CAR_Public/141027.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 213

                             Headlines

400 EAST 55TH ST: Case Conference Set for Dec. 9
A & W AUTO: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Employees
ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
AETNA: 20+ Impulse Cases Consolidated in Philadelphia Court
ALLAN C. SMITH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Cal. Court Dismisses "Young" Labor Class Suit
APOLLO EDUCATION: Amended Complaint in "Saleh" Suit Due Nov. 12
APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Gonzalez" TCPA Class Action in Calif.
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif.

ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
ASIANA AIRLINES: Settles U.S. Price-Fixing Class Action for $55MM
B&B COLLECTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA
BLUE BUFFALO: "Keil" Suit Consolidated in Pet Food Marketing MDL

BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CANADA: Siskinds Desmeules Launches Neonicotinoid Class Action
CANON BUSINESS: Stipulation of Dismissal Okayed in "Jones" Case
CARTOON NETWORK: Georgia Court Tosses "Ellis" Video Privacy Suit
CAVALRY SPV: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims

CHIQUITA BRANDS: Plaintiff Drops Preliminary Injunction Bid
CITIGROUP INC: NY High Court Tosses Shareholder Derivative Case
COHEN & SLAMOWITZ: May Not Produce Non-Existent Financials
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
COOK MEDICAL: "Eslick" Suit Moved to S.D. Indiana

COOK MEDICAL: "Perry-O'Farrow" Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
COOK MEDICAL: "Bobo" Suit Transferred From Kentucky to Indiana
CREDIBLE SECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA
DOUGHERTY COUNTY: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Bullying
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Music Royalties Class Action

GENAERA CORP: 3rd Cir. Revives Shareholder Suit Over Asset Sale
GENERAL MOTORS: Millikin to Step Down as General Counsel in 2015
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
GT ADVANCED: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
HEFFLER RADETICH: 3rd Cir. Upholds Order on CAMICO Suit

HINZ JJ: Minimum Wage Case Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
HOME DEPOT: Faces 21 Class Action Over Data Breach in U.S.
HOME DEPOT: Faces $500MM Class Action in Canada Over Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
HSN INC: Faces Suit Over Wolfgang Puck Pressure Cooker Explosion

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Sued in C.D. California for Violating TCPA
JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Jury Deliberations Begin in Hip Implant Suit
KNCMINER: California Attorney Mulls False Advertising Class Suit
LACLEDE INC: Removes "Cerreta" Suit to California District Court
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hallandale Police Trust Files Class Action

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Kaufman" Class Suit to New Jersey
MERCK & CO: Lawyer in Fosamax Bellwether Trial Escapes Sanctions
MERISANT COMPANY: Settles Class Action Over Sweetener Products
NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers Warned Off Joining PSA Class Suit
NOVATO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud

PACIFIC GAS: "Guerrero" Suit Interferes With PUC's Authority
PACKAGING CORP: Recorded $17.6 Million Costs From Settlement
PAPA JOHN'S: New York AG Sues Owners Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $41.1 Mil. in Damages in Tobacco Suit
POMPANO DIVE: Removes "Parker" Suit to Florida District Court

PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Sued in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violations
PULLIN LAW: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Text Message Ads
RED BULL: Hearing to Approve Settlement Set for May 2015
REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Summary Judgment Upheld in Minors' Suit
REMEX REVENUE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Removes "Aliff" Suit to Georgia District Court
REVENUE RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 175 Tobacco Cases Pending vs RJR at Sept. 30
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of 750 Engle Progeny Cases Upheld
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Engle Progeny Cases Now Final

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Engle Progeny Plaintiffs Win $23BB Judgments
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 2014 3rd Qtr
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $1.37MM in Damages Awarded in "Lourie" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR's Brief in "Izzarelli" Appeal Due Nov. 3
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Whitney" Appeal

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Set in West Virginia IPIC
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,570 Broin II Cases Pending in Fla at Sept 30
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Cert. Bid in "Sateriale" Case Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Ill. High Court to Hear Philip Morris Appeal
RTG FURNITURE: Removes "Roseboro" Suit to Florida District Court

SAGA HIBACHI: Faces "Ali-Oliva" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Removes "Kumar" Suit to Texas District Court
SHELL CHEMICAL: "Rowell" Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU: Removes "Allen" Suit to District of Maryland
SOVRAN SELF: Removes "Castro" Suit to New Jersey District Court

TAKATA CORP: NHTSA Expands Warning on Faulty Airbags
THAT'S HOW WE ROLL: Faces Class Action "Natural" Product Labeling
THOMAS J. HENRY: Former Paralegals File Overtime Class Action
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Wins Bid to Reopen Discovery in Wage Class Suit
ULESS WALLACE: 1st Appearance Class Certified in "Covington" Case

VERMEX PHARMACEUTICALS: IBEW Unit Named as Lead Plaintiff
W.E. JONES: Illegally Denied Overtime Wages to Workers, Suit Says
WD-40 COMPANY: Faces "Wolf" Lawsuit Over Recording of Phone Calls
WERNER ENTERPRISES: "Russell" Suit Moved From Cal. to Nebraska
ZAGG INC: Convinces Utah Court to Toss "Pikk" Derivative Suit

* Hospitals, Airlines Among Sectors Facing Legal Risks Over Ebola
* Recalled, Tainted Supplements Still Available for Purchase
* Uncertainty About CFPB's Self-Reporting Program Remains


                             *********


400 EAST 55TH ST: Case Conference Set for Dec. 9
------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Borden, a resident of 400 East 55th Street, New York, New
York -- the building owned by 400 EAST 55TH STREET ASSOCIATES,
L.P. -- brought suit on behalf of herself, and all residents of
the building who were charged market rate rents from 1991 to the
present.  Ms. Borden alleged that 400 East LP, et al., despite
receiving the J-51 tax benefit beginning in 1991, charged market
rate rent for the apartments in the building.  As such, Ms. Borden
alleged the apartments were improperly deregulated and brought a
class suit to recover the difference between the regulated rent
and the deregulated market rent she and other class-members have
been paying.

Class certification has been granted for the lawsuit in April 2012
and affirmed by an appellate court in April 2013.

In an Oct. 3, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/VXBFi4from
Leagle.com, Judge George J. Silver, upon the motion of the
Plaintiff, ruled that the Defendant and its related entities are
enjoined from communicating with Plaintiff or any of the class
members without the knowledge and consent of Plaintiff's counsel.

Counsel for the parties also are directed to appear for a
conference on December 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. at 60 Centre Street,
Room 422, New York, New York 10007.


A & W AUTO: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Singleton v. A & W Auto Detail, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02390-
SM-DEK (E.D. La., October 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendant
paid White employees similarly situated to the Plaintiff overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week but refused
to pay Black employees overtime for the same work, thus, violating
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Louisiana's Employment
Discrimination Law.

Mr. Singleton worked for the Defendant from July 2012 through July
2013 as a car detailer in Jefferson Parish.

A & W Auto Detail, LLC, is a Louisiana limited liability company,
doing business within the state of Louisiana, and domiciled in the
Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryce G. Murray, Esq.
          BRYCE G. MURRAY, ATTORNEY-NOTARY, LLC
          4708 Trenton Street
          Metairie, LA 70006
          Telephone: (504) 383-3246
          E-mail: bryce@brycemurray.com


ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ACB Receivables Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-06418-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., October 17, 2014) is
brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AETNA: 20+ Impulse Cases Consolidated in Philadelphia Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that more than 20 cases brought against health insurance company
Aetna have been centralized in federal court in Philadelphia.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation sent 22 cases
filed across the country to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
after finding that they shared enough in common to be
consolidated.  The decision from the six-judge panel came over the
objections of the plaintiff, a company called Impulse Monitoring
Inc. that does both on-site and Web-based monitoring of patients'
neurological systems when they have brain and spinal surgeries.

The suits were filed over Aetna's alleged denial of coverage for
Impulse's services.

"Impulse opposes centralization in large part because it argues
that individual facts as to the denial of each patient's claims
will overwhelm any common facts," according to the order signed by
U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II of the Western District of
Kentucky, who is chairman of the MDL panel.

"We respectfully disagree," he said.

Impulse had cast the actions as being minor -- the three that
Aetna had removed to federal court in Philadelphia were initially
filed in the magisterial district courts in Montgomery and Lehigh
counties.  The company filed suits with small-claims courts across
the country when Aetna began to decline reimbursement in 2013,
according to Impulse's opposition to the formation of an MDL.

Referring to itself as IMI, Impulse discussed its decision to
bring its actions in small-claims courts, arguing, "In short, IMI
opted for the least complicated, least burdensome, most efficient
and expedited remedy available to it.  Though IMI clearly could
have elected to burden the federal judiciary with these small
claims, it did not do so."

"Aetna elected to make federal cases out of these simple, small-
dollar, debt collections actions.  Aetna now wants to escalate
these uncomplicated cases to something far beyond anything
necessary to resolve these actions.  In fact, the removal of these
cases and subsequent motion for creation of an MDL amounts to
nothing less than complete overkill for these simple,
uncomplicated issues," according to the opposition filed by
Impulse.

Aetna's health care plans that are governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, can be removed to
federal court, Aetna explained in its motion seeking consolidation
of the cases.

Aetna styled Impulse's complaints as "boilerplate," telling the
panel, "the only two facts in each complaint that change are the
name of the patient, who allegedly received the services, and the
amount allegedly owed to IMI for the 'intraoperative monitoring
services.'"

It argued that the consolidation of the cases, which were
"strategically scattered" across the country, would be a more
economical route for the court to take since the cases are
substantially similar.

The insurer also asked the panel to move the case to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania because that's where Aetna is based.
The panel agreed.

"All actions involve common factual questions surrounding Aetna's
denial of Impulse's claims for the costs of intraoperative
neuromonitoring services.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary," it said.

Further, the panel decided the Eastern District is the best place
to consolidate the cases because "three actions are already
pending in this readily accessible district.  Further, this
district is where Aetna's potentially relevant operational office
is located, in Blue Bell, Pa., which is also where potential
witnesses may be found. Finally, Impulse is based nearby in
Maryland."

Impulse had asked the court to move the cases to the District of
South Carolina or the District of Maryland if they were to be
consolidated in a federal court.

"The District of South Carolina has a detailed and expedited ERISA
case management order that would govern the management of these
cases and would promote an efficient and expeditious resolution of
these claims.  The District of South Carolina would provide a
convenient forum for IMI and its counsel and would afford an
appropriate level of supervision and management for these diverse
claims," Impulse had argued.

In the alternative, Impulse asked that the cases be moved to the
District of Maryland, where the company has its headquarters.

The panel put the MDL in U.S. District Judge Edward G. Smith's
courtroom in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  He is already
handling two of the three cases that were removed to that court.

Jeffrey Adler -- jsadler@burnswhite.com -- of Burns White in West
Conshohocken, Pa., who represented Impulse, did not return a call
seeking comment.

Aetna is pleased that the MDL panel agreed with its position on
consolidating the cases, said Walter Cherniak, spokesman for
Aetna.  The company views this ruling as the "first step in
helping us move forward," he said, noting that Impulse has filed
dozens of suits around the country.  Colin O'Boyle --
cjo@elliottgreenleaf.com -- of Elliott Greenleaf in Blue Bell
represented Aetna.


ALLAN C. SMITH: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Shearer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Firm of Allan C. Smith, P.C. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-06413-JAP-TJB (D.N.J., October 17, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret L. Dibb, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-05835 (W.D. Wash., October 20, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Arthur Leen, Esq.
          Samuel R. Leonard, Esq.
          LEEN & O'SULLIVAN
          520 E Denny
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (206) 325-6022
          Facsimile: (206) 325-1424
          E-mail: david@leenandosullivan.com
                  sam@leenandosullivan.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Sophia Box, Esq.
          NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          520 E Denny Way
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (206) 805-0989
          E-mail: katy@nwclc.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. McMullen, Esq.
          ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC
          P.O. BOX 2449
          Gig Harbor, WA 98335
          Telephone: (253) 620-2222
          E-mail: elizabeth.mcmullen@allianceoneinc.com

               - and -

          Jessica E. Nutt, Esq.
          Kenneth C. Hawthorne, Esq.
          ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT INC
          6565 Kimball Drive, Suite 200
          Gig Harbor, WA 98335
          Telephone: (253) 620-2032
          E-mail: jessnutt@gmail.com
                  kc.hawthorne@allianceoneinc.com


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Cal. Court Dismisses "Young" Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court, on Oct. 9, 2014, dismissed the labor
class action complaint Ronald Young commenced against AmeriGas
Propane, Inc.

The putative class action alleged that AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
violated California labor laws requiring employers to provide meal
and rest breaks.  As a result of this failure to provide meal
breaks, Plaintiff alleged that AmeriGas also failed to pay for the
resulting overtime, improperly took auto-meal deductions from
wages, and failed to provide accurate itemized employee wage
statements.

In her ruling available at http://is.gd/z6aPGOfrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Cynthia Bashant opined, "[B]ecause Plaintiff
accepted a severance in exchange for signing a Release of all
claims, AmeriGas' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice
against Plaintiff. As Plaintiff is the only named plaintiff in
this class action, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED without
prejudice with respect to the class. Given the foregoing,
AmeriGas' motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer is TERMINATED AS
MOOT."

The case is RONALD YOUNG, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-
00583-BAS(RBB).

Amerigas Propane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Miller
Chemers, Esq. -- achemers@morganlewis.com -- and Carrie Anne
Gonell, Esq. -- cgonell@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Amended Complaint in "Saleh" Suit Due Nov. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the securities class action filed by Nader Saleh
have 60 days to respond to plaintiff's amended complaint, which is
due to be filed on or before November 12, 2014, Apollo Education
Group, Inc. said in a Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2014.

On April 24, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Nader
Saleh naming Apollo Education Group, Inc., Gregory W. Cappelli,
and Brian L. Swartz as defendants and asserting a putative class
period stemming from October 19, 2011 to April 1, 2014. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements by misrepresenting and failing to disclose
that: (i) defendants manipulated federal student loan and grant
programs to appear to be in compliance with federal regulations;
(ii) defendants' predatory and deceptive recruiting and enrollment
practices violated federal regulations; and (iii) Apollo engaged
in a number of practices, including loan forbearance programs, to
create the appearance that it was in compliance with federal
regulations. The complaint further contends that the truth emerged
regarding these statements when Apollo announced on April 1, 2014
it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Education.
The matter is entitled Saleh v. Apollo Education Group, Inc.,
2:14-cv-00877-SRB.  Per the scheduling order entered by the
district court, defendants shall have 60 days to respond to
plaintiff's amended complaint, which is due to be filed on or
before November 12, 2014.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Gonzalez" TCPA Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in a Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2014, for
the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, that Mundy Gonzalez filed
on September 25, 2014, a class action complaint against University
of Phoenix alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint, which is captioned
Gonzalez v. The University of Phoenix, 3:14-cv-02279 and which was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, alleges that University of Phoenix violated the TCPA
by using automatic dialing systems to place unsolicited telephone
calls to the cellular telephones of plaintiff and other
individuals. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of
plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.

"Based on information available to us at present, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with
this action," the Company said.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Arrowhead
Research Corporation, on Oct. 14 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of Arrowhead common stock between August 12, 2014 and
October 8, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Casey Sadler at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150,
or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.  If you
inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone
number and number of shares purchased.

Arrowhead is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
development of RNA Interference ("RNAi") therapeutics that will
suppress disease-causing genes.  The Company's RNAi therapeutic
ARC-520 targets the hepatitis B virus for treating chronic
hepatitis B.  ARC-520 is crucial to Arrowhead's business, and
currently being tested for its effectiveness in using RNAi to halt
the production of hepatitis B genes, which will reduce the number
of infectious hepatitis B particles.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's operations and financial prospects.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented the true viral reduction level that ARC-
520 can induce in humans, and failed to disclose that data from
the Phase IIa study of ARC-520 did not support their assertions
concerning the drug's ability to induce a certain reduction level
of hepatitis B surface antigens in humans.

On October 8, 2014, the Company announced the results of its Phase
IIa study, revealing that ARC-520 dosed at 2 mg/kg only induced a
reduction in hepatitis B surface antigens far short of the levels
defendants previously suggested.  Following this news, the
Company's stock dropped $5.48 per share, or almost 44% below its
previous closing price, to close at $7.03 per share on October 8,
2014, on extraordinary volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than December 9, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 13 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Arrowhead Research Corporation and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under
14-cv-07911, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Arrowhead securities between August 12,
2014 and October 8, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Arrowhead securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 9, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Arrowhead is a biopharmaceutical company whose main business is
developing RNA Interference ("RNAi") therapeutics.  RNAi is a
process by which the RNA molecules prevent gene expression and
thereby destroys specific micro-RNA ("mRNA") molecules.
Arrowhead's focus is to develop drugs that target the RNAi
mechanism that will suppress disease-causing genes.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
materially misstated clinical trial information from its
experimental hepatitis B therapy ARC-520 by falsely suggesting
that the Company's therapy was more effective than it actually
was.  On October 8, 2014, Arrowhead released disappointing data
from its experimental hepatitis B therapy ARC-520.  On that same
day, an article published on TheStreet.com reported that Arrowhead
CEO Chris Anzalone and his team knew for months that ARC-520 dosed
at 1 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg yielded 0.2-log and 0.3-log reductions in
hepatitis B viral load. Yet, Arrowhead executives led investors to
believe that ARC-520 was more potent and achieved viral load
reductions in the range of 0.7 log or higher.

On August 12, 2014, Defendants held a conference call to report on
Q3 2014 earnings and the progress of the Phase IIa study.  During
this call, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose the true viral reduction
level that ARC-520 can induce in humans, suggesting that its viral
reduction was similar to the chimpanzee result (0.8 log reduction)
and closer to 1 log (90% reduction).

On October 8, 2014, the Company announced the results of its Phase
IIa study, revealing that ARC-520 dosed at 2 mg/kg only induced a
0.3 log reduction in HBsAG -- far short of what Defendant
previously suggested.

On this news, Arrowhead stock fell $5.48 per share, or almost 44%,
on extraordinary volume from its previous closing price to close
at $7.03 per share on October 8, 2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


ASIANA AIRLINES: Settles U.S. Price-Fixing Class Action for $55MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reports that South Korea-based
Asiana Airlines Inc. has agreed to pay $55 million to settle
allegations in a U.S. class action that it conspired with other
airlines to fix rates for shipping air cargo, according to court
papers filed on Oct. 14.

The proposed settlement, which requires the approval of a judge,
was filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn.

The plaintiffs in the class action are primarily freight-
forwarders, companies that manage cargo delivery.  They said they
paid inflated prices because of the alleged conspiracy.

In all, 22 defendants have settled in the antitrust litigation,
which began in 2006.  They have agreed to pay $903 million,
according to Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, one of the law firms working
for the freight-forwarders.

An attorney for Asiana in Washington did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

Six defendants in the class action have not agreed to settle: Air
China Ltd., Air India, Air New Zealand Ltd., Atlas Air Worldwide
Holdings Inc., Eva Airways Corp. and Nippon Cargo Airlines Ltd.
No trial date has been set.

The case is: In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, No. 1:06-md-1775.


B&B COLLECTIONS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. B&B Collections, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-06415-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., October 17, 2014) seeks relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Yerkey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. BJ's Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00200-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., October 20, 2014) seeks to recover compensatory and
liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other relief from the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
amended by the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc., is a California corporation, which
operates restaurants, including a restaurant located in Alachua
County, Florida, which is where the Plaintiff is employed at the
time she brings this action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244-2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


BLUE BUFFALO: "Keil" Suit Consolidated in Pet Food Marketing MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Keil, et al. v. Blue Buffalo
Company, Ltd., Case No. 4:14-00880, was included in the
multidistrict litigation known as In re: In Re: Blue Buffalo
Company, LTD., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No.
4:14-md-02562-RWS, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  The litigation is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations by
consumers that Blue Buffalo made false and misleading
representations about the ingredients in its pet food products, as
allegedly indicated by laboratory testing commissioned by the
Nestle Purina PetCare Company.  The actions allege that the
Defendant misrepresented the products as free of certain poultry
by-products, grains, and artificial preservatives.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
          E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI AND HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine St., Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN, GAUNT & HORSEFIELD
          901 Pine Street
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David H. Luce, Esq.
          Gerard T. Carmody, Esq.
          Sarah J. Bettag, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 South Central, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 854-8605
          Facsimile: (314) 854-8660
          E-mail: dhl@carmodymacdonald.com
                  gtc@carmodymacdonald.com
                  sjb@carmodymacdonald.com

               - and -

          Martin Flumenbaum, Esq.
          Robert A. Atkins, Esq.
          PAUL AND WEISS
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3191
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0191
          E-mail: mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com
                  ratkins@paulweiss.com


BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Kassin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bureau of Accounts Control and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06416-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., October 17, 2014) seeks relief
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANADA: Siskinds Desmeules Launches Neonicotinoid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds Desmeules has launched a class action
regarding neonicotinoid pesticides, specifically those containing
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiomethoxam, designed, developed,
marketed and produced by Bayer and Syngenta.

". . . everything I have before me . . . suggests to me as an
ecologist that this [neonicotinoids] is the biggest threat to the
structure and ecological integrity of the ecosystem that I have
encountered in my life. Bigger than DDT."

Neonicotinoid pesticides are applied to corn, soybean and canola
seeds, among others, planted in Canada.  The pesticides are
designed to travel throughout the plant and attack the nervous
systems of insects that come into contact with the roots, stems,
leaves, flowers, fruit, pollen and nectar of the plant.

This class action relates to the impact of these pesticides on the
bee population and, consequently, on beekeepers who produce honey,
provide pollination services and raise Queen Bees essential to the
continued production of Canada's fruits and vegetables.

The Statement of Claim alleges, among other things, that the
defendants were negligent in their design, manufacture, sale and
distribution of neonicotinoids.  The Statement of Claim alleges
that as a result of neonicotinoid use:

   -- queens, breeding stock and colonies were damaged or died;
   -- beeswax, honeycombs and hives were contaminated;
   -- honey production decreased; and
   -- beekeepers lost profits, and incurred unrecoverable costs.

In June of this year, the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, a
group of global, independent scientists from several disciplines
released to the public the findings from its study.  This new
analysis confirms that neonicotinoids are present in the
environment at levels that are known to cause lethal and sublethal
effects on a wide range of terrestrial (including soil) and
aquatic microorganisms, invertebrates and vertebrates with the
most affected group of species being bees and other pollinators.

On October 7, 2014, Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario, stated following the release of his annual report that
". . . everything I have before me . . . suggests to me as an
ecologist that this [neonicotinoids] is the biggest threat to the
structure and ecological integrity of the ecosystem that I have
encountered in my life.  Bigger than DDT."  Recently, at a UK
academic conference of the Soil Association it was stated that
neonicotinoids are 5,000 times more toxic than DDT.

All beekeepers in Quebec, including those individuals and
companies in the business of honey production, queen bee rearing
and/or pollination services between 2006 and the present season,
are encouraged to contact Samy Elnemr at (514) 849-1970 or
samy.elnemr@siskindsdesmeules.com or to visit our website at
www.siskinds.com

Beekeepers outside of Quebec are encouraged to contact
Paula Lombardi at (519) 660-7878 or paula.lombardi@siskinds.com

                   About Siskinds Desmeules

Siskinds Desmeules is a specialized class action law firm with
offices in Montr‚al and Qu‚bec City along with affiliate offices
in Toronto and London.

Contacts:

Siskinds Desmeules
Dimitri Lascaris, 519-660-7844
Avocats, S.E.N.C.R.L.
E-mail: dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com


CANON BUSINESS: Stipulation of Dismissal Okayed in "Jones" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Kronstadt signed on October 15, 2014, an
order granting a stipulation of dismissal JS-6 in STEVEN JONES and
JAVIER CRESPO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-
CV-07195-JAK-JEM, (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation of Dismissal, as well as the
Court's prior rulings in this matter, the Court ordered, among
other things, that:

     1. As of October 9, 2014, no government official receiving
notice of the Settlement pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 has filed with the Court any objection to the Settlement.

     2. The Court's Order of September 2, 2014 granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement; and granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of
Service Payments, Attorney's Fees and Costs, will become effective
upon entry of this Order.

     3. The Named and Opt-In Plaintiffs will release, relinquish,
and discharge all claims against the Releasees released under the
terms of Section VIII.B of the Settlement Agreement.

     4. All members of the California Class and the New York Class
except those who opted out of the Settlement will be deemed to
have, and by operation of the Judgment will have, fully, finally,
and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released
Claims against the Releasees as set forth in Section VIII.A of the
Settlement Agreement.

     5. All members of the FLSA Class who affirmatively opted into
this Settlement by filing claim forms will be deemed to have, and
by operation of the Judgment will have, fully, finally, and
forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims
against the Releasees as set forth in Section VIII.A of the
Settlement Agreement.

     6. Settlement Funds will be disbursed within 20 business days
of the Effective Date of the Settlement, provided, however that no
funds will be disbursed prior to October 16, 2014, in accordance
with this Court's October 2, 2014 Order Continuing Date for
Disbursement of Settlement Proceeds.

     7. This Lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/QkoGCJfrom Leagle.com.

Canon Business Solutions Inc, Defendant, represented by Jessica
Lauren Linehan -- linehan.jessica@dorsey.com --Dorsey and Whitney
LLP, Joel D O'Malley -- omalley.joel@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and
Whitney LLP, Joseph W Hammell -- hammell.joe@dorsey.com -- Dorsey
and Whitney LLP, Mandana Massoumi -- mmassoumi@manatt.com --
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Mark J Ginder --
ginder.mark@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Richard H
Silberberg -- silberberg.richard@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney
LLP & Ryan E Mick -- mick.ryan@dorsey.com -- Dorsey and Whitney
LLP.


CARTOON NETWORK: Georgia Court Tosses "Ellis" Video Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cartoon Network, Inc., won a ruling from a Georgia district
court for the dismissal of Mark Ellis' amended class action
complaint relating to violations under the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

Cartoon Network offers video content to consumers through its
mobile software application, the CN App.  Each time a consumer
accesses the CN App, a complete record of the user's video
history, along with the user's Android IP, is transmitted to data
analytics company Bango, Inc.  Bango specializes in tracking
individual user behaviors across websites and mobile applications.

Under the lawsuit, Mr. Ellis asserts that he never consented to
have any information released to third parties, and alleges that
Android IDs constitute personally identifiable information under
the VPPA.

In his order dismissing the amended lawsuit, District Judge Thomas
W. Thrash, Jr., found that an Android ID is not "personally
identifiable information" under the VPPA.

The case is MARK ELLIS individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CARTOON NETWORK, INC. a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Civil Action File No. 1:14-CV-
484-TWT (N.D. Georgia).  A copy of the District Court's Oct. 8,
2014 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/zEYVUZfrom
Leagle.com.

The Cartoon Network, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jeffrey G.
Landis, Esq. -- jeff@zwillgen.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis-DC;
Jonathan S. Frankel, Esq. -- jon@zwillgen.com -- and Marc J.
Zwillinger, Esq. -- marc@zwillgen.com -- of ZwillGen PLLC; and
Alan Bakowski, Esq. -- alan.bakowski@troutmansanders.com -- and
James Andrew Lamberth, Esq. -- james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com
-- of Troutman Sanders, LLP.


CAVALRY SPV: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-05915-ER (E.D.
Pa., October 17, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor
          100 S. Broad St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Plaintiff Drops Preliminary Injunction Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of Chiquita Brands International, Inc., a
New Jersey corporation ("Chiquita"), filed on October 7, 2014, a
putative class action in Federal Court in New Jersey challenging
the proposed combination (the "Combination") between Chiquita and
Fyffes plc ("Fyffes"). The case is captioned City of Birmingham
Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System v. Chiquita
Brands International Inc., et al., Case Number 14-6200-NLH-AMD
(D.N.J.).

On October 16, 2014, the judge in the case entered an order that,
among other things, denied plaintiff's request for expedited
discovery and required the parties to appear for a show cause
hearing on October 23, 2014, on plaintiff's application for a
preliminary injunction regarding the Combination.

On October 21, 2014, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew its
application for a preliminary injunction and notified the court
that it will instead pursue a damages action, Chiquita said in a
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 21, 2014.

Chiquita and its board of directors believe that the claims
asserted against them by the plaintiff are without merit and will
defend this case vigorously.


CITIGROUP INC: NY High Court Tosses Shareholder Derivative Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that for the
second time this year, a shareholder derivative case against
Citigroup's directors that alleged they should be held personally
liable for losses stemming from the bank's misstatement of LIBOR,
has been rejected by the Commercial Division.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Oing dismissed the claims
brought in Zucker v. Rubin, Index No. 651580/11, citing a ruling
earlier this year by Acting Supreme Court Justice Melvin
Schweitzer in Shaev v. Pandit, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1418 (Jan.
24, 2014).

Lawrence Zucker, a shareholder, represented by Steven Purcell, a
partner at Levi & Korsinsky, had argued that Citigroup's directors
should have known, based on news reports, that Citigroup was a
participant in a scheme by multinational banks to understate the
LIBOR rate, a key interest rate, which allowed the banks to
overstate their financial results.  LIBOR rates are fixed by the
British Bankers Association based on a survey of large banks, and
that rate is used in loan agreements as the basis for setting the
interest rates.

Justice Oing found that Mr. Zucker failed to make a demand prior
to filing a derivative action that the directors prosecute the
action themselves, as required by Delaware law.  Justice Oing
ruled that since Citigroup was incorporated in Delaware, Delaware
law applied to this case.

The plaintiff's claim that such a demand would have been futile
was previously rejected in Shaev, a suit brought by separate
shareholders against the dame group of Citigroup defendants and
making the same LIBOR claims.

Justice Oing ruled that Shaev was binding on Mr. Zucker.

Justice Schweitzer had held in Shaev that the plaintiffs had not
pleaded futility with the requisite particularity and held that
the mere claim that the directors were not disinterested and
independent was insufficient to demonstrate futility.  Justice
Oing held that ruling to be res judicata as to Mr. Zucker.

Mr. Purcell had argued before Justice Oing that Shaev was "focused
on completely different misconduct by Citigroup and its board: the
sale of residential mortgage-backed securities."  Justice Oing
rejected that argument, holding the Citigroup board was "operating
under a singular set of rules" with respect to both issues.  "It's
the same kind of demand analysis that they have to conduct" for
both the LIBOR and RMBS issues and therefore Schweitzer's ruling
was binding precedent.

Lead counsel for Citigroup's directors in both suits was
Mary Eaton -- meaton@willkie.com -- a partner with Willkie Farr &
Gallagher.


COHEN & SLAMOWITZ: May Not Produce Non-Existent Financials
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit MICHAEL HALLMARK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and Plaintiff, v. COHEN & SLAMOWITZ, MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-842S(F) asserts violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692 et seq.  Plaintiff alleges that Cohen & Slamowitz LLP
violated the FDCPA by demanding, in a letter to Plaintiff, payment
of a $140 court filing fee in connection with the Buffalo City
Court collection actions instituted against the Plaintiff without
actually having paid the filing fee at the time C&S's demand
letter was sent, between March 2011 and March 2012, to
approximately 38,000 debtors residing in New York State, for
payment of the debt and such filing fees.  The class action was
certified by Chief District Judge Skretny on Sept. 16, 2013.

Presently before a New York district court is C&S' motion for
reconsideration and for a protective order:

  -- C&S seeks reconsideration of the court's decision, following
     oral argument conducted April 2, 2014, on Plaintiff's motion,
     filed April 12, 2013, to compel information relating to
     Defendant's net worth.  At that hearing, the court, without
     specifically ruling on Plaintiff's motion to compel, directed
     that Defendant should, in satisfaction of Plaintiff's
     discovery requests, produce audited financial statements and
     copies of Defendant's tax returns for Defendant's 2011, 2012
     and 2013 tax years.

  -- Defendant's motion for a protective order is predicated on
     Defendant's contention that the cost of producing audited
     financials is disproportionate to the value of the issue of
     Plaintiff's damages.

In an Oct. 8, 2014 Decision available at http://is.gd/DePDY7from
Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio ruled that:

(1) Defendant's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

(2) the court's order that C&S produce audited financials for
     three fiscal years is VACATED;

(3) Defendant's motion for a protective order is DISMISSED as
     moot; and

(4) Plaintiff's motion to compel information relating to the
     Defendant's net worth is GRANTED.

Judge Foschio said "in the instant case, while this court sought
to dispose of Plaintiff's motion to compel consistent with Godson
[Godson v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., et al., 11-CV-764S(Sr)
(Doc. No. 229-1)], by directing C&S to produce audited financials
which do not presently exist, to do so would be contrary to the
general rule that defendants are only required to produce
previously prepared audited financials."

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LP's THOMAS A.
LEGHORN, Esq. -- thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- of New York,
serve as attorneys for Defendant Midland Funding, LLC.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darius Tahir, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that
Community Health Systems, the 207-hospital, 29-state operator, is
facing a class-action lawsuit brought by a New Mexico woman,
Briana Brito, over a data breach it reported Aug. 18.

The suit, filed in the 4th Judicial District Court in San Miguel
County in New Mexico, is being handled by law firms Slack & Davis
and the Branch Law Firm, which are meeting with additional
potential class representatives in Las Vegas, N.M., on Oct. 15,
and have fielded inquiries from other patients based in six other
states interested in joining the lawsuit, Slack & Davis attorney
Paula Knippa said in an interview.

Brito and her family contend in the suit that they were treated at
Alta Vista Regional Hospital, Las Vegas, N.M., at the time the
breach took place.  "As a result of defendants' failure to
implement and follow basic security procedures, plaintiff's
sensitive information is now in the hand of thieves," according to
the suit.  The suit does not ask for a specific dollar amount in
damages, but instead calls on a jury to determine that at trial.

A CHS spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit, per company
policy on pending lawsuits.  Opposing attorney Ms. Knippa expects
a formal response to be filed to his complaint by the end of the
month.

The breach was a massive one: 4.5 million patient records were
exposed, making it the second largest in HHS' records, which date
to 1997.

According to a CHS SEC filing describing the breach, the hack
likely originated from China and focused on valuable non-clinical,
non-medical data, such as "patient names, addresses, birthdates,
telephone numbers and Social Security numbers."

Hackers struck in April and June 2014.  CHS offered identity theft
protections to affected individuals.

CHS' SEC filing anticipates the possibility of litigation, but
does not expect it to have a material effect on its finances.

The law firms also are starting a national campaign, primarily on
television, to alert potentially affected individuals about the
data breach and potentially recruit them as clients as well.

The focus of the existing suit will likely be on Community Health
Systems' security procedures and the operator's alleged tardiness
in alerting patients about the dangers of the data breach,
Ms. Knippa said.

"It's uncertain at what point that information will be exploited.
The problem is that personal information doesn't change.  The
repercussions of this event could be felt for years," she said.


COOK MEDICAL: "Eslick" Suit Moved to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Eslick, et al. v. Cook Medical Incorporated, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00135, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
(Indianapolis).  The Indiana District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-06011-RLY-TAB to the proceeding.

The action is brought for damages relating to the Defendants'
development, testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging,
labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and
selling of the defective product sold under the name "inferior
vena cava filter."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Corrie Johnson Yackulic, Esq.
          CORRIE YACKULIC LAW FIRM PLLC
          315 5th Avenue South, Suite 1000
          Seattle, WA 98104-2682
          Telephone: (206) 787-1915
          Facsimile: (206) 299-9725
          E-mail: Corrie@cjylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emily Harris Gant, Esq.
          OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC
          1601 5th Avenue, Suite 2100
          Seattle, WA 98101-1686
          Telephone: (206) 447-7204
          Facsimile: (206) 447-0215
          E-mail: egant@omwlaw.com


COOK MEDICAL: "Perry-O'Farrow" Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Perry-O'Farrow, et al. v. Cook Medical
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00587, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
(Indianapolis).  The Indiana District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-06005-RLY-TAB to the proceeding.

The action is brought for damages relating to the Defendants'
development, testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging,
labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and
selling of the defective product sold under the name "inferior
vena cava filter."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Kyle Brackett, Esq.
          TIM MOORE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.
          305 East King St.
          Kings Mountain, NC 28086
          Telephone: (704) 739-1221
          Facsimile: (704) 739-5051
          E-mail: justin@timmoorelaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy K. Moore, Esq.
          TIM MOORE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.
          305 East King Street
          Kings Mountain, NC 28086
          Telephone: (704) 739-1221
          Facsimile: (704) 739-5051
          E-mail: tim@timmoorelaw.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Button, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BEN C. MARTIN
          3219 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75024
          Telephone: (214) 671-6614
          Facsimile: (214) 744-7590
          E-mail: rbutton@bencmartin.com

               - and -

          Ben C. Martin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BEN C. MARTIN
          3219 McKinney Ave., Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 761-6614
          Facsimile: (214) 744-7590
          E-mail: bmartin@bencmartin.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Doug B. King, Esq.
          Kip S. McDonald, Esq.
          WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN, LLP
          211 North Pennsylvania Street
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-4208
          Telephone: (317) 639-6151
          Facsimile: (317) 639-6444
          E-mail: dking@woodmclaw.com
                  kmcdonald@woodmclaw.com

               - and -

          Gary J. Rickner, Esq.
          WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
          P. O. Box 33009
          Wade II, Suite 400
          5430 Wade Park Blvd.
          Raleigh, NC 27636-3009
          Telephone: (919) 277-9100
          Facsimile: (919) 277-9177
          E-mail: gjr@wardandsmith.com


COOK MEDICAL: "Bobo" Suit Transferred From Kentucky to Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Bobo v. Cook Medical Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 5:14-cv-00119, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).  The Indiana
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-06001-RLY-TAB to
the proceeding.

The action is brought for damages relating to the Defendants'
development, testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging,
labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and
selling of the allegedly defective product sold under the name
"inferior vena cava filter."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bard K. Brian, Esq.
          BARD BRIAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          222 Kentucky Avenue, Suite 10
          P.O. Box 9491
          Paducah, KY 42002-9491
          Telephone: (270) 443-3131
          Facsimile: (270) 443-3139
          E-mail: bardbrian99@msn.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Button, Esq.
          Ben C. Martin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BEN C. MARTIN
          3219 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 761-6614
          Facsimile: (214) 744-7590
          E-mail: rbutton@bencmartin.com
                  bmartin@bencmartin.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas B. King, Esq.
          Kip S. M. McDonald, Esq.
          WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1800
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2019
          Telephone: (317) 639-6151
          Facsimile: (317) 639-6444
          E-mail: dking@woodmclaw.com
                  kmcdonald@woodmclaw.com

               - and -

          Lori Elizabeth Hammond, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          400 W. Market Street, 32nd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202-3363
          Telephone: (502) 589-5400
          Facsimile: (502) 581-1087
          E-mail: lhammond@fbtlaw.com


CREDIBLE SECURITY: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kulester Rollins v. Credible Security Services, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-00201-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., October 20, 2014) seeks to
recover compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and
other relief from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Credible Security Services, LLC, held itself out as a Florida
corporation that provides security services in Alachua County,
Florida, which is where the Plaintiff was employed at all relevant
times.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
          309 NE 1st Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 244-2069
          Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
          E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


DOUGHERTY COUNTY: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Bullying
---------------------------------------------------------
Terry Lewis, writing for Albany Herald, reports that the attorney
for Manswell Peterson, who is pursuing multi-million dollar
bullying lawsuits against the Dougherty County School System and
Westover boys basketball Coach Dallis Smith, threw a new twist
into the mix on Oct. 12, saying she is exploring the possibility
of upgrading the suit to class action status.

Attorney Samia Giddings said, "Several contacts by others to
Mr. Peterson have been made in reference to (bullying) incidents
involving their children where the situations were handled poorly
or not at all.  He never considered being the lead plaintiff in a
class action law suit against the school system until these
contacts were made.

"Naturally when this saga began, our main concern was involving
the Petersons' son."

The suit seeks $6 million in damages from the DCSS and $2 million
from Mr. Smith.

The bullying incident occurred in June while the Westover boy's
basketball team, including Peterson's son, were at a hotel while
attending a basketball camp in Tallahassee, Fla.  The abuse
allegations were made public by Peterson, and sparked an internal
investigation led by DCSS Police Department Chief Investigator
J.C. Phillips.  His report, given to DCSS Administrative Assistant
Jack Willis, stated: "The investigation revealed that the student
was indeed physically and verbally abused and bullied."

Westover Principal William Chunn then disciplined seven members of
the team, kicking a player off of the squad while giving the
remaining six players five-game suspensions, five days on in-
school suspension and community service.  In addition, Mr. Chunn
suspended Mr. Smith for three games.

The suit alleges that due to a lack of supervision by coaches or
chaperones, Peterson's son was "terrorized, taunted, teased,
humiliated and severely bullied for an extended period of time
over a two-day period . . . without any intervention by any
adult/coaching staff member who accompanied the team on the trip
to camp . . ."

Ms. Giddings described the situation as "unfortunate," but added
efforts were made to resolve the issue before the suits were
filed.

"Attempts to resolve the situation with an outcome amenable to
both sides were unsuccessful," she said.  "In fact, it appeared as
if the seriousness of the situation and the bullying taking place
within the Dougherty School System was and is being ignored and
unaddressed."

Ms. Giddings stressed that while the suit could be upgraded to
class action status, it remains far from certain that will happen.

"Whether or not this could and would turn into something more
remains to be seen.  We certainly did not expect to be contacted
by other parents who are concerned with situations involving
bullying in reference to their child and or children."
Ms. Giddings said.  "As I said before, Mr. Peterson is not opposed
to being a lead plaintiff in a class action for any and all
avenues are being considered and nothing is being ruled out.
However, his first priority is his own child, and he understands
that each situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis, and
if there is something to pursue it will be considered.

"Just the same, he has been made aware and understands that if the
legal situations with the school system and the head coach are
resolved, he would lose lead Plaintiff status and could not be
apart of a class action at that point.  The only thing left to do
at that point would be to refer others to firms and law offices in
the Albany area for consultation.  Right now, we are in a holding
pattern awaiting for Dougherty County School System and Head Coach
Dallis Smith and their legal representatives to respond."

The trial dates have not been set, but arguments are currently
scheduled to be heard by Dougherty Superior Court Judge Willie
Lockette.


FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Music Royalties Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham, writing for Law360, reports that Ford Motor Co.
and car audio company Clarion Corp. of America urged a D.C.
federal court to chuck a proposed class action brought by the
Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies Inc., arguing that
their accused navigation devices fall outside the scope of the
Audio Home Recording Act.

In their motion to dismiss on Oct. 10, Ford and Clarion argued
that the navigation systems produced by Clarion and installed in
Ford's vehicles merely allow consumers to copy CDs to a hard
drive, and do not reproduce "digital music recordings" under the
plain meaning of the AHRA.

"Because [the navigation system] records CDs only to its own hard
drive, any music fixed on the hard drive is not a digital musical
recording as the statute defines that term," Ford argued.  "The
Ninth Circuit has previously reached this precise conclusion."

Ford pointed out that under the AHRA, "digital music recordings"
do not include material objects that have fixed computer programs,
or material objects that include fixed, nonaudio data.  Because
its navigation systems have hard drives containing both programs
and nonsound data, cars with these systems are not capable of
making copies of digital musical recordings as defined by the act,
Ford argued.

"The nav systems are nothing less than automotive computers with
hard drives containing both programs and data other than sounds.
They do not reproduce digital music recordings in material objects
addressed by the statute, that is, CDs, LPs, cassettes or digital
audio tapes," Ford claimed.  "The nav systems are outside the
AHRA's scope."

AARC brought its suit in July, alleging that Ford, Clarion, Denso
International America Inc. and General Motors Co. -- which has
since been substituted by General Motors LLC -- had run afoul of
the AHRA by distributing music-copying car devices that aren't
registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, aren't equipped with
the serial copy management system and for which they hadn't paid
royalties.

"These devices clearly fall within the scope of the AHRA," argued
AARC, which represents recording artists and copyright owners.
"Certain other manufacturers that distribute the same type of
in-vehicle CD-copying devices acknowledge that such devices are
subject to the AHRA."

Regarding Ford, AARC specifically alleged that the "Jukebox"
feature in some of its cars, which records songs from CDs to a
hard drive, is a digital audio recording device.  AARC sought a
permanent injunction to stop the defendants from distributing
their accused devices without royalty payments, as well as actual
and statutory damages from the last three years.

But Ford shot back on Oct. 10, arguing that there was no way its
navigation systems could reproduce digital music recordings, and
therefore cannot be considered digital audio recording devices
under the AHRA. Van H. Beckwith, an attorney with Baker Botts LLP
who is representing Ford and Clarion, told Law360 on Oct. 14 that
the suit should be dismissed under Ninth Circuit precedent.

"The Clarion manufactured navigation system in Ford's cars and
trucks provides a car purchaser with all the sophisticated
function one would expect of a computer with a hard drive,"
Beckwith said in an email.  "Based on the leading Ninth Circuit
case on the issue, computer hard drives are squarely outside the
reach of the statute."

The Ninth Circuit decision referenced in the dismissal motion was
its 1999 decision in Recording Industry Association of America v.
Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc., in which the appeals court found
that the first MP3 player was not a digital audio recording device
under the AHRA, according to Ford.

Ford and Clarion are represented by Van H. Beckwith --
van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- Paul J. Reilly --
paul.reilly@bakerbotts.com -- and Joshua H. Packman --
joshua.packman@bakerbotts.com -- of Baker Botts LLP.

AARC is represented by Dustin Cho -- dcho@cov.com -- and
Jonathan Sperling -- jsperling@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling
LLP.

The case is Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies Inc. v.
General Motors Company et al., case number 1:14-cv-01271, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


GENAERA CORP: 3rd Cir. Revives Shareholder Suit Over Asset Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that in a split opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has revived a suit over the sale of assets from a now-
defunct biotechnology company.

The majority of the three-judge panel held that the district court
weighed documents that it shouldn't have when it dismissed the
case.  The trial court had found that the statute of limitations
on the claims had run out and were beyond the reach of tolling by
the discovery rule.

"It was premature for the district court to dismiss Schmidt's
complaint on statute of limitations grounds at this early stage of
the litigation," Senior Judge Dolores Sloviter wrote for the
majority. She was joined by Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr.
Judge Marjorie Rendell dissented, calling the argument that the
district court had improperly considered documents that it
shouldn't have a "diversionary tactic" and a "red herring."

Alan Schmidt had been a shareholder in Genaera Corp., a
biotechnology company that dissolved in 2009, and brought a suit
against the liquidating trust for the company and the entities to
which it sold the assets over two years later.  The statute of
limitations is two years.

"The essence of Schmidt's complaint is that the liquidating
trustee and the D&O defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
disposing of promising drug technologies in tainted insider deals
for far less than their true value," Judge Sloviter said.  The D&O
defendants are the directors and officers of Genaera.

Schmidt didn't contest that he had missed the two-year window to
bring his claims. Rather, he had argued to the district court that
the statute of limitations should be tolled because he couldn't
have known about the insider deals or the value of the assets
until much later, according to the opinion.

The drugs at issue were aminosterol, which includes compounds used
to treat macular degeneration; pexiganan, a cream to treat
diabetic foot infections; and IL9, which treats asthma, according
to the opinion.

The district court found the statute of limitations had passed and
couldn't be tolled.

To the Third Circuit, Mr. Schmidt argued the district court had
improperly considered documents from outside of the complaint when
presented with a motion to dismiss.

"The district court relied not just on the complaint and SEC
filings, but also on 'updates from [Genaera Liquidating Trust]
. . . and press releases from the acquiring companies' that the
defendants attached to their motions to dismiss," Judge Sloviter
said.  "The defendants argue that these materials, available
before June 8, 2010, contain all the information Schmidt needed to
ascertain his injury.  While that may be true, these materials may
not be considered at the motion to dismiss stage. They are not
integral to the complaint -- the complaint was not 'based' on
press releases or updates from Genaera Liquidation Trust, but
rather on sales transactions."

It is not clear from the face of Mr. Schmidt's complaint whether
the discovery rule -- which allows a court to start the running of
the statute of limitations from the time a plaintiff could
reasonably be aware of his injury rather than starting it from the
time of the actual injury -- would apply to this case.

"In this case, Schmidt has not pleaded himself out of court,"
Judge Sloviter said.  "Nothing in Schmidt's complaint clearly
suggests that he did in fact have knowledge of the full scope of
his injury prior to June 8, 2010."

"We conclude that it is not evident on the face of the complaint
and documents properly considered at the motion to dismiss stage
whether the discovery rule saves Schmidt's claims," Judge Sloviter
said.

Rendell said, "Once Schmidt conceded his tardiness, the sole
relevant issue was whether the discovery rule would save him, and
the district court determined, based on Schmidt's own assertions,
that it would not."

She added, "Tellingly, Schmidt does not argue that there are facts
he would have adduced if this matter had been treated, as he
urges, as a motion for summary judgment.  I suggest there are
none, and remand is therefore unnecessary."

Howard Bashman, who represented Schmidt, said at the summary
judgment stage, Schmidt can offer affirmative evidence and, like
the majority, doesn't share the view of the dissent.

Mr. Bashman said he was pleased with the majority's opinion.

Michael Kichline of Dechert, who represented the defendants, said
in a written statement, "The initial motions in this case raised
many different grounds for dismissal.  Because [U.S. District]
Judge [Berle] Schiller dismissed the case as untimely under the
statute of limitations, he did not address the substantive
arguments that require dismissal of this complaint.  We look
forward to presenting those arguments to Judge Schilller."


GENERAL MOTORS: Millikin to Step Down as General Counsel in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co. general counsel Michael Millikin, who has
faced criticism and congressional inquiries over his handling of
an ignition-switch defect, has announced plans to retire in early
2015.

The Oct. 17 announcement came as GM's legal department faced a
Justice Department investigation and impending discovery in
lawsuits filed over the defect, which prompted recalls of 2.6
million cars and trucks worldwide this year.  GM already has paid
a maximum $35 million fine over its failure to report the defect
to federal regulators.  Including the ignition switch, GM has
recalled nearly 30 million vehicles over defects this year.

Mr. Millikin, 66, has served as general counsel since GM emerged
from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009.  On July 17, he told Congress
he was "deeply sorry" about the way GM's legal department handled
lawsuits filed over deaths and injuries later identified to have
been caused by the defect.  Many members of Congress questioned
GM's internal report, which concluded that Mr. Millikin was
unaware of the lawsuits, most of which settled.  U.S. Sen. Claire
McCaskill, D-Mo., called on Mr. Millikin to resign.

Chief executive officer Mary Barra has defended Mr. Millikin,
although GM has fired at least four in-house lawyers.

"Mike has had a tremendous career, spanning more than 40 years,
with the vast majority of it at GM," Ms. Barra said on Oct. 17.
"He has led global legal teams through incredibly complex
transactions, been a trusted and respected confidant to senior
management, and even led the company's global business response
team following the tragedy of 9/11."

Mr. Millikin will remain general counsel until his replacement has
been chosen.  GM said it would begin an external search to replace
Mr. Millikin, who joined GM in 1977.

GM has acknowledged that the ignition defect has caused at least
13 deaths.  Attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who is administering a fund
that GM set up to compensate victims, had deemed claims for 27
deaths and 25 injuries eligible for payment as of Oct. 10.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bernstein Litowitz Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2014, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client
City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System against
Genworth Financial, Inc. and certain of its senior executives.
The action, which is captioned City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 14-cv-682 (E.D.
Va.), asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of investors in Genworth securities during the period of
December 4, 2013 to July 29, 2014, inclusive.

Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as
Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.  If you wish
to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion
with the Court in the Eastern District of Virginia no later than
October 20, 2014.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Genworth
misrepresented or concealed the adequacy of the Company's reserves
for its long-term care insurance division, the sustainability of
Genworth's margins for its LTC business, as well as the Company's
ability to successfully manage its LTC business.  When the truth
regarding the Company's LTC business was revealed, the price of
Genworth stock declined from $16.26 per share to $13.98 per share,
or approximately 14%, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- has
built an international reputation for excellence and integrity.
Specializing in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.  Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of
the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history,
recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.


GT ADVANCED: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. on Oct. 13 disclosed that it
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
District of New Hampshire, 14cv00448, on behalf of purchasers of
GT Advanced Technologies, Inc.'s securities between November 5,
2013 and 9:40 am EST on October 6, 2014 as well as purchasers of
the securities in or traceable to the Company's public offering of
3.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020.

The Complaint was filed against certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters and alleges
that during the Class Period and/or in the offering materials for
the Offerings, defendants misrepresented and/or concealed GT's
cash position, expected cash position and revenues, ability to
meet the milestones under a critical agreement with Apple for the
production of sapphire material, and the progress that the Company
was making developing the facility that would produce the sapphire
material.  On September 8, 2014 Thomas Gutierrez, CEO sold 9,232
shares of GTAT reaping over $160,000.  Then, on September 9, 2014,
Apple unveiled two new models of its iPhone device.  During the
launch, Apple announced that both models of the iPhone 6 would
come with displays produced from ion-strengthened glass, a term
that is associated with Gorilla Glass, a competitor of GT's
sapphire material.  On this news, the price of GT stock dropped
from $17.15 per share to $12.78 per share. Similarly, the price of
the debt issued pursuant to the Debt Offering declined from $1,613
per note on September 9 to $1,279 per note on September 10, 2014.

On October 6, 2014, the Company announced that it was experiencing
a liquidity crisis and filed for bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire.  On this news,
the price of GT stock declined almost 93% and the price of the
Convertible Senior Notes due 2020, declined almost 71%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than December 8, 2014.  Any
member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.  To discuss
this action or ask questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact plaintiff's counsel, toll-free 866-561-3600
or via email at debbie@bernardmgross.com or
susang@bernardmgross.com

The firm has expertise in prosecuting class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

To discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice with respect to these matters, PLEASE CONTACT:

      Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
      Susan R. Gross, Esq.
      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
      E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
              debbie@bernardmgross.com
      Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


HEFFLER RADETICH: 3rd Cir. Upholds Order on CAMICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on Oct. 10, 2014,
affirmed a district court's:

     -- grant of summary judgment to CAMICO Mutual Insurance
        Company; and

     -- denial of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, L.L.P.'s cross-
        motion for partial summary judgment regarding an insurance
        coverage dispute,

in an Opinion available at http://is.gd/M5Ee3Hfrom Leagle.com.

Heffler is an accounting firm that, among other tasks, distributes
settlement funds to claimants in class action suits.  CAMICO and
Heffler are parties to a 2008-2009 insurance policy, which
provided for insurance for claims brought against Heffler.

In June 2008, Heffler notified CAMICO of its potential liability
associated with actions taken by its former senior claims analyst
Christian Penta to defraud 3 class actions.  CAMICO funded
Heffler's defense, but subsequently advised Heffler that it
reserved its right to recover costs and expenses relating to the
defense that exceeded a $100,000 sub-limit in the policy
concerning misappropriation, misuse, theft, or embezzlement.
CAMICO later filed suit against Heffler with four causes of
action: first, a declaratory judgment that CAMICO owed Heffler no
defense or obligation beyond the $100,000 sub-limit; second, a
claim for unjust enrichment; third, a claim for money had and
received; and fourth, a claim for recovery of overpayment.
Heffler, in response, filed counterclaims for a declaratory
judgment that CAMICO's duty to defend and indemnify was not
limited by the $100,000 sub-limit and for bad faith. The parties
then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court
granted CAMICO summary judgment as to the declaratory judgment
claim, the claim for money had and received, and the claim for
recovery of overpayment. It further denied Heffler's cross-motion
for partial summary judgment and entered a final judgment in favor
of CAMICO. Heffler timely appealed.

The case is CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. HEFFLER, RADETICH &
SAITTA, L.L.P., CASE NO. 13-3619.


HINZ JJ: Minimum Wage Case Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Rogers dismissed the case captioned
JEFFREY WHEATON and DANIEL HOGUE, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HINZ JJ, LLC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-2223-RDR, (D. Kan.).

Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against defendants
alleging that they failed to pay them minimum wage. Plaintiffs
were delivery drivers at defendants' restaurants. They earned
minimum wage but allegedly were not paid for certain expenses that
were incurred while they were making deliveries. The defendants
sought dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Judge Rogers, in a memorandum and order dated October 15, 2014, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/RQRl1afrom Leagle.com,
granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim
under the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

Sandra Hinz, Defendant, represented by Denise K. Drake --
ddrake@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Nicholas J. Walker --
njwalker@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & R. Evan Jarrold --
ejarrold@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


HOME DEPOT: Faces 21 Class Action Over Data Breach in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------
David Allison, writing for Atlanta Business Chronicle, reports
that lawyers across the country are donning orange aprons to
tackle what's shaping up to be one monster of a Home Depot repair
project.

At least 21 federal lawsuits have now been filed against the home
improvement giant as of Oct. 10 stemming from its recent data
breach, a review by Atlanta Business Chronicle found.  That's up
from about a dozen lawsuits filed as of Sept. 24.

The lawsuits are asking courts to grant them class-action status,
meaning that if judges agree they would represent others hurt by
the data breach.  Because of their number and the fact that
they've been filed in courts across the country, the lawsuits are
likely to be combined into what's known as "multi-district
litigation."  At least one motion has already been filed in
federal court in Atlanta to combine various lawsuits over the Home
Depot data breach.

Home Depot has not yet responded to any of the lawsuits.  The
company has asked the federal court in Atlanta to give it until
Dec. 15 to answer the allegations of at least some of the
lawsuits.  Home Depot is scheduled to announce its third quarter
results on Nov. 18.

Among the newest lawsuits to be filed is one from the Cattaraugus
County School Employees Federal Credit Union, which sued Home
Depot on Oct. 9 in federal court in Atlanta.  The allegations are
the same as in other lawsuits stemming from the data breach.  The
New York credit union contends the data breach "easily could have
been prevented as Home Depot failed to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected,
ignored numerous clear warnings that its data systems were
outdated and thus vulnerable to attack, and failed to take actions
that could have thwarted the breach."  The credit union says it
and others have suffered, and will continue to suffer, millions of
dollars in damages for the cost of replacement cards and covering
the cost of fraudulent transactions.  "These costs are ongoing, as
Plaintiff continues to investigate fraudulent transactions
resulting from the data breach that have not yet been reimbursed,"
it contends in its lawsuit.

The credit union is being represented by Atlanta attorney W. Pitts
Carr.

In another lawsuit filed Oct. 7 in federal court in California, an
Oceanside, Calif., man says he used his Navy Federal Credit Union
Visa credit card to purchase goods at a Home Depot store during
the period of the data breach.  He claims his personal information
was compromised in the Home Depot breach, causing him to incur
multiple unauthorized charges from overseas that caused his bank
to freeze his account.  His Visa credit card was declined while
attempting to pay for $1500 worth of car repairs.


HOME DEPOT: Faces $500MM Class Action in Canada Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Bradbury, writing for SC Magazine, reports that a Canadian
is leading a $500 million class-action lawsuit against Home Depot
following its data breach in which up to 56 million US and
Canadian credit cards were stolen.

Stephen Lozanski of Richmond, Ontario filed the suit, claiming
that $8000 was charged to his credit card without his knowledge.
Open to all Canadians affected by the breach, the lawsuit claims
that Home Depot in Canada and the US "failed to adequately
safeguard certain personal information, financial data and usage
data belonging to the plaintiff and other class members."

Home Depot was negligent because it failed to inform Canadians of
the loss of their sensitive personal information, said a court
filing against the company.  It also attacks the company for
failing to use adequate firewalls, encryption, and protection
against known vulnerabilities.

"They failed to heed warnings about the inadequate security of
their computer systems, including the point of sale systems, and
about how same could be breached and compromised by computer
hackers," the complaint continued.

The document, filed through law firm McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP,
says that over one million affected Canadians may be eligible for
inclusion in the suit.


HOME DEPOT: Seeks Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David Siegela and Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, report
that Home Depot Inc. asked a Georgia federal judge on Oct. 13 to
throw out a proposed class action filed on behalf of customers
whose personal data may have been exposed in a recent data breach,
blasting the case as a "carbon-copy" suit that fails to allege any
actual injuries.

Attorneys with King & Spalding LLP, which represents the retail
giant, urged U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey Jr. to dismiss
the suit filed by plaintiffs John Solak and Dennis O'Rourke,
saying they lack standing to pursue claims for harm that has yet
to occur.

Messrs. Solak and O'Rourke filed suit under Georgia's data breach
statute on Sept. 4 while Home Depot was still investigating the
possibility of a data breach, an action characterized by the
retailer as a "race to the courthouse."  The breach was formally
announced Sept. 8.  Their suit is one of more than a dozen similar
cases related to the data breach now pending throughout the
country, according to Home Depot's motion.

"Plaintiffs have alleged no actionable injury, and the purported
threat of speculative, future harm is insufficient to impose tort
liability," Home Depot's motion states.

Home Depot said its IT security staffers began investigating the
intrusion on Sept. 2, shortly after receiving reports from law
enforcement and banks indicating that hackers had broken into the
retailer's computer network.  Home Depot had said it was working
with the Secret Service on the matter

The company said the breach could impact customers who used
locations in the U.S. or Canada.  The company said there is "no
evidence" that debit card personal identification numbers have
been compromised or that the intrusion impacted stores in Mexico
or HomeDepot.com.  It also said it will provide credit monitoring
and other identity protection services to those who used a payment
card at Home Depot since April.

Both Messrs. Solak and O'Rourke say that they made purchases using
their credit and debit cards at Home Depot locations in New York
and Pennsylvania and that their payment card data was compromised
as a result of the breach.

Mr. O'Rourke, who used his debit card at Home Depot, claims he
incurred a fraudulent $49.99 charge as a result of the breach,
according to the complaint.  However Home Depot argues that
O'Rourke does not allege that he had actually to pay for the
supposedly fraudulent charge or that the fraudulent charge was
related to the data breach.

Home Depot argues that in addition to the plaintiffs lacking
standing, the complaint should be tossed because there is no
private right of action under Georgia's data-breach statute.  Home
Depot argues the statute aims to help consumers combat identity
theft by requiring expeditious notification by any "data
collector" or "information broker" of a breach in the security of
its system, and says nothing about enforcement.

Even if a private right of action existed under the statute, Home
Depot claims it is neither a "data collector" nor an "information
broker," and therefore the statute does not apply.

Home Depot also asked Judge Duffety to throw out the plaintiffs'
negligence claims.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged personal injury or physical injury to
their property.  At best, they claim a fear of future economic
loss resulting from the potential misuse of their personal
information," Home Depot's motion states.  "That is simply not the
kind of injury that a negligence claim can remedy."

The plaintiffs are represented by Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Federman
& Sherwood and Abington Cole.

Home Depot is represented by James A. Pratt, Phyllis B. Sumner and
Sidney S. Haskins of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is John Solak et al. v. The Home Depot Inc., case number
1:14-cv-02856, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.


HSN INC: Faces Suit Over Wolfgang Puck Pressure Cooker Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Kazakevicius, an unmarried woman v. HSN, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; HSNI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; W.P.
Appliances, Inc., a Florida corporation; Wolfgang Puck Worldwide,
Inc. a Delaware corporation; W.P. Productions, Inc., a Florida
corporation; Zhanjiang Hallsmart Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd, a
corporation of China; Guangdong Chuang Sheng Stainless Steel
Products Co. Ltd., a corporation of China d/b/a Charm Stainless
Steel Co. Ltd.; and Business Entities 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-
02317-NVW (D. Ariz., October 17, 2014)

The lawsuit is a strict product liability case arising from a
November 18, 2012 explosion of a Wolfgang Puck pressure cooker,
which seriously injured the Plaintiff.

HSN, Inc., known as the Home Shopping Network, and HSNI, LLC,
known as Home Shopping Network International, are Delaware
corporations headquartered in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County,
Florida.

W.P. Appliances, Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in
Hollywood, Florida.  Wolfgang Puck Worldwide, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.  W.P.
Productions, Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in
Hollywood, Florida.

Zhanjiang Hallsmart Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd. is a Chinese
corporation that conducts business in Arizona.  Guangdong Chuang
Sheng Stainless Steel Products Co. Ltd., doing business as Charms
Stainless Steel Co. Inc., is a Chinese corporation headquartered
in Guangdong, China.  The Business Entities are entities whose
identities are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants are the designers, manufactures, producers,
distributors, vendors, sellers, and marketing entities of the
product featured in the infomercial and operate under contractual
agreements relating to the design, manufacture, production,
distribution, sale, testing, inspection, and marketing of the
Wolfgang Puck-branded product at issue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa Lewallen, Esq.
          Timothy Tonkin, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LAW GROUP, P.C.
          20 E. Thomas Road, Suite 2500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 258-8900
          Facsimile: (602) 279-9155
          E-mail: lisal@phillipslaw.com
                  timt@phillipslaw.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Sued in C.D. California for Violating TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Barshaw, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
08080-FMO-VBK (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2014) alleges violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Jury Deliberations Begin in Hip Implant Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye and Marice Richter, writing for Reuters, report that a
lawyer for a Montana woman on Oct. 21 urged jurors in a U.S. court
to find Johnson & Johnson's DePuy Orthopedics unit liable for
failing to warn patients that metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip implants
were defective at the close of the first trial over the device.

During the seven-week trial in Dallas, lawyers for Kathleen
Herlihy-Paoli accused the company of concealing the safety risks
of the metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip implants she received in 2009.
They said the company failed to warn doctors and patients that the
device could shed metal ions into the bloodstream, infecting
surrounding tissue and causing the level of metals such as cobalt
in the blood to soar.

DePuy has vigorously fought back against Ms. Herlihy-Paoli's
claims and said the device did not fail and the plaintiff's
lawyers never identified a specific flaw that caused her injuries.

The jury began deliberating on Oct. 21 and was expected to
continue on Oct. 22.  The case is before U.S. District Judge Ed
Kinkeade in the Northern District of Texas.

The outcome of Ms. Herlihy-Paoli's case will weigh on more than
6,000 other cases over Pinnacle hip implants that have been
consolidated in the same Dallas federal court, and could impact
Johnson & Johnson's willingness to settle the lawsuits or continue
to try cases in hopes of beating plaintiffs' claims.

In his closing argument on Oct. 21, a lawyer for Ms. Herlihy-
Paoli, Mark Lanier, said DePuy aggressively pushed the metal-on-
metal devices for younger patients with active lifestyles, saying
they could last longer than versions made with other materials
such as ceramic or polyethylene, a type of plastic.

But in doing so, Mr. Lanier said, the company ignored years' worth
of data suggesting that metal-on-metal hips failed at an
abnormally high rate, putting thousands of patients at risk.

"Send a clear message that holds them accountable," Mr. Lanier
told jurors.  He asked them to award at least $1.4 million for
Ms. Herlihy-Paoli's medical costs and an additional, unspecified
amount in punitive damages.

Throughout the trial, DePuy has maintained that the devices are
safe when properly used, and that plaintiffs' lawyers unfairly
tried to target Pinnacle for problems linked to different metal-
on-metal hip implants, including DePuy's ASR implant, which was
recalled in 2010.  Last year, DePuy agreed to pay $2.5 billion to
settle more than 7,000 lawsuits over its ASR metal-on-metal hips.

Richard Sarver, a lawyer for DePuy, said Ms. Herlihy-Paoli's two
Pinnacle hips may have been improperly positioned, and that her
active lifestyle may have exacerbated any problems.

"If you place a cup in the wrong position, which is what happened
here, bad things happen," Mr. Sarver said.

A spokeswoman for DePuy, Mindy Tinsley, said the company is
committed to "vigorously defending itself against the claims" made
in Pinnacle lawsuits.

The case is Herlihy-Paoli v. Pinnacle, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, No. 12-4975.


KNCMINER: California Attorney Mulls False Advertising Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Calouro, writing for NewsBTC, reports that California
attorney Charlotte C. Lin is planning to launch an investigation
in cryptocurrency mining manufacturer KnCMiner, an announcement
reveals.

Ms. Lin, who practices in a number of legal areas that include DUI
defense, immigration, employment, and more, has launched a website
at "kncclassaction.com" for the cause.

According to the announcement, the firm is actively "investigating
KNCMiner for possible breach of implied warranty of fitness,
misrepresentation, and other violations of law by failing to
provide a functional or usable product, false advertising; failing
to deliver product within adequate time frame, and failing to
provide refund upon demand."

Specifically, the website adds, "Under the terms of the advertised
Titan, it should 'Yield a minimum of 300 MH/s' and 'purchasers
shall also receive the Titan during Q3 of 2014' both of which have
certainly been up for debate in the mining community at large."

Said investigation will look into whether or not Titan miners were
delivered with less hashing power than advertised by KnCMiner, and
whether or not the company purposely gave the public the wrong
impression when it came to the Titan.

Ms. Lin's firm is seeking participants for the class action, but
it's unclear just where this one is headed for the time being.


LACLEDE INC: Removes "Cerreta" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Tammy Cerreta, et al. v.
Laclede, Inc., et al., Case No. BC557890, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-08066-DDP-AJW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for property damage.

          Jill T. Lin, Esq.
          Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
          Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET AND PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main Street Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: jlin@audetlaw.com
                  jezrin@audetlaw.com
                  mburton@audetlaw.com
                  waudet@audetlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Kohn, Esq.
          Kent M. Walker, Esq.
          Michael T. Lane, Esq.
          LEWIS KOHN AND WALKER LLP
          10935 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 370
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 436-1330
          Facsimile: (858) 436-1349
          E-mail: dkohn@Lewiskohn.com
                  kwalker@lewiskohn.com
                  mlane@lewiskohn.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Resch, Esq.
          Dale J. Giali, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: mresch@mayerbrown.com
                  dgiali@mayerbrown.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hallandale Police Trust Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Connolly, writing for Williamsburg Yorktown Daily, reports
that lawyers representing a trust fund for retired police officers
and firefighters from a small city near Miami have filed a class-
action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators, alleging actions by the
Toano-based company have caused the fund to lose money.

The suit, filed in federal court Sept. 17 on behalf of the
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust, is the second filed on behalf of shareholders of
the company.  It follows a class-action suit filed Nov. 26 on
behalf of a single shareholder, Gregg Kiken, and anyone else who
purchased stock in the company.

Lumber Liquidators has in the last year fielded five lawsuits --
two of which have been dismissed -- from customers and
shareholders following a September 2013 raid by federal agents of
the corporate headquarters in Toano and a storefront in Henrico
County.

The lawsuits have also included allegations the company had
sourced lumber products from the habitat of the endangered
Siberian Tiger and the company sold wood products containing
elevated levels of formaldehyde.

The Hallandale Beach suit also alleges the company repeatedly said
its supply network was diverse enough to meet customer demand
without affecting revenue and that its work to source lumber would
boost revenue and lead to a wider profit margin, according to the
complaint in that case.  It alleges the company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices because of those sentiments and that
when "poor financial results" were announced by company officials
in July, the Hallandale Beach fund lost money.

The filing of the Hallandale Beach suit has touched off a back-
and-forth between lawyers representing the trust fund and lawyers
representing Kiken's case, as the two are competing to have first
dibs on having their cases target actions by the company for a
window running from November 2013 through July 9, the day the
financial results the Hallandale Beach lawyers characterized as
"poor" were released.

Lumber Liquidators released a disclosure that day saying the
company's profit margin would shrink due to several factors,
including problems with inventory levels, increased costs and
adverse shifts in sales.  In that disclosure, the company's
projections for 2014 sales decreased by $100 million.

"In certain key merchandise categories, primarily laminates, vinyl
plank and engineered hardwoods, lower than planned inventory
levels reduced our ability to convert customer interest into
invoiced sales," Lumber Liquidators President and CEO Robert Lynch
said in a news release about the July 9 disclosure.  "Certain
mills experienced production delays in meeting our open orders as
we continued to enhance our quality assurance requirements."

On July 10, the company's stock price dropped 21.5 percent, from
$70.42 to $55.25.

The Kiken case initially targeted actions between February 22,
2013, and Nov. 22, 2013, though on Sept. 17, its lawyers filed a
motion seeking an extension to July 9. The same day, the
Hallandale Beach case was filed, and within a week, the Hallandale
Beach lawyers filed a motion in opposition to the Kiken request to
extend the window.

In that memorandum, the Hallandale Beach lawyers accuse the Kiken
lawyers of a "desire to assert control over any Lumber Liquidators
related litigation."  The Hallandale beach lawyers have also filed
a memorandum to intervene in the Kiken suit, which, if approved,
would allow them a chance to argue that the resolution of the
Kiken suit would negatively affect their case.

Lawyers for Lumber Liquidators are required to respond to the
Hallandale Beach complaint by Oct. 17, while the judge in the
Kiken is scheduled to respond by Oct. 24 to the motion to extend
the window of that case, according to federal court records.

When contacted on Oct.13 for comment, Lumber Liquidators said in a
statement it "does not comment on pending or in-progress
litigation of this nature."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Kaufman" Class Suit to New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kaufman, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. MID-L-5358-14, was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Trenton).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
06434-AET-DEA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian E. O'Donnell, Esq.
          RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP
          Headquarters Plaza
          One Speedwell Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1981
          Telephone: (973) 538-0800
          Facsimile: (973) 451-8604
          E-mail: bodonnell@riker.com


MERCK & CO: Lawyer in Fosamax Bellwether Trial Escapes Sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
four years after a federal district judge in New York lambasted a
product liability lawyer for going overboard in his closing
arguments during a bellwether trial against Merck & Co. Inc., an
appeals court has vacated sanctions against the attorney.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Oct. 20
that the trial judge overstepped his authority when he slapped a
$2,500 sanction on Gary Douglas -- gdouglas@douglasandlondon.com
-- name partner of New York plaintiffs firm Douglas & London.

In June 2010, Mr. Douglas won $8 million in compensatory damages
-- later reduced to $1.5 million -- in a jury trial against Merck
on behalf of his client Shirley Boles, who claimed that the
company was liable when she suffered bone disease in her jaw after
taking the osteoporosis drug Fosamax. (Ms. Boles in 2012 reached a
confidential settlement with Merck.)

But Merck's lawyers at Venable and Skadden were rankled by
Mr. Douglas' behavior during his closing arguments, and asked the
judge for sanctions.  U.S. District Judge John Keenan was
persuaded, ruling three months after the verdict that
Mr. Douglas's "verbal tirade" was over the top.  Mr. Douglas'
summation was given "in an agitated tone, scuttling about the well
of the courtroom, oddly gesturing, singing and laughing," Judge
Keenan wrote.  "To put it kindly, Mr. Douglas' style of advocacy
was aggressive and boisterous.  As Merck has suggested, it was
vaudeville."

The judge quoted liberally from the transcript of the argument.
"Fosamax, Fosamax every day," Mr. Douglas at one point told the
jury.  "Take one every day and keep your brittle bones away.  I
can just hear the theme song right now . . . and what's the
motivation? Sell more pills."

The judge also ruled that Mr. Douglas was "way off limits" when he
injected the issue of punitive damages into his summation when
only compensatory damages were before the jury.

"It's disgusting, disgusting" how Merck officials allegedly
foisted Fosamax on unsuspecting patients, Mr. Douglas said in his
closing argument, imploring jurors to "say something to Merck."
In his defense, Mr. Douglas noted that he had tried at least 50
cases to verdict and that though his style was at times
"demonstrative or dramatic, it is effective and within the bounds
of the law and accepted advocacy."  The Second Circuit agreed, at
least based on the descriptions in Judge Keenan's decision.  The
trial judge, the three-judge panel wrote, didn't provide enough
specific evidence to convince them that he had done anything
sanctionable.

Mr. Douglas' closing remarks "are not self-evidently improper, and
the district court did not expressly link these remarks with other
behaviors or other factors that might bear upon the issue of bad
faith," the panel wrote.  The appeals court vacated the order and
remanded the case back to Judge Keenan.

Calls to Mr. Douglas and to Merck's counsel, Venable's Paul Strain
-- pfstrain@Venable.com -- and John Beisner --
john.beisner@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, were not returned at press time.  But after eight years of
litigation and at least nine bellwether trials in which Merck had
a mostly winning record, Merck still faces more than 2,000 Fosamax
cases. In September, a federal district judge in New Jersey
ordered Merck and the remaining plaintiffs into mediation.


MERISANT COMPANY: Settles Class Action Over Sweetener Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dahl Administration, LLC on Oct. 13 disclosed that if you
purchased any Pure Via(R) Consumer Products, you could receive
compensation from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Merisant Company and Whole Earth Sweetener Company LLC, the
manufacturers of Pure Via Consumer Products, including all Pure
Via low calorie sweetener products.  The lawsuit claims that
Merisant mislabeled its Pure Via Consumer Products by describing
the products and their ingredients as "natural."  Merisant denies
the allegations in the suit, asserts it has not violated any laws,
and says that its description of various Pure Via products and
ingredients as "natural" is accurate.  To avoid further
litigation, the Parties have reached a class action settlement,
which was preliminarily approved by the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 6, 2014.

Under the terms of the settlement, you may be entitled to
compensation if you are a member of the Settlement Class, meaning
that you purchased any of the Pure Via Consumer Products in the
U.S. from January 1, 2008, through October 6, 2014, for individual
or household use.  Excluded from the Class are Merisant and its
board members, officers, and attorneys; governmental entities; the
Court presiding over the settlement; and those persons who timely
and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

What Does The Settlement Provide? Settlement Class Members may
submit a properly completed Claim Form and be eligible to receive
a cash refund of up to $30.  Merisant has also agreed to make
certain changes to Pure Via product labels and modify the
www.purevia.com website to further explain the nature of the
products and their ingredients.

This information is just a summary. Additional information about
this proposed settlement will be released in the next one to two
weeks.


NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Growers Warned Off Joining PSA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to secure.zeald.com, Maori kiwifruit growers are being
warned off taking part in a class action over PSA.

A group of western Bay of Plenty growers with backing from
litigation funder LPF Group is signing up growers for the case,
which alleges that negligence by Biosecurity New Zealand let the
vine disease into the country.  The disease is estimated to have
cost the country more than $885 million since 2010.

Te Awanui Hukapak chief executive Neil Te Kani chairs the Maori
Growers Forum, whose members account for about 10 percent of
kiwifruit grown.  He says the forum has offered them advice on the
pitfalls of joining the action, and it doesn't make sense to go to
war with the government.

"Now the government came to the party in terms of the PSA outbreak
with NZ$25 million taxpayer dollars.  Industry put in NZ$25
million. The outcome of this is that this class action has the
ability to poke the government in the eye with a thank you note,"
Mr. Te Kani says.

He says Maori growers have been sharing information about ways to
keep their vineyards healthy and better able to resist the
disease, and many growers are also switching to a new Zespri
cultivar to replace the Hort 16A gold kiwifruit.


NOVATO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Janis Mara, writing for Marin News, reports that Novato
Healthcare, a 181-bed nursing home in Novato, is among 57
California nursing homes targeted in a class-action lawsuit with
allegations of fraud, unfair business practices and violation of
residents' rights.

The complaint, filed on behalf of plaintiff Raymond Foreman by
attorney Stephen Garcia on Oct. 7 in Los Angeles Superior Court,
alleges among other things that Shlomo Rechnitz, owner of Brius
Management and Brius LLC, was "a serial violator of skilled
nursing industry laws and regulations."  Brius, based in Los
Angeles, is the owner of Novato Healthcare.

A Brius spokesman responded via email: "This lawsuit, which is
filled with baseless and untrue allegations, is nothing more than
a thinly veiled payback for refusing to pay plaintiff's attorney
. . . hundreds of thousands of dollars in so-called nursing home
'consulting fees.'"

The lawsuit did not describe personal injuries to nursing home
residents because "they are specifically excluded from this
particular type of class action lawsuit," Mr. Garcia said.

The attorney said that Mr. Foreman has brought an individual case
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging personal injuries.  That
lawsuit alleges that Mr. Foreman's nursing home, which was not
Novato Healthcare, was so understaffed that a certified nursing
assistant tried to move him by herself instead of with another
nursing assistant and fell on Foreman's leg, injuring him,
Mr. Garcia said.

According to Medicare.gov, the official U.S. government site for
Medicare, Novato Healthcare has an overall below-average rating; a
below-average health inspection rating; an average staffing
rating; and an above-average quality measure, which refers to
resident assessment data that show how well a nursing home cares
for residents' needs.

The lawsuit seeks to make Mr. Rechnitz comply with health care
facility laws and regulations, report future violations to the
Department of Public Health, survey patients to detect abuses and
be subject to money damages for any misconduct.


PACIFIC GAS: "Guerrero" Suit Interferes With PUC's Authority
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, agrees with
the trial court that the putative class action GUERRERO v. PACIFIC
GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. A139429, would interfere with
California Public Utilities Commission's performance of its duties
and affirms the trial court judgment for PG&E.

The action was brought by Filomena Guerrero, et al., against
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for deceptively representing to the
California Public Utilities Commission and the public how much
revenue it required to provide safe and reliable natural gas
service.  The class action complaint sought restitution and
disgorgement of profits for PG&E's wrongful diversion of more than
$100 million in rates it collected over a 13-year period that
should have been expended on natural gas pipeline safety projects.

PG&E argued that Public Utilities Code section 17593 foreclosed
the plaintiffs' claims because the PUC had exercised jurisdiction
over PG&E's rates, and a judgment for plaintiffs in a civil action
would interfere with the continuing jurisdiction of the PUC in
pending regulatory matters against PG&E.  The trial court
sustained PG&E's demurrer without leave to amend.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Oct. 10, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/bAFqNJfrom Leagle.com.

Eric Matthew Hairston, Esq. -- ehairston@orrick.com ; Scott
Anthony Westrich, Esq. -- swestrich@orrick.com ; and Joseph M.
Malkin, Esq. -- jmalkin@orrick.com -- of ORRICK HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE, Counsel for Respondents.


PACKAGING CORP: Recorded $17.6 Million Costs From Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America said in its earnings report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the nine months
ended September 30, 2014, includes $17.6 million of costs recorded
in "Other expense, net" for the settlement of the Kleen Products
LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al class action lawsuit.


PAPA JOHN'S: New York AG Sues Owners Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laila Kearney, writing for Reuters, reports that New York state's
attorney general sued the owners of five Papa John's pizza
restaurants in Manhattan on Oct. 16 for about $2 million over
claims that they had underpaid 400 delivery workers and shaved
hours from their paychecks.

The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over minimum wage laws
that has sparked protests by fast-food employees and prompted
cities across the United States to propose wage hikes for their
lowest-paid workers.

"Nobody who works 40 hours a week should have to live in poverty,"
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement.  "My
office will combat wage theft whenever and wherever we see it in
order to protect the rights of hardworking New Yorkers, including
pizza delivery workers and others who toil at fast-food
restaurants."

The lawsuit was filed in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan and
names Papa John's pizza franchisee New Majority Holdings LLC, and
its owner, Ronald Johnson, as defendants.  It seeks over $2
million in damages, about half of which is restitution for
suspected unpaid wages.

Attempts to reach a representative from New Majority Holdings or
Johnson on Oct. 16 were unsuccessful.

Restaurant workers at New Majority's five Papa John's outlets,
which are all in Manhattan, received pay for fewer hours than they
actually worked, the lawsuit claims.  It also claims that some
employees were given as little as $5 an hour, less than the $7.25
per hour that was required for most of the time period covered by
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is the result of a year-long investigation by the
state attorney general's Labor Bureau into New Majority's pay
practices.  The company is the first to be sued in the bureau's
ongoing investigations of multiple fast-food employers.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $41.1 Mil. in Damages in Tobacco Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Kenneth Byrd of the Nashville office of national
plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
disclosed that a jury in federal court in Orlando, Florida on
Oct. 22 returned a verdict of $41.1 million against Philip Morris
USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for conspiring for
decades to conceal the hazards of smoking and the addictive nature
of cigarettes.  The jury award consists of $15.8 million in
compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amounts of
$15.7 million against Philip Morris and $9.6 million against RJ
Reynolds.

In 1956, plaintiff Kenneth Kerrivan, a resident of Lake
Panasoffkee, Florida, began smoking when he was 14 years old.
Because of his addiction to nicotine from cigarettes, he developed
severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 1993.
Mr. Kerrivan tried numerous options to quit smoking, including
acupuncture, nicotine gum and the patch and was unsuccessful until
2006.  Mr. Kerrivan needs oxygen from an oxygen tank 24 hours a
day.

Kenneth Byrd, lead trial counsel for Mr. Kerrivan, said, "We are
pleased that the jury held Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds
accountable for their calculated choice to target children, such
as Mr. Kerrivan, to take up smoking."

At the trial, evidence was introduced showing that 90 percent of
daily cigarette smokers start smoking as teenagers and that the
tobacco industry targeted youth for this very reason.  The earlier
one takes up smoking, the more likely they are to become addicted
and the stronger that addiction.  Further evidence showed that
defendants engaged in a multi-decade conspiracy to mislead the
public that there was no proof that smoking cigarettes caused
cancer and other diseases such as COPD.
Mr. Kerrivan stated, "I'm glad the jury heard my case and
understood what these companies did to me and to others was so
wrong.  Some people have already congratulated me for winning.
But with terminal COPD and no ability to live any type of normal
life from day to day -- it doesn't feel like winning.  I would
give up all the money in the world for two good healthy lungs
again.  I hope other smokers in these cases get their day in court
and their stories get told."

Mr. Kerrivan smoked cigarettes that were marketed as safer --
filter cigarettes and then light and ultra-light cigarettes --
doing just as the cigarette companies asked their customers to do
if they were interested in smoking safer cigarettes.  The truth is
that light cigarettes were no safer, and the evidence showed that
tobacco executives knew that."

"At trial Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds sought to place all the
blame on Mr. Kerrivan for becoming addicted to nicotine as a
teenager in a time when the defendants widely marketed smoking
cigarettes using celebrities and famous athletes and advertised on
television shows popular with children and teenagers.  Thankfully,
the jury rejected this defense and held Philip Morris and RJ
Reynolds accountable for their decision to target an entire
generation of post-World War II American teenagers with a lifetime
addiction to nicotine," stated Mr. Byrd.  "The cigarette industry
argues that as Engle class members and their spouses die, their
lawsuits die with them.  We will continue working night and day to
see that these class members get their day in Court."  Mr. Byrd
was assisted in the trial by Sarah R. London, also of Lieff
Cabraser.

At the trial, Mr. Byrd served as lead counsel and was joined by
Sarah London of Lieff Cabraser's San Francisco office.  The case
is entitled Kenneth Kerrivan v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et
al., Case No. 3:09-cv-13703.  Mr. Byrd is licensed to practice law
in Tennessee.  Ms. London is licensed to practice law in
California.


POMPANO DIVE: Removes "Parker" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Parker v. Pompano Dive Center,
LLC, et al., Case No. CACE 14-018456, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft.
Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-
62406-UU to the proceeding.

The action involves an overtime claim brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Behren, Esq.
          BEHREN LAW FIRM
          2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 636-3802
          Facsimile: (772) 252-3365
          E-mail: scott@behrenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gene D. Lipscher, Esq.
          GENE D. LIPSCHER, P.A.
          1025 West Indiantown Road, Suite 106
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 747-4848
          Facsimile: (561) 747-4410
          E-mail: lipscher@gmail.com


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Sued in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Willemsen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Professional Recovery Services Inc. and John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-06421-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., October 17, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PULLIN LAW: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Text Message Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for The New York Law Journal, reports a
Connecticut resident is attempting to bring a class action suit
against a New York law firm for allegedly violating a consumer
protection law by sending out unsolicited text message
advertisements.

The plaintiff, Craig Moskowitz, said he brought a putative class
action in the Eastern District, Moskowitz v. Pullin Law Firm,
14-06010, against the Pullin Law Firm in Woodbury on behalf of
himself and "a nationwide class of individuals" who also received
unauthorized texts.

He claims that as early as July 2013, the Pullin firm, run by
Allan Pullin, directed the mass transmission of unauthorized
messages to cellphones nationwide.  Such messages, the suit said,
are prohibited under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Mr. Moskowitz said one text referred to news of Fannie Mae's
agreement to a multibillion-dollar settlement.  "Call me to see
how this effects YOUR home loan terms," the message allegedly
said, and provided a phone number.

The Pullin Law Firm continues to send spam without checking
whether recipients have consented to receive it, according to the
suit, which claims each member should receive $500 in damages for
each violation of the TCPA and an injunction to prevent further
violations.

Preston Leonard, Mr. Moskowitz's attorney and head of the Leonard
Law Office in Boston, said he knows of no other suit against a New
York law firm alleging a TCPA violation for text message
advertising.  Mr. Leonard said he has filed suits making similar
allegations against technology companies.  Mr. Moskowitz is also
represented by Matthew Fogelman, of Fogelman & Fogelman.

Allan Pullin did not return messages seeking comment.


RED BULL: Hearing to Approve Settlement Set for May 2015
--------------------------------------------------------
Lian Zi, writing for China Daily USA, reports that Red Bull owes
you money if you purchased the drink between 2002 and Oct 3, 2014,
according to a settlement.

Red Bull faces two consumer class-action lawsuits filed by
customers.  According to the published documents, plaintiffs
allege that Red Bull's marketing and labeling misrepresent both
the functionality and safety of Red Bull beverages.

Red Bull responded to the lawsuit in a statement sent to BevNET
reading, in part: "Red Bull settled the lawsuit to avoid the cost
and distraction of litigation.  However, Red Bull maintains that
its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate,
and denies any and all wrongdoing or liability."

The company recently announced it would refund $13 million in
total to consumers to settle the lawsuits.  But according to an
update on Mail Online, due to the mass amount of claims submitted
these days, the settlement is likely to offer each applicant $3,
instead of the $10, which was reported earlier in the media.

A customer service representative of Red Bull told China Daily
that customers should file claims before March 2015.  There will
be a hearing on May 1, 2015, to decide whether the settlement will
be approved by the court.  The money will be refunded within 150
days after the settlement approved, which means that consumers
would get their money around Oct 2015.

No proof of purchase is necessary to receive refunds.  The offer
only applies to customers in the US, according to the
representative.

Red Bull dominates the US energy drink market and is also popular
in China.  Red Bull China, which is a separate company from Red
Bull, acquired the rights to sell Red Bull products to Chinese
consumers in the early 1990s.

"It has increased sales of the energy drink there to more than
$2.5 billion a year with a robust marketing and distribution
operation," the New York Times reports.

Even though false advertising class actions are very common in the
US, they are probably rarely used or publicized in China, said
Thomas T. Chan, partner of Fox Rothschild, a Los Angeles-based law
firm.

"Consumer class actions make sure a company does not cheat
consumers even for small amounts since the company has to pay huge
sums to the consumers and the lawyers to settle the lawsuit," said
Mr. Chan, adding that consumer class action is a lawsuit in which
a plaintiff sues a company on behalf of all consumers.

Chinese business experts suggest that the Chinese government
promote a consumer class action law.

"In China, there are lots of exaggerated ads, but customers are
not protected because of limited law enforcement," said Zheng
Yuhuang, a professor at Tsinghua University.

A consumer class action law could protect customers from being
defrauded and promote healthy competition in the market, Zheng
said.


REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Summary Judgment Upheld in Minors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs O.S.T. and L.H., together with their parents, filed a
class action complaint against insurer Regence BlueShield for
breach of contract of their health policies.

Both O.S.T. and L.H. are children who had developmental disorders
and needed neurodevelopmental therapies.  The plaintiffs allege
that Regence did not cover or pay for the therapies needed.

On Dec. 12, 2012, Judge Erlick granted partial summary judgment to
the plaintiffs, holding that "any provisions contained in Regence
BlueShield policies issued and delivered to Plaintiffs O.S.T. and
L.H. on or after January 1, 2008 that exclude coverage of
neurodevelopmental therapies regardless of medical necessity are
declared invalid, void and unenforceable by Defendant and its
agents."

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington, sitting en banc,
affirmed the trial court's order of partial summary judgment.
"Regence BlueShield's blanket exclusion of neurodevelopmental
therapies in its individual policies violates the mental health
parity act. If neurodevelopmental therapies are medically
necessary to treat mental disorders (and the contract provides
coverage for medical and surgical services), Regence BlueShield
must provide coverage for the therapies. The exclusion is void and
invalid as a matter of Washington law," Justice Charles Wiggins
opined, penning the Supreme Court's decision.

The case is O.S.T, by and through his parents, G.T. and E.S.; and
L.H., by and through his parents, M.S. and K.H., each on his own
behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Respondents, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD, a Washington corporation,
Appellant, NO. 88940-6.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Oct. 9, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/VbKlwYfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Respondents are:

     Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
     Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
     SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
     999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Email: info@sylaw.com
     Tel No: (206)223-0303
     Fax No: (206)223-0246


REMEX REVENUE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Kassin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Remex Revenue Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-06420-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., October 17, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Removes "Aliff" Suit to Georgia District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services
removed the lawsuit captioned Aliff, et al. v. Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, et al., Case No. 2014CV0646, from the Superior Court
of Columbia County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia (Augusta).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-00198-JRH-BKE to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angela Carter McElroy-Magruder, Esq.
          CLAEYS, MCELROY-MAGRUDER & ASSOCIATES
          512 Telfair St.
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Telephone: (706) 724-6000
          Facsimile: (706) 724-3363
          E-mail: mcelroymagruder@aol.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          David E. Hudson, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, PC
          P.O. Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722-4481
          Facsimile: (706) 722-9779
          E-mail: ccosper@hullbarrett.com
                  dhudson@hullbarrett.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin H. Brewton, Esq.
          Jason W. Blanchard, Esq.
          TUCKER, EVERITT, LONG, BREWTON & LANIER, PC
          P.O. Box 2426
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-0771
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7028
          E-mail: bbrewton@thefirm453.com
                  jblanchard@tuckerlong.com


REVENUE RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Nemerovsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Revenue Recovery Corporation, Case No. 2:14-
cv-00607-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla., October 20, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Alaimo, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 175 Tobacco Cases Pending vs RJR at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
during the third quarter of 2014, 11 tobacco-related cases,
including one Engle Progeny case, were served against RJR Tobacco
or its affiliates or indemnitees. On September 30, 2014, there
were 175 cases pending against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees: 159 in the United States and 16 in Canada, as
compared with 165 total cases on September 30, 2013. The U.S. case
number does not include the approximately 564 individual smoker
cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated
action, 4,069 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 5,171
individual plaintiffs, and 2,570 Broin II cases, pending in the
United States against RJR Tobacco or its affiliates or
indemnitees. Of the U.S. cases pending on September 30, 2014, 16
are pending in federal court, 142 in state court and 1 in tribal
court, primarily in the following states: Maryland (28 cases);
Florida (25 cases); Missouri (18 cases); and New York (14 cases).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of 750 Engle Progeny Cases Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Eleventh Circuit on September 10, 2014, affirmed the dismissal of
750 Engle Progeny cases pending in federal court:

   * 588 personal injury suits filed on behalf of deceased
smokers,

   * 160 loss of consortium cases, and

   * 2 wrongful death cases filed more than two years after the
smoker's death.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are
commonly referred to as "Engle Progeny" cases.

As of September 30, 2014, 944 Engle Progeny cases were pending in
federal court, and 3,125 of them were pending in state court.
These cases include approximately 5,171 plaintiffs. In addition,
as of September 30, 2014, RJR Tobacco was aware of 16 additional
Engle Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One
hundred eleven Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida
state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state court
trials are scheduled for 2014. The number of pending cases
fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and
involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in
which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in
Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco
and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the
plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco's right to recover attorneys'
fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR
Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered
mediations.

In Engle Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the
proper use of the preserved Engle findings. RJR Tobacco has argued
that use of the Engle findings to establish individual elements of
progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a
violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the
Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected
that argument. In addition to this global due process argument,
RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as
appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other
things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the
Engle class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by
any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that
some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes
of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused
by the smoker's own conduct.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 25 Engle Progeny Cases Now Final
---------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that 25
Engle Progeny cases have become final to date. These cases
resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $198.9 million
($150.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $48.8
million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest).

During the third quarter of 2014, aggregate payments of $12.5
million were made: $10 million for compensatory and punitive
damages and $1.9 million for attorneys' fees and statutory
interest in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Crawford
case, described below, and $560,000 for attorneys' fees and
statutory interest in the Mack and Townsend cases, the judgments
of which were paid in June 2014.

Based on RJR Tobacco's evaluation, an accrual of $2.6 million
($840,000 for compensatory damages and $238,000 for attorneys'
fees and statutory interest for Hiott, Starr-Blundell and Clayton,
and $1.56 million for attorneys' fees and statutory interest for
Ward, the judgment of which was paid in January 2014) was recorded
in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of
September 30, 2014.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Engle Progeny Plaintiffs Win $23BB Judgments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as
of September 30, 2014, outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle
Progeny plaintiffs have been entered and remain outstanding
against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $120,284,200 in compensatory
damages (as adjusted) and in the amount of $23,730,965,000 in
punitive damages, for a total of $23,851,249,200.

Excluding the Robinson case, where a jury awarded $16.9 million in
compensatory damages and $23.6 billion in punitive damages and
where post-trial motions are pending before the trial court,
outstanding judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs
have been entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco in
the amount of $103,384,200 in compensatory damages (as adjusted)
and in the amount of $130,965,000 in punitive damages, for a total
of $234,349,200. All of these verdicts are at various stages in
the appellate process. RJR Tobacco continues to believe that it
has valid defenses in these cases, including case-specific issues
beyond the due process issue discussed above. It is the policy of
RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to vigorously defend all smoking
and health claims, including in Engle Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco not prevail in any particular individual Engle
Progeny case or determine that in any individual Engle Progeny
case an unfavorable outcome has become probable and the amount can
be reasonably estimated, a loss would be recognized, which could
have a material adverse effect on earnings and cash flows of RAI
in a particular quarter or year. This position on loss recognition
for Engle Progeny cases as of September 30, 2014, is consistent
with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic position on loss recognition
for other smoking and health litigation. It is also the policy of
RJR Tobacco to record any loss concerning litigation at such time
as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be
reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 11 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in 2014 3rd Qtr
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in
the third quarter of 2014, 11 Engle Progeny cases in which RJR
Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

   1) In Robinson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Michael
Johnson, Sr., to be 29.5% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70.5% at
fault and awarded $16.9 million in compensatory damages and $23.6
billion in punitive damages.

   2) In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury allocated fault: (1)
for the survival claim as follows: decedent - 60%, RJR Tobacco -
15%, and the remaining defendants collectively - 25%, and (2) for
the wrongful death claim as follows: decedent - 70%, RJR Tobacco -
10%, and the remaining defendants collectively - 20%. The jury
awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages for the wrongful death
claim and $1.3 million in compensatory damages for the survival
claim. Punitive damages were not awarded.

   3) In Gore v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a
mistrial because the jury returned a potentially inconsistent
verdict. The jury found for the plaintiff on liability, but
awarded no compensatory damages and determined that the plaintiff
was entitled to punitive damages.

   4) In Wilcox v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Cleston
Wilcox, to be 30% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 70% at fault, and
awarded $7 million in compensatory damages and $8.5 million in
punitive damages.

   5) In Irimi v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Dale Moyer,
to be 70% at fault, RJR Tobacco to be 14.5% at fault, and the
remaining defendants collectively to be 15.5% at fault, and
awarded approximately $3.1 million in compensatory damages.
Punitive damages were not awarded.

   6) In Hubbird v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, David
Ellsworth, to be 50% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 50% at fault,
and awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in
punitive damages.

   7) In Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared
a mistrial because the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

   8) In Baum v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

   9) In Ellis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

   10) In Morse v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared
a mistrial because of improper testimony by the plaintiff's
addiction witness.

   11) In Bryant v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco and other
cigarette manufacturers will have an increased number of tobacco-
related trials in 2014. There are five cases, exclusive of Engle
Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of September 30, 2014
through September 30, 2015, for RJR Tobacco or its affiliates and
indemnitees: one non-smoking and health case and four individual
smoking and health cases. There are 65 Engle Progeny cases against
RJR Tobacco and/or Brown & Williamson set for trial through
September 30, 2015, but it is not known how many of these cases
will actually be tried.

From January 1, 2011 through September 30, 2014, 116 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco or B&W were defendants were tried, including seven
trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original
proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and, in some
cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W and other defendants, were returned in 60
cases, including 17 mistrials, tried in Florida (57), Missouri (1)
and West Virginia (2). Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were
returned in 52 cases tried in Florida and one in New York. Three
cases in Florida were dismissed during trial.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $1.37MM in Damages Awarded in "Lourie" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
since the end of the third quarter of 2014, a decision was entered
in one Engle Progeny case.  In Lourie v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found
the decedent, Barbara Lourie, to be 63% at fault, RJR Tobacco to
be 3% at fault and the remaining defendants collectively to be 34%
at fault, and awarded approximately $1.37 million in compensatory
damages. Punitive damages were not awarded.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR's Brief in "Izzarelli" Appeal Due Nov. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s brief is due on November 3, 2014, in
the case Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds
American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On May 26, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in December 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal
injuries that the plaintiff alleges she sustained as a result of
unsafe and unreasonably dangerous cigarette products and for
economic losses she sustained as a result of unfair trade
practices of the defendant. The jury found RJR Tobacco to be 58%
at fault and the plaintiff to be 42% at fault, awarded $13.9
million in compensatory damages and found the plaintiff to be
entitled to punitive damages.

In December 2010, the court awarded the plaintiff $3.97 million in
punitive damages. Final judgment was entered in December 2010, in
the amount of $11.95 million. The court granted the plaintiff's
motion for offer of judgment interest, and awarded the plaintiff
$15.8 million for the period of December 6, 1999 up to and
including December 5, 2010, and approximately $4,000 per day
thereafter until an amended judgment was entered. The amended
judgment was entered in the amount of approximately $28.1 million
in March 2011.

RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal in September 2011, and the
plaintiff thereafter cross appealed with respect to the punitive
damages award. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit issued an opinion that certified the following
question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to
section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit
premised on strict products liability against a cigarette
manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully
manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without
regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but
in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?"

Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted a motion to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit to amend the certification order
to add a second question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does
Comment i to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
preclude a claim under the [Connecticut Products Liability Act]
against a cigarette manufacturer for negligence (in the design of
its cigarette products)?" The Second Circuit denied the
plaintiff's motion.

The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certified question and
denied the plaintiff's request to amend the question with the same
additional question that the plaintiff proposed to the Second
Circuit.

The plaintiff submitted her brief on July 31, 2014. RJR Tobacco's
brief is due on November 3, 2014. The Second Circuit has retained
jurisdiction over the parties' appeals and will decide the case
after the Connecticut Supreme Court has completed its proceedings.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Decision Pending in "Whitney" Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
A decision is pending in the appeal in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Quarterly Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 21, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR
Tobacco. The case was filed in January 2011, in the Circuit Court,
Alachua County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of
using the defendants' products, she suffers from lung cancer and
emphysema. Final judgment was entered in July 2013. The plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the First District Court of Appeal,
and the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal in August 2013.
Oral argument occurred on October 14, 2014. A decision is pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument Set in West Virginia IPIC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing is complete but oral argument has not been scheduled in
the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases, Reynolds
American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases began
in 1999, in West Virginia state court, as a series of roughly
1,200 individual plaintiff cases making claims with respect to
cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris, Lorillard, RJR Tobacco,
B&W and The American Tobacco Company. The cases were consolidated
for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be
followed in Phase II by individual trials of any claims left
standing. Over the years, approximately 600 individual plaintiff
claims were dismissed for failure to comply with the case
management order, leaving 564 individual cases pending as of April
2013.

On April 15, 2013, the Phase I jury trial began and ended with a
virtually complete defense verdict on May 15, 2013. The jury found
that cigarettes were not defectively designed, were not defective
due to a failure to warn prior to July 1, 1969, that defendants
were not negligent, did not breach warranties and did not engage
in conduct which would warrant punitive damages. The only claim
remaining after the verdict was the jury's finding that all
ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. The
defendants believe that there are only 30 plaintiffs remaining who
arguably claim to have smoked a ventilated filter cigarette during
the relevant period. The court initially entered judgment on the
verdict identifying the 30 plaintiffs remaining, but vacated those
orders as premature (leaving to a later day the task of
identifying the plaintiffs who might be able to assert a
ventilated filter failure to instruct claim during the narrow
relevant period). The court entered a new judgment in October
2013, dismissing all claims lost by the plaintiffs and purporting
to make those claims and all of the jury rulings immediately
subject to appeal.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals in November 2013. Briefing is complete.
Oral argument has not been scheduled. The defendants reserved the
right to challenge the ventilated filter claim in the event any
plaintiff pursues and succeeds on such a claim.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,570 Broin II Cases Pending in Fla at Sept 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2014, there were 2,570 Broin II lawsuits
pending in Florida and there have been no Broin II trials since
2007, Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 21, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

RJR Tobacco, Brown & Williamson and other cigarette manufacturer
defendants settled Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. in October 1997.
This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of
flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or
ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The
settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies
to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million
installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to
fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases
associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to
pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and
expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was
approximately $86 million; B&W's portion of these payments was
approximately $57 million.

The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing
aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars
individual claims to the extent that they are based on fraud,
misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or
misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other
alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed
that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the
defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether
ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred
to as "general causation."

With respect to all other issues relating to liability, including
whether an individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her
exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specific
causation," the individual plaintiff will have the burden of
proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved
the settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of
this case.

On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to
all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement
agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to
prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or
negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in
the plaintiffs' favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear
the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects
actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that
is, specific causation.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Cert. Bid in "Sateriale" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A decision is pending on RJR Tobacco's motion for summary
judgment, and the plaintiff's motion for class certification in
the case Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds
American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that
in response to the defendants' action to discontinue redemption of
Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007, customers, like the plaintiffs,
attempted to exchange their Camel Cash for merchandise and that
the defendants, however, did not have any merchandise to exchange
for Camel Cash. The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices,
deceptive practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and
expenses.

In January 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
prompted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in February
2010. The class definition changed to a class consisting of all
persons who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem
Camel Cash certificates, from October 1, 2006 (six months before
the defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs also brought the
class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting of
all California residents meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and, alternatively,
for failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

In July 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint was granted with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss
in September 2010. In December 2010, the court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Final judgment was
entered by the court, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal,
in January 2011.

In July 2012, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract.
RJR Tobacco's motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied
in October 2012. RJR Tobacco filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in December 2012.

In June 2014, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for summary judgment, and
the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Oral
arguments on those motions were held on September 15, 2014. A
decision is pending. The trial, if necessary, has been rescheduled
to a date yet to be determined in the first quarter of 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Ill. High Court to Hear Philip Morris Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear Philip Morris's appeal
in the "lights" class-action case, Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Quarterly Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or
Brown & Williamson in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2). The classes
in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per
class member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and
other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR
Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR
Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights"
cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less
hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases
typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and
related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims are
not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising
Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to as FTC,
historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision in
December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003. In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages. Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion. Philip
Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond
requirement.

On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
lower court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court
with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and for
entry of final judgment. The case was dismissed with prejudice the
same day. In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for
relief from judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the
reversal. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in
February 2009.

In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court. On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an order,
concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a petition for
relief from a final judgment began to run when the trial court
dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18, 2006. The
appellate court therefore found that the petition was timely,
reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

On September 28, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip
Morris's petition for leave to appeal and returned the case to the
trial court for further proceedings. In December 2012, the trial
court denied the plaintiffs' petition for relief from the
judgment. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois
Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District.

In April 2014, the appellate court reinstated the 2003 verdict. In
May 2014, Philip Morris filed a petition for leave to appeal to
the Illinois Supreme Court and a motion for supervisory order.
Philip Morris has requested the Illinois Supreme Court to direct
the Fifth Judicial District to vacate its April 2014 judgment and
to order the Fifth Judicial District to affirm the trial court's
denial of the plaintiff's petition for relief from the judgment,
or in the alternative, grant its petition for leave to appeal. On
September 24, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear
Philip Morris's appeal.


RTG FURNITURE: Removes "Roseboro" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roseboro v. R.T.G. Furniture
Corp., et al., Case No. 14-CA-009335, was removed from the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-
cv-02626-VMC-EAJ to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs owed to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schuette, Esq.
          JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
          9700 Dr MLK Jr St N, Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          E-mail: mschuette@johnbales.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew R. Lincoln, Esq.
          Shane T. Munoz, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 261-7839
          Facsimile: (813) 261-7899
          E-mail: dlincoln@fordharrison.com
                  smunoz@fordharrison.com


SAGA HIBACHI: Faces "Ali-Oliva" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olman Ali-Oliva and Angel Ramos-Oliva, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Saga Hibachi Steakhouse & Sushi Bar
and Steven Lyn, Case No. 2:14-cv-01421-MPK (W.D. Pa., October 20,
2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Megan Wildman Walker, Esq.
          COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
          429 Forbes Ave., Suite 800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 434-6002
          E-mail: mwalker@cjplaw.org


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Removes "Kumar" Suit to Texas District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. DC-14-11783, was removed from the
162nd District Court of Dallas County, Texas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-03746-K to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

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

Defendants Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., Thomas G. Dundon,
Jason A. Kulas, Gonzalo de Las Heras, Alberto Sanchez, Matthew
Kabaker, Tagar C. Olson, Daniel Zilberman, Javier San Felix, Roman
Blanco, Stephen A. Ferriss, Juan Carlos Alvarez, and Juan Andres
Yanes are represented by:

          R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
          Matthew A. McGee, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 651-5000
          Facsimile: (214) 200-0886
          E-mail: thad.behrens@haynesboone.com
                  matt.mcgee@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. DiPrima, Esq.
          David B. Anders, Esq.
          Lauren M. Kofke, Esq.
          Caitlin A. Donovan, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
          E-mail: SRDiPrima@wlrk.com
                  DBAnders@wlrk.com
                  LMKofke@wlrk.com
                  CADonovan@wlrk.com

Defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Santander Investment Securities Inc.,
Barclays Capital Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, KKR Capital Markets LLC, Sandler O'Neill &
Partners, L.P., Stephens Inc. and LOYAL3 Securities, Inc. are
represented by:

          Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 655-5160
          Facsimile: (713) 483-9160
          E-mail: Charles.Schwartz@skadden.com

               - and -

          Michelle L. Davis, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          2521 Springer Road
          Midlothian, TX 76065
          Telephone: (972) 723-6370
          Facsimile: (713) 483-9197
          E-mail: Michelle.Davis@skadden.com


SHELL CHEMICAL: "Rowell" Injury Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant International-Matex Tank Terminals removed the class
action lawsuit styled Rowell, et al. v. Shell Chemical LP, et al.,
Case No. 2014-8954, from the Civil District Court - Orleans Parish
to the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(New Orleans).  The Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-02392-CJB-DEK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts personal injury claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL & BICKFORD
          338 Lafayette St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com
                  usdcedla@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Marcelle, Esq.
          Stephen M. Huber, Esq.
          HUBER, SLACK, HOUGHTALING, PANDIT & THOMAS, LLP
          1100 Poydras St., Suite 1405
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 274-2500
          E-mail: bmarcelle@huberslack.com
                  stephen@hshptlaw.com

Defendant Shell Chemical LP is represented by:

          Leonard L. Kilgore, III, Esq.
          Esteban Herrera, Jr., Esq.
          Lana Davis Crump, Esq.
          KEAN MILLER (BATON ROUGE)
          II City Plaza
          400 Convention St., Suite 700
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 387-0999
          Facsimile: (225) 388-9133
          E-mail: len.kilgore@keanmiller.com
                  esteban.herrera@keanmiller.com
                  lana.crump@keanmiller.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Williams, Esq.
          KEAN MILLER LLP (NEW ORLEANS)
          First Bank & Trust Tower
          909 Poydras Street, Suite 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 585-3050
          E-mail: anthony.williams@keanmiller.com

Defendant International-Matex Tank Terminals, named as
International-Matex Terminals, is represented by:

          Elton Ford Duncan, III, Esq.
          Emmitt L. DuBose, III, Esq.
          Harry E. Morse, Esq.
          DUNCAN & SEVIN, LLC
          400 Poydras St., Suite 1200
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5566
          Facsimile: (504) 524-9003
          E-mail: eduncan@duncansevin.com
                  tdubose@duncansevin.com
                  hmorse@duncansevin.com

               - and -

          David Robert Kelly, Esq.
          John Baird King, Esq.
          BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L. L. P.
          One American Place
          301 Main Street, Suite 2300
          Baton Rouge, LA 70821
          Telephone: (225) 387-4000
          E-mail: drk@bswllp.com
                  jbk@bswllp.com


SILVERMAN THEOLOGOU: Removes "Allen" Suit to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Allen v. Silverman Theologou LLP,
Case No. 24-C-14-005254, was removed from the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland (Baltimore).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-03257-RDB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. David Hoskins, Esq.
          Max F. Brauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS LLC
          16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 662-6500
          Facsimile: (410) 662-7800
          E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com
                  maxbrauer@hoskinslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley Todd Canter, Esq.
          Ronald S. Canter, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC
          200A Monroe St., Suite 104
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (301) 424-7490
          Facsimile: (301) 424-7470
          E-mail: bcanter@roncanterllc.com
                  rcanter@roncanterllc.com


SOVRAN SELF: Removes "Castro" Suit to New Jersey District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Castro v. Sovran Self Storage,
Inc., et al., Case No. BUR-L-2020-14, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division,
Burlington County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-06446-JEI-JS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Defendant has engaged
in "deceptive, unconscionable and unlawful practices against
Plaintiff and members of the [putative class] by displaying,
showing, giving, offering and/or entering into form [storage unit
rental] contracts, which are identical to or substantially similar
to the RENTAL AGREEMENT-NEW JERSEY."  The Complaint contends that
the Defendant "offered, gave, displayed, and entered into, upon
information and belief, thousands of Agreements, which contain the
same or substantially similar unenforceable provisions, to and
with thousands of New Jersey consumers."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          James A. Barry, Esq.
          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200
          Facsimile: (856) 823-1551
          E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com
                  jbarry@lockslaw.com
                  mgalpern@lockslaw.com

               - and -

          Charles N. Riley, Esq.
          RILEY & SHAINE
          900 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-0379
          Telephone: (856) 667-4666
          E-mail: criley@rileysandilos.com

               - and -

          J. Stewart Grad, Esq.
          J. STEWART GRAD, P.A.
          223 Main Street
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (201) 634-0011
          E-mail: jgradatlaw@comcast.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven P. Benenson, Esq.
          John T. Chester, Esq.
          PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, PC
          100 Southgate Parkway
          PO Box 1997
          Morristown, NJ 07962-1997
          Telephone: (973) 538-4006
          E-mail: spbenenson@pbnlaw.com
                  jtchester@pbnlaw.com


TAKATA CORP: NHTSA Expands Warning on Faulty Airbags
----------------------------------------------------
Sandra Maler, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. highway
safety regulator, NHTSA, expanded its warning on Oct. 21 about
faulty airbags made by Japanese auto-part maker Takata to 6.1
million vehicles in the United States.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration urges owners
of certain Toyota, Honda, Mazda, BMW, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru,
Chrysler, Ford and General Motors vehicles to act immediately on
recall notices to replace defective Takata airbags," it said in a
statement.

"Over six million vehicles are involved in these recalls, which
have occurred as far back as 18 months ago and as recently as
Monday," it added.  The previous NHTSA warning, issued on Oct. 20,
covered 4.74 million vehicles, and dragged Takata's shares down 23
percent on Oct. 21 in Tokyo, the stock's biggest-ever one-day
drop.


THAT'S HOW WE ROLL: Faces Class Action "Natural" Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action accusing a snack food company of
unlawfully labeling a product as "natural" has triggered a blast
by the defense at the office of plaintiffs' lawyer Howard
Rubinstein, describing him as an ethically challenged attorney who
was disbarred in Texas for stealing money.

Attorneys for start-up snack food company That's How We Roll
leveled the charges against Rubinstein in an Oct. 9 motion
opposing class certification in Scarola v. That's How We Roll,
filed on July 25 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.

Mr. Rubinstein, the motion says, "was disbarred in Texas for
stealing client funds, was recently disciplined for not disclosing
his disbarment on pro hac vice applications, has been rejected as
class counsel in similar labeling cases, has had his pro hac vice
privileges revoked in other actions, and already tried secretly to
enrich himself in this case at the expense of the purported
'class' he hopes to represent."

Mr. Rubinstein, who said he is not personally litigating the
Scarola case, emphatically disputed the allegations as a
"mischaracterization."  He said he is an attorney in good standing
in Texas and Florida.

"I can assure you some of the statements are untrue," Rubinstein
said Oct. 13 in a telephone interview.

Palm Beach County, Fla., plaintiff David Scarola alleges the
company fraudulently represented that at least three of its
varieties of Party'tizers Dippin' Chips were "all natural," even
though they contain unnatural, synthetic, artificial or
genetically modified ingredients, including corn products.

Mr. Scarola paid a premium price of $3.79 for a bag of
Party'tizers Three Bean Dippin' Chips but would not have done so
had he known the bowl-shaped chips were not all natural, according
to the complaint.

The plaintiffs allege That's How We Roll, based in Fairfield,
N.J., has violated Florida's deceptive trade practices statute and
engaged in negligent misrepresentation, breaches of warranty and
unjust enrichment. They seek injunctive relief, restitution,
damages and disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains."

The defendants, led by attorneys with Astigarraga Davis Mullins &
Grossman and Braunhagey & Borden, categorically deny the
allegation and say the complaint lacks the minimum requirements
for a class action, citing problems in identifying the class,
proving damages or establishing grounds for an injunction.
Mr. Rubinstein even asked the judge to stay his own motion, the
defense said.

Defense counsel depict Mr. Rubinstein as a chronic class-action
filer "who has papered California (and now Florida) with over 60
labeling lawsuits against food companies."  In their motion, they
list a series of suspensions they said were imposed against
Rubinstein by the Texas Bar, including one in September for, among
other allegations, making misrepresentations in at least 10 pro
hac vice applications.

The defense says Mr. Rubinstein has been chastised because he
"consistently failed to follow court orders, abide by court
deadlines, and vigorously litigate the case," and produced a
motion that was "half-coherent" and "gibberish."

"By his serial professional and prelitigation misconduct,
Rubinstein has shown he is inadequate to protect the class," the
defense argue.

In fact, Mr. Rubinstein said, the suspensions by the Texas Bar --
which were fully probated -- involved such minor matters as
misplaced files.  He expressed dismay at the personal attacks.
"It's just unfortunate.  I don't know why it's gotten that way,"
he said.


THOMAS J. HENRY: Former Paralegals File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that two former
paralegals employed by a large Corpus Christi-based personal
injury firm claim that overtime wages were missing from their
paychecks in a collective action recently filed in a San Antonio
U.S. district court.

The plaintiffs, Sarah Garza and Roberta Riley, filed the complaint
under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] against Thomas J. Henry
Injury Attorneys and Thomas J. Henry.

The Oct. 7 complaint was filed on behalf of current and former
employees of the 64-attorney firm, alleging that the defendants
failed to pay them overtime wages over the course of three years.
The complaint seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and
attorney fees under the FLSA on behalf of Ms. Garza, Ms. Riley and
similarly situated employees.

"My firm doesn't normally sue other attorneys, but this one could
not be ignored," said Alfonso Kennard, a partner in Houston's
Kennard Blankenship Robinson, who represents Garza and Riley.
"They were systematically working these legal assistants like
mules and failed to pay them overtime when they were constantly on
call and working more than 40 hours in any given week."  Thomas J.
Henry did not immediately return a call for comment.  Neither did
Shauna Clark -- shauna.clark@nortonrosefulbright.com -- a partner
in Houston's Fulbright Norton Rose, who represents the defendants
in the case.

Mr. Henry made the news recently when he donated nearly $694,000
to a candidate who is seeking to unseat Susan Reed, Bexar County's
criminal district attorney.  Mr. Henry made four "in-kind
contributions" to the campaign of Nicholas "Nico" LaHood,
according to LaHood's Oct. 6 campaign finance report.


TRANSAM TRUCKING: Wins Bid to Reopen Discovery in Wage Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Blair and Charlie Davis, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated truck drivers, assert claims against Transam
Trucking for failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act. Plaintiffs seek
conditional certification of collective claims under the FLSA and
class certification for their KWPA claims.

The matter is before the Court on Transam Trucking's motion to
reopen discovery and extend time to respond to plaintiffs' motions
for class certification.

Because the Court finds that good cause exists to modify the
scheduling order, District Judge Eric F. Melgren grants Transam
Trucking's motion for the limited purpose of allowing discovery of
four new plaintiffs -- Chad Frobos, Rob Hanneken, Scott Ross, and
James Sturgeon -- who consented to be party plaintiffs near or
after the discovery deadline and provided declarations in support
of Plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

The Court permits Transam Trucking the opportunity to serve
document requests and interrogatories on Frobos, Hanneken, Ross,
and Sturgeon no later than November 14, 2014. Responses will be
due within 30 days of service.

The Court also permits Transam Trucking to conduct depositions of
Frobos, Hannekan, Ross, and Sturgeon at dates and times to be
agreed on by counsel but no later than 30 days after their service
of responses to the document requests and interrogatories. The
Court extends Transam Trucking's response deadline to a date 21
days after the last of the depositions occurs. Plaintiffs will
have 14 days to reply. Finally, the Court tolls the statute of
limitations pending the ruling on Plaintiffs' motions for class
certification.

A copy of Judge Melgren's October 15, 2014 memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/LxjiYvfrom Leagle.com.

The case is LARRY BLAIR and CHARLIE DAVIS, On behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAM
TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 09-2443-EFM-KGG, (D. Kan.).

TransAm Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frederick H.
Riesmeyer, II -- friesmeyer@seigfreidbingham.com -- Seigfreid
Bingham PC, Rachel H. Baker -- rbaker@seigfreidbingham.com --
Seigfreid Bingham PC, Shannon Cohorst Johnson --
sjohnson@seigfreidbingham.com -- Seigfreid Bingham PC & Sharon A.
Coberly -- scoberly@seigfreidbingham.com -- Seigfreid Bingham PC.


ULESS WALLACE: 1st Appearance Class Certified in "Covington" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge D. P. Marshall, Jr., granted in part and denied in
part a motion for class certification in the case captioned GARY
COVINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ULESS WALLACE, HERMAN HALL, and NEAL BYRD, all in
their official capacities, Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-123-DPM, (E.D.
Ark.).

In his complaint, Mr. Covington says his rights were violated when
he was held in jail, under unconstitutional conditions, for
thirty-nine days without an initial appearance. He sued, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, under Section 1983 and
the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Mr. Covington proposed
certification of two classes of pretrial detainees -- those who
were denied a prompt first appearance and those who were subjected
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

Judge Marshall certified the class on the first-appearance claim
and denied with prejudice on the conditions claim. Mr. Covington's
individual conditions claim is set for trial on January 20, 2015.
Motion for status conference was granted.

"The Court will hold the conference on a mutually convenient date
the week of October 27th. There are some scheduling issues in the
companion case, No 2:13-cv-84, that need attention. We'll cover
those at the conference too," wrote Judge Marshall in his October
15, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/r5MGAbfrom Leagle.com.

Herman Hall, Defendant, represented by Sara Teague, Arkansas
Municipal League.


VERMEX PHARMACEUTICALS: IBEW Unit Named as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan has been appointed as lead
plaintiff, and Scott+Scott LLP has been approved as lead counsel,
in a putative class action brought against Vertex Pharmaceuticals,
et al., over alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Local No. 8 brought the class suit on behalf of similarly situated
Vertex employees, alleging that class members were harmed when
they purchased Vertex's common stock at prices that were
artificially inflated by the company's false and misleading
statements about its products.

The case is LOCAL NO. 8 IBEW RETIREMENT PLAN, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERTEX
PHARMACEUTICALS INC., JOSHUA BOGER, Ph.D., JEFFREY LEIDEN, M.D.,
Ph.D., PETER MUELLER, Ph.D., PAUL SILVA, ELAINE ULLIAN, and NANCY
J. WYSENSKI, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12296-FDS (D. Mass.).

A copy of Judge F. Dennis Saylor's Oct. 8, 2014 Order is available
at http://is.gd/pYvlYifrom Leagle.com.

Nancy J. Wysenski, Defendant, is represented by John F. Sylvia,
Esq. -- Jsylvia@mintz.com -- and Matthew D. Levitt, Esq. --
MDLevitt@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky &
Popeo, PC.


W.E. JONES: Illegally Denied Overtime Wages to Workers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Vinccent Neal v. W.E. Jones Group, Inc., Jeffrey T. Jones,
and Emma K. Walterstrom-Jones, Case No. 8:14-cv-02625-JSM-TGW
(M.D. Fla., October 17, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were unlawfully denied overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

W.E. Jones Group, Inc. had employees engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce, and had employees handling,
selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that were
moved in or produced for commerce by a person.  The Individual
Defendants had operational control over the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, PA
          2800 Weston Rd, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


WD-40 COMPANY: Faces "Wolf" Lawsuit Over Recording of Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company said in its Form 10-K Annual Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, a legal action was filed on
February 25, 2014, against the Company in the Superior Court of
California for San Diego County (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company).
Mr. Wolf's complaint seeks class action status and alleges that
the Company violated California Penal Code Section 632.7 which
prohibits the interception or reception and intentional recording
of "a communication transmitted between two cellular radio
telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone,
two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline
telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone"
without the consent of both parties to the communication.  Mr.
Wolf alleges that he called a toll free number for the Company
from his cellular radio telephone and that his call was recorded
by the Company without his consent in violation of the statute.
The California Penal Code provides for a private right of action
to persons who are injured by a violation of the statute.

If entitled to recover, the injured plaintiff may recover the
greater of $5,000 or three times the amount of actual damages
sustained by the plaintiff.  The Company asserts that the Company
has not violated the California Penal Code and the Company intends
to vigorously defend this action.  At the present time, the
Company is unable to estimate the extent of possible loss or a
range of possible loss that could result from this legal
proceeding.

WD-40 Company, based in San Diego, California, is a global
marketing organization dedicated to creating positive lasting
memories by developing and selling products which solve problems
in workshops, factories and homes around the world. The Company
markets multi-purpose and specialty maintenance products under the
WD-40(R) and 3-IN-ONE(R) brand names. Currently included in the
WD-40 brand are the WD-40 multi-use product and the WD-40
Specialist(R) and WD-40 BikeTM product lines. The Company also
markets the following homecare and cleaning brands: X-14(R) mildew
stain remover and automatic toilet bowl cleaners, 2000 Flushes(R)
automatic toilet bowl cleaners, Carpet Fresh(R) and No Vac(R) rug
and room deodorizers, Spot Shot(R) aerosol and liquid carpet stain
removers, 1001(R) household cleaners and rug and room deodorizers
and Lava(R) and Solvol(R) heavy-duty hand cleaners.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: "Russell" Suit Moved From Cal. to Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Russell v. Werner Enterprises,
Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03839, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska (Omaha).  The Nebraska
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00319-JFB-TDT to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to collect unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          DACEY, SITKIN LAW FIRM
          255 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alison J. Cubre, Esq.
          Damon M. Ott, Esq.
          Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 677-3121
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6507
          E-mail: acubre@littler.com
                  dott@littler.com
                  rrahm@littler.com

               - and -

          John K. Lilly, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 772-7212
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: klilly@littler.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq.
          Joseph E. Jones, Esq.
          Kathryn A. Dittrick, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLO
          500 Energy Plaza
          409 South 17th Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2663
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 341-8290
          E-mail: eculhane@fraserstryker.com
                  jjones@fraserstryker.com
                  kdittrick@fraserstryker.com


ZAGG INC: Convinces Utah Court to Toss "Pikk" Derivative Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Utah district court dismissed a consolidated shareholder
derivative complaint filed on behalf of ZAGG Inc. against the
company's officials and directors.

Plaintiffs Albert Pikk and Daniel L. Rosenberg purport to bring
the complaint on behalf of ZAGG and allege that certain ZAGG
officers and directors are liable for causing the Company to issue
statements that were misleading because they omitted: (l) the
CEO's margin account and (2) a supposed "secret succession plan."

Defendants are six officers and directors of ZAGG namely Robert G.
Pedersen, Randall Hales, Brandon T. O'Brien, Edward D. Ekstrom,
Shuichiro Ueyama, and Cheryl A. Larabee.  Mr. Pedersen is also co-
founder of ZAGG, chief executive officer, and chairman of the
Board of Directors until August 2012.

ZAGG Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes protective
coverings, audio accessories, and power solutions for consumer
electronic and hand-held devices.

In his Oct. 1, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order available at
http://is.gd/tkKQxbfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Dee Benson
found that Plaintiffs concede that they "did not make a demand on
the Board to bring this action.  The judge held that shareholders
seeking to enforce a corporation's rights must first demand action
from the board of directors or plead with particularity the
reasons why such a demand would have been futile.

The judge continued, "Plaintiffs cannot show the lack of
independence of Mr. Hales, Mr. Ekstrom, and especially Ms.
Larabee. Plaintiffs have not plead facts showing that it is
plausible that the Individual Defendants: (1) knew Pedersen still
had margin pledges after December 2011, or (2) knew about (or that
there even was) a secret succession plan. [Thus,] the pleading
standard has not been satisfied. For the same reasons, the Court
also finds an insufficient pleading as to the substantive claims,
which are very similar to the Securities Order in the earlier
case. Accordingly, both motions to dismiss [filed separately by
Pedersen and ZAGG] are GRANTED."

Zagg, Nominal Defendant, Defendant, represented by Bryan J.
Ketroser; David J. Berger, Esq -- dberger@wsgr.com ; Nessia S.
Kushner, nkushner@wsgr.com ; Steven M. Schatz, Esq. -
sschatz@wsgr.com of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, as well as
Kevin N. Anderson, Esq. -- kanderson@fabianlaw.com -- and Artemis
D. Vamianakis, Esq. -- avamianakis@fabianlaw.com -- of FABIAN &
CLENDENIN.


* Hospitals, Airlines Among Sectors Facing Legal Risks Over Ebola
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad and Andrew Ramonas, writing for The National Law
Journal, report that as public health authorities moved to calm
fears about the risk from Ebola, lawyers urged health care and
other clients to take precautions against spreading the
potentially fatal disease -- and to mitigate attendant lawsuits.

Since the Oct. 8 death in Dallas of Liberian national Thomas Eric
Duncan, questions have surfaced about whether the hospital and the
doctors and nurses who treated him followed adequate protocols.
Two nurses who treated Duncan have been diagnosed with Ebola.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has attempted to
assure the public that the disease is under control, but its
handling of the situation was assailed during a congressional
hearing on Oct. 16.  Meanwhile, hospitals and medical providers
crafted contingency plans in case the virus arrives at their
doorstep.

"This is such a scary phenomenon," said Richard Donohue --
richard.donohue@dbmslaw.com -- a partner at Chicago's Donohue
Brown Mathewson & Smyth who represents hospitals and physicians in
medical malpractice and other tort actions.  "Most of the major
medical centers are following the same track in trying to
establish protocols and special health care teams to deal with
this issue if and when it arises.  But because of the gravity of
the disease, there's quite a bit of concern."

Hospitals and doctors who fail to diagnose a patient or lack
proper procedures against Ebola could face litigation -- although
plaintiffs attorneys might have to be creative, according to
lawyers who specialize in tort claims.  The threat of lawsuits
extends beyond the medical world to include airlines, mortuaries
and other businesses whose employees might be exposed to the
virus.

Frontier Airlines found itself in the crosshairs, insisting that
Amber Joy Vinson, who with fellow nurse Nina Pham contracted
Ebola, was asymptomatic when she boarded one of its planes on
Oct. 13 in Cleveland -- about 24 hours before her diagnosis.  That
plane has been decontaminated several times, but CDC officials
reached out to other passengers. Schools in Texas and Ohio closed
after the nurse was diagnosed because students or employees were
on the same aircraft, according to news reports.

MISSING PROTOCOLS

On Oct. 14, National Nurses United, the nation's largest nurses
union, accused Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where
Mr. Duncan was treated, of having inconsistent or nonexistent
Ebola protocols.  Dr. Daniel Varga, chief clinical officer for
Texas Health Resources, the system that oversees the hospital,
acknowledged during the congressional hearing that "unfortunately,
in our initial treatment of Mr. Duncan, despite our best
intentions and a highly skilled medical team we made mistakes."

Polsinelli shareholder David Cade -- dcade@polsinelli.com -- in
Washington said he stresses to his health care clients that having
systems in place to handle Ebola is key to mitigating legal
threats.  Hospitals should have strategies and ensure their
employees are trained in implementing them, he said.

Mr. Cade, a former acting general counsel for the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, was making sure his clients follow
CDC Ebola guidance, have protocols ready to protect potential
sufferers's privacy and ensure they properly treat these
individuals and keep their employees and the public safe.

Jane Jordan, deputy general counsel and chief counsel for health
affairs at Emory University in Atlanta, on Oct. 14 vouched for the
benefits of preparedness.  On Oct. 15, Vinson was transferred to
Emory's hospital.  During a panel discussion, Ms. Jordan said the
hospital has a special unit for treating serious communicable
diseases and an office devoted to planning for emergencies.  "It's
that level of preparedness that I think really helped Emory in
reacting to this event," she said.

Shannon Salimone -- shannon.salimone@hklaw.com -- a Holland &
Knight partner in Tallahassee, was advising a "large health care
provider" in Florida about whether it should ask about recent
international travel on its patient intake form.  "I definitely
think asking questions is a prudent thing to do," said Ms.
Salimone, regulatory and litigation leader of her firm's health
care and life sciences team.

Failing to ask a patient about foreign travel is a red flag for
lawyers who bring medical malpractice cases, said Judith
Livingston, a partner at New York's Kramer, Dillof, Livingston &
Moore who specializes in malpractice and personal injury cases
against hospitals and doctors. "You have to protect not only the
patient and all the workers coming in contact with that patient,
but all the subsequent patients who came into contact with those
workers," she said. Lawsuits on behalf of patients or nurses would
face difficulties. Hospital employees, such as nurses, would be
covered under workers' compensation. And although Duncan's family
has threatened to sue, bringing a medical malpractice case is
difficult, especially in Texas, which limits noneconomic damages
to $250,000.

Perhaps more at risk are companies in other industries.  They
wouldn't be shielded by medical malpractice caps, although
plaintiffs lawyers would need to be creative about who they sue
and how, said Robert Eglet of Eglet Law Group in Las Vegas, who
obtained verdicts of more than $500 million each against a Nevada
health insurance company and a pharmaceutical manufacturer for
their roles in a 2008 hepatitis C outbreak at a medical clinic.

A passenger who contracted Ebola might have a case against an
airline that allowed another passenger exhibiting symptoms of the
disease to board a plane, he said. "They were negligent in
allowing the passenger to get on the plane in close quarters and
infect other people, particularly if the plane was coming from
West Africa," he said.

On Oct. 15, CDC director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden said Ms. Vinson
should not have traveled on a commercial airliner, although the
nurse maintained she'd been cleared by a CDC official to fly.

LABOR REGULATIONS

Airlines aren't the only businesses facing legal risks.  In
issuing guidelines on handling and disposing of materials
potentially contaminated with Ebola, the U.S. Department of
Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration specifically
addressed workers in mortuary, airline and travel services.

Companies must take seriously any employee concerns about a lack
of protective gear or other safety measures, said Michael Eckard,
a shareholder in the Charleston, S.C., office of Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart who represents employers in health
care and other industries. Their actions could fall under the
National Labor Relations Act.

Most employers would do well to educate employees about the
disease, Mr. Eckard said.  The Americans With Disabilities Act
says employers cannot require asymptomatic employees who may have
been exposed to Ebola to go to the doctor, for example, and can't
ask too many medical questions of their employees or discriminate
based on a perceived health problem.  But they can give employees
the CDC's guidance, which suggests taking one's temperature twice
a day for 21 days.  If an employee begins to exhibit symptoms,
employers can ask that they stay home.

Frontier Airlines didn't wait that long. On Oct. 15, the airline
put six crew members on paid leave for 21 days "out of an
abundance of caution," chief executive officer David Siegel wrote
in a letter to employees.

Meanwhile, Briana Aguirre, an emergency room nurse who treated
Ms. Pham, has taken time off from work and retained Robert Kelley
of the Kelley/Uustal firm in Fort Lauderdale.  "Right now, we are
just monitoring the situation and making sure that her interests
are protected," Kelley said.


* Recalled, Tainted Supplements Still Available for Purchase
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Doyle, writing for Reuters, reports that long after the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued recalls for dietary
supplements tainted with banned drugs, more than half of the
tainted supplements were still available for purchase, a new study
found.

"There's no question that these supplements that contain
pharmaceuticals are not allowed to be sold, there are clear cut
laws," lead author Dr. Pieter A. Cohen told Reuters Health by
phone.

The FDA does have some loose regulatory power over supplements,
which are categorized like a food, Dr. Cohen said.

If a food manufacturer's product were tainted with salmonella, the
tainted food would be recalled, the factory cleaned, and then
manufacturing would continue, Dr. Cohen said.  In the case of
supplements, the FDA issues recalls for products tainted with
dangerous pharmaceuticals, but without proper enforcement the
tainted products remain on the market and some companies continue
to produce more, he said.

The FDA has identified more than 400 supplement brands tainted
with pharmaceuticals, and issued a recall for 70 percent of the
products.

Dr. Cohen and his coauthors studied 27 of the 274 supplements the
FDA recalled between 2009 and 2012, two-thirds of which were
American-made.  They bought the supplements from manufacturer
websites at least eight months and up to four years after their
FDA recall, then tested their chemical makeup.

The researchers found that 18 of the 27 supplements they purchased
still contained a pharmaceutical adulterant, according to results
in JAMA.  The supplements were marketed for sports enhancement,
weight loss and sexual enhancement, among other things.

Among the banned substances in the products were sibutramine, a
weight loss drug linked to heart attack and stroke, and
phenolphthalein, a laxative being removed from many markets due to
a potential link to cancer.

"Dietary supplement manufacturers and distributors are legally
responsible for marketing a safe product that is not adulterated,
and that complies with FDA's good manufacturing practice
regulations for dietary supplements," the FDA told Reuters Health
in a statement.

But, the FDA warned, "The supply chain for these products is
extremely fragmented; one product manufactured by an unknown
company overseas may be sold by dozens of different distributors
in the United States.  The individuals and businesses selling
these products generally are difficult to locate, operate out of
residential homes, and distribute via internet, small stores, and
mail.  Products are shipped through the international mail
facilities and are often misdeclared as unrelated goods to avoid
detection.  Even after recall and enforcement action against one
major distributor, the product may continue to be widely sold."

Many consumers don't realize how potent these pharmaceuticals are,
Dr. Cohen said.

"Responsible manufacturers and marketers of dietary supplements
applaud strong enforcement measures by FDA to address illegal
products that contain undisclosed, active pharmaceutical
ingredients," Steve Mister, President and CEO of the Council for
Responsible Nutrition in Washington, D.C., a dietary supplement
trade association, wrote in a statement.  "We have zero tolerance
for this problem and welcome not only recalls, but also criminal
enforcement against companies that put consumers at risk."

Although the researchers found 27 of the 274 recalled supplements
still available online from manufacturers, more may be available
in shops or gas stations, where an earlier study showed most
people purchase supplements, said Dr. Cohen, a professor of
medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and an internist at
the Cambridge Health Alliance.

Also, a supplement manufacturer could easily rename its recalled
product and start marketing it again without reformulation, and
the FDA would have to go back and test the renamed product before
issuing another recall, he said.

Although there is a framework in place to regulate supplements,
enforcement is lacking, he said.

"There's no consequences to the manufacturer, which is absurd," he
said.

Although they aimed to purchase supplements manufactured after the
FDA recall, some may have been manufactured before it, the authors
note.

Some consumers may seek these products out even though they have
been recalled, but many are unaware of the recall, Dr. Cohen said.

"This is criminal activity," said Daniel Fabricant, former
Director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA
and current CEO of the Natural Products Association, another trade
association.  "There needs to be some really hardcore
enforcement."

"Consumers need to understand the risks, if they can't get an
erectile dysfunction drug and they go looking for a natural
product tainted with pharmaceuticals," he told Reuters Health by
phone.

Some of the recalled products have labels in mixed languages,
which is also against the law, Fabricant noted.

"Right now my recommendation is for consumers to avoid muscle
building supplements, weight loss and sexual enhancement
supplements," which are most likely to contain dangerous drugs,
Dr. Cohen said.

These supplements either do not work or are tainted with
pharmaceuticals, he said.

Many vitamin and mineral supplements are safe, especially those
sold as single ingredients, he said.  Products made up of a
"cocktail" of ingredients are more likely to be tainted, he said.


* Uncertainty About CFPB's Self-Reporting Program Remains
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
for lawyers defending companies under scrutiny by federal
agencies, the real question is whether to self-report wrongdoing.

It's always a tricky decision, but the calculation is particularly
difficult for businesses that fall under the umbrella of the new
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In the 15 months since the agency unveiled its program for
rewarding cooperation and self-reporting, the CFPB has publicly
credited four companies for offering assistance, plus a fifth that
got a nod before the bulletin was issued.  However, lawyers say
considerable uncertainty about the program remains.

"There's still not a lot of consistency in how the bureau deals
with companies coming forward and providing information, and
whether it really achieves benefits or not in terms of the
ultimate result," said Buckley-Sandler name partner Andrew Sandler
-- asandler@buckleysandler.com -- whose firm has advised dozens of
companies facing CFPB investigations.  "They need to establish a
track record."

Hunter Wiggins, acting principal deputy enforcement director at
the CFPB, said the agency has high expectations in order for a
company to receive "meaningful benefits" from cooperation.  "We
are looking for visible and tangible actions that go 'above and
beyond.' Pointing to a corporate compliance or ethics program that
sits on a shelf, no matter how well-written, is not going to
warrant favorable consideration," Mr. Wiggins said in response to
questions from The National Law Journal.

In July 2013, the CFPB issued a five-page bulletin on "responsible
business conduct," outlining how self-policing, self-reporting,
remediation and cooperation could result in lighter penalties or
even no enforcement action.  But the agency made no promises it
would go easy on anyone, especially if the conduct was egregious.

"The 2013 bulletin was new for the bureau, but other law
enforcement agencies have had similar policies for a long time,"
Mr. Wiggins said.  "We issued the bulletin to give companies
visibility into the CFPB's enforcement priorities and philosophy.
. . . However, our primary consideration in resolving any problem
is what is in the best interests of consumers, and we are
committed to vigorous and consistent enforcement of the law."

For lawyers, the threshold question is "whether to let sleeping
dogs lie," said Ballard Spahr partner Alan Kaplinsky --
kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- who heads the firm's consumer
financial services group.  "What's the likelihood of the CFPB
identifying this problem and making a big deal out of it?"

If the answer is "not likely," or the conduct, while questionable,
might not necessarily be illegal, Mr. Kaplinsky said, "Very often,
sleeping dogs remain asleep."

One company that took the plunge and self-reported was East
Hartford, Conn.-based 1st Alliance Lending LLC.  The mortgage
lender discovered it likely violated the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, or RESPA, by wrongly splitting fees with a hedge
fund that previously financed its loans.

General counsel David Ward said in an email that 1st Alliance
"views our decision to self-report as sound, from a business
perspective and as an ethical matter.  We have no regrets, and
feel that self-reporting was the right thing to do."

The CFPB in February ordered 1st Alliance to pay an $83,000 civil
penalty, stating in the second sentence of a news release that the
company self-reported, fully cooperated and "provided information
related to the conduct of other actors that has facilitated other
enforcement investigations."

But did 1st Alliance get a break on the fine?  Based on CFPB
settlements for other RESPA violations, it's hard to tell.  In
January, Fidelity Mortgage Corp. and its former owner were ordered
to pay $27,000 in disgorgement and a $54,000 penalty for funneling
illegal kickbacks to a bank in exchange for real estate referrals.
In June, a New Jersey company, Stonebridge Title Services Inc.,
paid just $30,000 to settle charges of paying kickbacks.

On the other hand, RealtySouth in May was ordered to pay $500,000
for mortgage disclosure violations, and in September, Lighthouse
Title was hit with a $200,000 penalty for illegal referral
agreements.

"The CFPB can always say that it offered a better deal based on
responsible conduct, but I can't point to a settlement that was
clearly the result of anything more than simple negotiation," said
Hunton & Williams partner Ronald Rubin, a former CFPB lawyer.

"The [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission] has a long history
of settlements, so everyone knows the standard penalty for things
like insider trading," Mr. Rubin said.  "The CFPB hasn't been
around long enough to establish the 'retail price' for most
violations, so it's hard to tell if they're really offering a
discount."

PENALTIES CAN BE SIZABLE

To date, the biggest payout where the CFPB publicly credited a
company for assistance came in July 2014, when GE Capital Retail
Bank, now known as Synchrony Bank, paid $225 million to credit
card customers harmed by allegedly deceptive marketing or
discrimination.

Based on dollar amount, the payment ranks as one of the CFPB's
biggest, but virtually all of it was consumer redress, not civil
penalties.  Notably, the agency and the U.S. Department of Justice
went after the company for violating fair lending laws by failing
to offer debt relief offers to qualified Hispanic customers.  The
customers got $169 million in remediation, but the company was
spared further fines for the conduct.

"No penalties were imposed for this violation based on the fact
that GE Capital self-reported the violation and initiated
remediation for the harm done to affected consumers," CFPB
Director Richard Cordray said at the time.

Covington & Burling partner D. Jean Veta -- jveta@cov.com --
represented GE Capital. She declined to comment on the case, but
said that, based on her experience representing clients in a wide
range of government investigations, some key questions for counsel
tend to reoccur: "How clear was the violation, how many consumers
were affected by it, what was the dollar amount involved and what
were others in the industry doing?" Ms. Veta said.  "If you self-
disclose, you need to be prepared to lay everything on the table."


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *