that the
Sacramento Bee investigated his dumping in Sacramento and reported
that the hospital had dumped some 1,500 patients in locations
across the nation since 2008, "all with minimum provisions to
sustain them during the protracted bus rides."

The complaint claims that a random survey of 30 cases conducted by
the Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and Compliance showed
many violations of state and federal laws, and indicated that no
steps were taken to ensure that discharged patients could continue
obtaining help or treatment when they arrived at various
destinations.

Brown filed a similar class action in Federal Court in June 2013.
U.S. District Judge James Mahan dismissed that complaint in
February this year, ruling that mentally ill patients are capable
of giving informed consent to being sent out of town, and that
Nevada was merely allocating resources by giving them the rides.

But a state investigation resulted in two hospital employees being
fired while several others faced lesser punishments for their
roles in discharging patients in recent years, the Las Vegas
Review-Journal reported.

Brown seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an
injunction and punitive damages for professional negligence, gross
negligence, negligence per se, negligent hiring, supervision and
training, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Also named as defendants are hospital administrator Chelsea
Szklany, Nevada Health and Human Services Director Mike Willden
and Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health Administrator
Richard Whitley, hospital Associate Medical Director Leon Ravin,
Dr. Anurag Gupta, Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and
Compliance Chief Kyle Devine and Nevada Psychiatric Medical
Director Linda J. White.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Lichtenstein, Esq.
          GENERAL COUNSEL, ACLU OF NEVADA
          601 S Rancho Dr. #11
          Las Vegas, NV 89106
          Telephone: (702) 366-1226


REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deena Lefkovits on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. The Regional Adjustment Bureau, Incorporated
d/b/a Regional Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05047
(E.D.N.Y., August 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Regional Adjustment Bureau, Incorporated is engaged in the
collection of debt, which maintains a principal place of business
in Cordova, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RJR REALTY: Violates Disabilities Act, Paralyzed Patron Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Scott Bebry v. RJR Realty L.L.C., a Domestic Limited
Liability Company and 'Wichcraft Operating, LLC, a Domestic
Limited Liability Company d/b/a 'Wichcraft, Case No. 1:14-cv-06843
(S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014) is an action for declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York State Human
Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Mr. Bebry is paralyzed as a result of an accident, and is using a
wheelchair for mobility.  He visited a 'Wichcraft restaurant
located in New York City but was denied full and equal access to,
and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at the Defendants'
Property.

The Defendants are conducting business within the state of New
York.  The Defendants are the owners, lessees, lessors or
operators of the real property where the Restaurant is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Robles, Esq.
          471 54th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11220
          Telephone: (718) 492-3600
          Facsimile: (718) 492-3008
          E-mail: Detect2112@yahoo.com


ROYAL ENTERTAINMENT: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Ducolombier, on behalf of herself and of all others
similarly situated v. Royal Entertainment, Inc, and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01371 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for sending numerous unauthorized
promotional text messages to consumers' cellular telephones.

Royal Entertainment, Inc owns and operates a premier nightclub
located in Anaheim, California, called Heat Ultra Lounge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Richard Manning Jr, Esq.
      Michael John Manning, Esq.
      Phillip Bao Nghiem, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R.MANNING JR APC
      4667 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 200-8755
      Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
      E-mail: manningjr@aol.com
              mike@manninglawoffice.com
              philn@manninglawoffice.com


RUGFRIT 1350: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Barragan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Rugfrit 1350 LLC, Stefano Fritella, Eric Tancredi and Frank
Tancredi, Case No. 1:14-cv-06927 (S.D.N.Y., August 25, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, attorneys' fees and costs,
pre and post-judgment interest, and such other legal and equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rugfrit 1350 LLC owns and operates a food and beverage
establishment within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
      MORRISON TENENBAUM, PLLC
      87 Walker Street, Floor 2
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone:  (212) 620-0938


SALON PEOPLE: Faces "Blackthorne" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Blackthorne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v.  The Salon People, Inc., a Florida Corporation, TSP
Institute, Inc., a Florida Corporation and TSP Academy Salons,
Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01021 (M.D. Fla.,
August 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a beauty and cosmetology schools
throughout Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick O'Haire Whitford, Esq.
      THE WHITFORD LAW FIRM
      Ste. 2902, 1431 Riverplace Blvd.
      Jacksonville, FL 32207
      Telephone: (904) 699-9573
      Facsimile: (646) 499-6556
      E-mail: pwhitford@thewhitfordlawfirm.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued Over Accused Illegal Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Steck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., Thomas G.
Dundon, Jason Kulas, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-06942 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 26, 2014), alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose
that the Company is engaged in improper practices related to the
Company's subprime auto lending business, misrepresented the
quality of the loans the Company had underwritten and
misrepresented the Company's underwriting standards.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is a specialized consumer
finance company focused on vehicle finance and unsecured consumer
lending products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Linkh, Esq.
      Brian P. Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      122 E42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

        -and-

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310)201-9150
      Facsimile: (310)201-9160

        - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


SILVERSTONE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Bias Against Paralyzed Patron
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Scott Bebry v. Silverstone Properties 61 LLC, a Domestic
Limited Liability Company and Bangkok Cafe Inc., a Domestic
Business Corporation d/b/a Rohm Thai, Case No. 1:14-cv-06845
(S.D.N.Y., August 22, 2014) alleges that when the Plaintiff
personally visited the Defendants' property, known as Rohm Thai
restaurant located in New York City, he was denied full and equal
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, its facilities
relating to certain violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mr. Bebry is paralyzed as a result of an accident, and is using a
wheelchair for mobility.

The Defendants are conducting business within the state of New
York.  The Defendants are the owners, lessees, lessors or
operators of the real property where the Restaurant is located.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Robles, Esq.
          471 54th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11220
          Telephone: (718) 492-3600
          Facsimile: (718) 492-3008
          E-mail: Detect2112@yahoo.com


SNACK COMPANY: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Enrique Moreno-Baez, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Snack Company, LLC, d/b/a Snack,
Snack Company Bedford LLC d/b/a Snack Taverna, and Adam Greene,
jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-06914 (S.D.N.Y., August
25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate full-service restaurants doing
business as Snack and Snack Taverna and located at 105 Thompson
Street, New York, New York, and 63 Bedford Street, New York, New
York, respectively.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SPRECHMAN & FISHER: Faces Suit in Florida Alleging Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Seymour v. Sprechman & Fisher, P.A., formerly known as
Sprechman & Associates, P.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-23091-KMM (S.D.
Fla., August 22, 2014) is brought by the Plaintiff against his
former employer for retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 and
the Florida Whistle Blower Protection Act.  The Plaintiff seeks
damages and a reasonable attorney's fee.

Sprechman & Fisher, P.A., is a Florida professional association
doing business in the Southern District of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Sharp, Esq.
          SHARP LAW FIRM, P.A.
          660 East Hillsboro Blvd., Suite 105
          Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
          Telephone: (954) 332-9077
          Facsimile: (954) 919-1502
          E-mail: csharplaw@aol.com


SRIYANTRAA INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Cirino, as Parent and Guardian of J.A., a minor, and all
similarly situated employees v. Sriyantraa, Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell,
Hemang Champaneria, Srtnidhhi Inc. d/b/a Taco Bell, John Doe 1
a/k/a "Vick", John Doe 2 a/k/a "Ahmed", Jane Doe 1 a/k/a "Ms.
Kay", Fatou Bakaba, Angela Pena and Depindra Rawal, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06892 (S.D.N.Y., August 25, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the minimum and overtime wage laws
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and manage two Taco Bell franchise restaurants
located in 97th Street, Lexington Avenue, and 104th Street and
Third Avenue, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERVALU INC: Removed "Bjelajac" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Terry Bjelajac v. Supervalu Inc.,
et al., Case No. 30-2014-00732660-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01358-CJC-RNB
to the proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Glugoski, Esq.
          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI PC
          456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com
                  matt@righettilaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Miller, Esq.
          STEVEN L. MILLER LAW OFFICE APC
          2945 Townsgate Road
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 986-8900
          Facsimile: (866) 581-2907
          E-mail: stevenlmiller@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
          Gary M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: jpslowik@akingump.com
                  gmclaughlin@akingump.com


SUPERVALU INC: Faces "Hanff" Suit in D. Minn. Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hanff, Ivanka Soldan, Rifet Bosnjak, Melissa Alleruzzo,
and Carol Puckett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Supervalu Inc., a Minnesota Corporation,
Case No. 0:14-cv-03252 (D. Minn., August 25, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard
consumers' personal financial data, including, name, account
numbers, expiration dates, PINs, and other numerical information.

Supervalu Inc. is one of the largest grocery wholesalers and
retailers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
      David M. Langevin, Esq.
      MCSWEENEY/LANGEVIN, LLC
      2116 2nd Avenue South
      Minneapolis, MN 55404
      Telephone: (612) 746-4646
      Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
      E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com

         - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      Jeffrey Blake, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 621-2000
      Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
      E-mail:  b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
               e.schork@barnowlaw.com
               j.blake@barnowlaw.com

         - and -

      John S. Steward, Esq.
      STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC
      1717 Park Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63104
      Telephone: (314) 571-7134 (p)
      Facsimile: (314) 594-5950 (f)
      E-mail: Glaw123@aol.com


TRINITY TRANSPORTATION: Does Not Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Donald, Harold Grant, and Curtis Neal, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Trinity
Transportation, Inc, Trinity Transportation Group, LLC, Trinity
Coach, LLC, Trinity Management Services Company, LLC, Trinity
Cars, Inc, a.k.a. Trinity Cars, Jerry Sheppard, and Rebetha
Sheppard, Case No. 2:14-cv-13295 (E.D. Mich., August 25, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are Michigan corporations and are engaged in
transportation business under the trade name Trinity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maia E. Johnson, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW
      2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com


WARRIOR ENERGY: "Naicker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scarlena Naicker and Kolby Oswald, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Warrior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a
Warrior Snubbing Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-01140 (W.D. Pa.,
August 25, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Warrior Energy Services, Inc. owns and operates natural gas well
sites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Telephone: (412) 278-1280
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Yogurt Products, Cal. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chas Jackson and Josh Koffman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-06705 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2014), alleges that the
amount of sugar on the Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Plain Greek
Yogurt label and that the actual sugar content of the product was
many times higher than the 2 grams per serving falsely stated on
the label.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. owns and operates a food supermarket
chain specializing in natural and organic food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Violation of Securities Exchange Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
Mcmahon, and George A. Barrios, Case No. 3:14-cv-01228 (D. Conn.,
August 25, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media and
entertainment that focuses on the wrestling entertainment business
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP-CT
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6292
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: nkulesa@izardnobel.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastian Tonatore, Esq.
      Stephanie Bartone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510


YELP INC: Faces "Adam" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Rob Krolik and Geoffrey
Donaker, Case No. 3:14-cv-03832 (N.D. Cal., August 25, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial and business condition.

Yelp Inc. is an online networking platform company located at 140
New Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
              info@glancylaw.com
              mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com

         - and -

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


                              *********

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

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

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

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

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

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *