CAR_Public/141029.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 215

                             Headlines

AEROTEK INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Cuban Employee
ALBION LABORATORIES: Sued Over Sale of Blended Form of Magnesium
ALCOA INC: Petitions for Fees & Costs Dismissed
AUTOLIV INC: Operating Margin Declined Due to Class Settlements
ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Court Approves Accord in "Fritzinger"

ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Purported Securities Suit in Indiana Court
APEX ASSET: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
AUDI AG: Recalls 850,000 A4 Sedans Over Software Glitch
AUTOLIV INC: Oct. 30 Opt Out Deadline for Direct Purchasers

AUTOLIV INC: Facing 4 Class Action Lawsuits in Canada
AUTOLIV INC: Hearing on CLPT Settlement This Week
BUMBLE BEE: Class Suit Alleging Tuna Misrepresentation Remanded
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Law Breach
CAPITAL COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CMS ENERGY: Arguments in Supreme Court Case Set for Early in 2015
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Refused to Disqualify Gibson Dunn
CRITTENDEN REGIONAL: Faces Second Class Action Following Collapse

DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hip Implant Suit
DIRECTV INC: Fails to Pay All Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
DOMETIC CORP: Removes "Connell" Liability Suit to W.D. Arkansas
DONALD TRUMP: Liable for Operating Unlicensed School, Court Rules
E-Z RENT A CAR: "Legg" Suit Moved from California to Florida

ELDREDGE LUMBER: Accused of Discriminating Against Iraq Veteran
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Battlefield 4 'Puffery' Is Not Fraud, Judge Says
ELNA CO: Faces "Quathimatine" Suit Over Capacitor Price Fixing
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Cert. Granted in Lewis and Raffone Suits
FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case

FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Was Decertified
FIRST AMERICAN: Plaintiff in "Kirk" Case Files Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Explorers Expose Passengers to Lethal CO, Suit Claims
FRANKLIN FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Over Glen Allen Merger
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Internet Outages

FUJI HIBACHI: Class Members are Entitled to OT Premium, Suit Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Bergman Files Ignition-Switch Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: 107 Putative Class Actions Over Recalled Vehicles
GENERAL MOTORS: Provides Update on GM Korea Wage Litigation
GENERAL MOTORS: Trial in GMCL Dealers' Case Ongoing

GOLDMAN SACHS: Urges Court Not to Certify Gender-Bias Suit Class
GT ADVANCED: Faces "Opperman" Class Suit Over 95% Stock Drop
GT ADVANCED: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
HARMONY GOLD: South Africa Class Action Ongoing
HARMONY GOLD: U.S. Class Action Has Concluded

HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Former Executive Chef Files OT Class Action
HERBALIFE LTD: Requests for More Time to Finalize Settlement
KAYCAN LTD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
KODIAK OIL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
LA MICHOACANA VARIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims

LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Removes "Novoa" Suit to S.D. Florida
LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 6,361 Product Liability Cases
LORILLARD INC: No Ruling Yet on Unit's Motions in "Major" Case
LORILLARD INC: No Cases Scheduled for Trial in Remainder of 2014
LORILLARD INC: Judge Wants 200 Cases Trial Ready by January 2015

LORILLARD INC: Florida Court Dismissed 3,567 Engle Progeny Cases
LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 20 Engle Progeny Cases
LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 121 Engle Progeny Trials
LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 31 Personal Injury Cases
LORILLARD INC: No Trial in Flight Attendant Cases as of Oct. 20

LORILLARD INC: Lorillard Tobacco A defendant in 61 Filter Cases
LORILLARD INC: Plaintiffs File Reply Brief in Kansas Case
LORILLARD INC: No Substantive Activity in Class Action Since 2001
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Enters Settlement in FACTA Violation Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Securities Suit in Virginia Court

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Lawsuit by RWA Over "Unsolicited" Ad
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Stock Suit by Retirement Trust in Va.
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Accrued $3.3 Million Liability in Settlement
MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MICROSOFT CORP: 3 Antitrust Cases Pending in Canada

MICROSOFT CORP: Says Remaining Cost of Settlements at $300 Million
MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in US Cell Phone Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Litigation Not Yet Active
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
MUSCLEPHARM CORP: "Bey" Suit Transferred From Nevada to Colorado

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Refuses to Junk Football Players Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by Student Athlete Over Improper Wages
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Sued for Falsely Advertising Ginkgo Biloba Pills
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 260,000 Cars Over Defective Air Bags
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Suit Over Fuel Surcharges in Col.

ORACLE CORP: Accused of Entering Into Restricted Hiring Agreement
PERDUE FARMS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed
PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT: Removes "Zeto" Class Suit to D. New Jersey
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ruling in Video Privacy Suit Affirmed
RETROPHIN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

RICHARD ADJMI: Family Chauffer Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RJM ACQUISITIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SEI INVESTMENTS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Motion to Remand
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Excessive Use of Oil
SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Sanders" Product Liability Suit in Alabama

SYNGENTA AG: Class Actions Over Viptera Corn Seeds Pile Up
TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Cook" Suit Consolidated in Securities MDL
TV PRODUCTS: Chauffer Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
UNITED NATIONS: Haitians Seek Court OK to Send Cholera Complaint
UNITIL CORP: Decision of Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Pending

USG CORP: Reached Agreement in Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit
WELLS FARGO: Gets Final OK of $14.7MM Settlement in "Dyer" Suit
WEST BROM: Class Action Over Mortgage Rate Hike Can Proceed
ZOOM MEDIA: Sued for Not Properly Paying Earned Commission Wages

* Experts Address Issue on Electronic Health Records Cybersecurity


                             *********


AEROTEK INC: Accused of Discriminating Against Cuban Employee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Pineda v. Aerotek Inc. d/b/a Aerotek Commercial Staffing,
and Netmro, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23923-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
October 22, 2014) is an action for declaratory and injunctive
relief and damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the
Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, to redress injury done to the
Plaintiff by the Defendants' alleged discriminatory treatment on
the basis of his race, color and national origin (Cuba).

The Plaintiff was employed by Aerotek and Netmro, and the parties
had a contractual relationship with each other.

Aerotek, Inc. is a Foreign for Profit U.S. corporation doing
business in Dade County as Aerotek Commercial Staffing.  Aerotek
is a staffing agency that provides customized staffing services to
different industries.

Netmro, Inc. is a Florida based corporation authorized to conduct
business in Florida.  Netmro is a supplier of consumable products,
chemicals, and associated materials to the aerospace, aircraft,
industrial and marine markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALBION LABORATORIES: Sued Over Sale of Blended Form of Magnesium
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Holliday, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Albion Laboratories, Inc., Vitacost.Com, Inc., DrVita,
Inc., and John Does 1 through 50, Case No. 9:14-cv-81294-DMM (S.D.
Fla., October 22, 2014) is brought on behalf of individuals, who
purchased indirectly from the Defendants a blended form of
magnesium glycinate and magnesium oxide known as Magnesium
Bisglycinate Chelate Buffered, in which magnesium oxide is not
listed in the supplement facts panel on the label, in
contravention of the law.

Albion Laboratories, Inc. is a Utah corporation headquartered in
Clearfield, Utah.  Albion manufactures and supplies mineral amino
acid chelate nutrition to industries worldwide.  Vitacost.com,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Boca Raton,
Florida.  Vitacost has marketed and sold nutrition supplements,
including the Blended Product, worldwide.

DrVita, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.  DrVita operates, inter alia, through the trade name of
DrVita.com.  DrVita has marketed and sold nutrition supplements,
including the Blended Product, worldwide.  The Doe Defendants are
companies whose names are presently unknown to the Plaintiff, but
are believed to have marketed and sold nutrition supplements,
including the Blended Product, worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          E-mail: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Meirowitz, Esq.
          10 Muncy Avenue, Suite 606
          West Babylon, NY 11704
          Telephone: (917) 612-3409
          E-mail: Meirowitz@aol.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: krichman@reeserichman.com


ALCOA INC: Petitions for Fees & Costs Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class action and Alcoa Inc. agreed to dismiss
their respective petitions for fees and costs, and the case has
been fully resolved, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In November 2006, in Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No.
3:06cv448 (E.D. Tenn.), a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations Act by
requiring plaintiffs, beginning January 1, 2007, to pay health
insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for
certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. Plaintiffs
alleged these changes to their retiree health care plans violated
their rights to vested health care benefits. Plaintiffs
additionally alleged that Alcoa had breached its fiduciary duty to
plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change. Plaintiffs sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits, and attorneys'
fees. Alcoa had consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a
class action. During the fourth quarter of 2007, following
briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial,
certified a plaintiff class, and bifurcated and stayed the
plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims. Trial in the matter
was held over eight days commencing September 22, 2009 and ending
on October 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville, TN before the
Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District Court Judge.

On March 9, 2011, the court issued a judgment order dismissing
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice for the reasons
stated in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification and/or
amendment of the judgment order, which sought, among other things,
a declaration that plaintiffs' retiree benefits are vested subject
to an annual cap and an injunction preventing Alcoa, prior to
2017, from modifying the plan design to which plaintiffs are
subject or changing the premiums and deductibles that plaintiffs
must pay. Also on March 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for
award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 11, 2012, the court
issued its memorandum and order denying plaintiffs' motion for
clarification and/or amendment to the original judgment order. On
July 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's
March 9, 2011 judgment. On July 12, 2012, the trial court stayed
Alcoa's motion for assessment of costs pending resolution of
plaintiffs' appeal. The appeal was docketed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as case number 12-5801. On
August 29, 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees without prejudice to refiling the motion following
the resolution of the appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

On May 9, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
opinion affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' claims
for lifetime, uncapped retiree healthcare benefits. Plaintiffs
filed a petition for rehearing on May 22, 2013 to which Alcoa
filed a response on June 7, 2013. On September 12, 2013, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing. The trial court is now considering Alcoa's request for
an award of costs, which had been stayed pending resolution of the
appeal, and the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, which had
been dismissed without prejudice to refiling following resolution
of the appeal.

On December 17, 2013 the United States Supreme Court docketed the
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals as Charles Curtis, et al., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v. Alcoa
Inc., et al., Docket No.13-728. Alcoa's opposition to this
petition was filed on January 16, 2014 and Petitioners filed their
reply on January 29, 2014.

On February 24, 2014, the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
petition. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the matter ends the
substantive litigation and affirms Alcoa's collectively bargained
cap on the Company's contributions to union retiree medical costs.
By order dated June 26, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Thereafter,
the plaintiffs and Alcoa agreed to dismiss their respective
petitions for fees and costs. The case has been fully resolved.


AUTOLIV INC: Operating Margin Declined Due to Class Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that operating income
decreased by $53 million to $506 million and the operating margin
by 1.4pp to 7.3%. This decline in the operating margin was mainly
due to the settlements of antitrust related class actions in the
United States. Research, Development and Engineering (R, D&E) net,
was $33 million higher due to costs for growth and high
engineering costs in active safety.

Costs related to the capacity alignment program were $26 million
and costs related to antitrust matters (including settlements of
class actions) were $74 million compared to $8 million and $6
million respectively for the same period one year ago.

The Company's net cash position (non-U.S. GAAP measure) decreased
by $210 million during the quarter to $86 million at September 30,
2014. This was mainly due to the Company's repurchase of its
common shares amounting to $239 million and a quarterly dividend
payment that reduced net cash by $49 million. Gross interest-
bearing debt decreased by $4 million to $1,771 million. Autoliv's
net cash (non-U.S. GAAP measure, see reconciliation table above)
position decreased by $425 million during the first nine months
2014, to $86 million due to the common share repurchases of $430
million, dividends totaling $147 million and the payment of $70
million for the settlement of antitrust related class actions in
the U.S. The decrease was partly offset by strong cash flow
particularly in the first and third quarter.


ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Court Approves Accord in "Fritzinger"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
approved the settlement reached in the suit Fritzinger v. Angie's
List, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 14, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class action status was
filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges
claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that
the Company automatically renews membership fees at a higher rate
than customers are led to believe, breaching their membership
agreements. On September 22, 2014, the Court issued an Order
approving the parties' proposed settlement terms. Under the
settlement terms, total cash payments to the class will be $107.
Additionally, 734,299 class members will receive a one month
Angie's List membership, and 353,130 class members will receive a
five dollar e-commerce voucher. The Company estimates that
attorney's fees and litigation fees will amount to $875. The
Company recorded a $4,000 legal accrual related to the settlement
at December 31, 2013. Based on the terms of the proposed
settlement approved by the Court during the quarter, the Company
revised its estimate of liability and reduced the legal accrual
recorded to $3,550 at September 30, 2014.


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Purported Securities Suit in Indiana Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. is facing a consolidated lawsuit alleging
breach of the Securities Act in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, according to the company's
Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 23, 2013, the first of two putative securities class
action complaints was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, naming the Company and
various of its current and former directors and officers as
defendants. The first complaint is styled as Baron v. Angie's
List, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-2032. On January 9, 2014, the second
putative securities class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The second
complaint is styled as Bartolone v. Angie's List, Inc., et al.
Both complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by
making material misstatements in and omitting material information
from the Company's public disclosures concerning the Company's
business prospects. On June 16, 2014, the Court consolidated the
two cases and appointed United Food & Commercial Workers Local
464A Pension Fund as lead plaintiff ("Local 464A"). On August 29,
2014, Local 464A filed its consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges that Angie's
List made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding its
paid membership model ("PPM"). The defendants' responsive pleading
was due on October 28, 2014.


APEX ASSET: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Moeller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Apex Asset Management, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-06496-JAP-DEA (D.N.J., October 21, 2014) is brought
pursuant to 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


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Escobar, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Apria Healthcare Group Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Apria Healthcare, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:14-cv-01699-JLS-AN
(C.D. Cal., October 22, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Max Benowitz, Esq.
          LOUIS MAX BENOWITZ LAW OFFICES
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com

               - and -

          David Pourati, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID POURATI APC
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 1830
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-2888
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2888
          E-mail: David@Pourati.com


AUDI AG: Recalls 850,000 A4 Sedans Over Software Glitch
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Pfanner, William Boston and Megumi Fujikawa, writing for The
Wall Street Journal, report that the spotlight on vehicle quality
intensified on Oct. 23 with two global auto makers taking measures
to address passenger safety.

Audi AG, the luxury brand of Volkswagen AG, recalled 850,000 Audi
A4 sedans because of a software glitch that can prevent air-bag
deployment.

Audi officials said the problem isn't associated with the high-
profile Takata Corp. air-bag defects that affect at least 12
million vehicles globally.  Audi didn't identify its air-bag
supplier.  A software update for the problem takes "a matter of
three minutes," Audi said.  It is investigating accidents that
might be related to the problem.

Audi's action is the latest in an industry burdened by recalls.
There have been tens of millions of vehicle recalls issued this
year, costing auto makers billions of dollars and denting the
reputations of executives and the companies they run.

Separately, Honda Motor Co. on Oct. 23 said top executives would
take pay cuts over the next 90 days, and the company created a new
post to oversee safety changes.

The company cited recalls in Japan involving motor and engine
problems, and it said the pay cuts aren't related to defective
Takata air bags that the company is currently working to replace
in cars more than a decade old. Honda President Takanobu Ito will
have his pay reduced by 20% for three months.

"We deeply apologize again for having caused a great deal of
trouble for our customers," Honda said.

On Oct. 23, it recalled 425,825 Honda Fit and other vehicles in
Japan because a problem with the ignition coil or power-supply
circuit could cause the engine to stop.

Pay cuts are a traditional way for Japanese executives to take
responsibility or signal concern for poor performance or other
lapses.

Honda said the new safety executive, Koichi Fukuo, would take
steps to prevent quality issues from recurring and "lead Honda's
companywide reform of the quality assurance structure."

The appointment, which follows the creation of a similar role at
Nissan Motor Co. earlier this year, shows the increasing concern
among Japanese auto makers after Toyota's $1.2 billion settlement
this year of a criminal investigation into how it dealt with
unintended acceleration cases, and a widening U.S. investigation
into General Motors Co.'s handling of a problem with ignition
switches.

Takata faces congressional scrutiny, and The Wall Street Journal
reported Wednesday that the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office is
investigating Takata's past statements to regulators about the
safety of its air bags.

Honda has been most exposed to the defective Takata air bags made
between 2000 and 2007 that are the source of nearly eight million
recalls involving 10 auto makers.

A part owner in Takata, a Japanese auto supplier, Honda has
recalled more than six million cars in connection with defective
air bags that can explode with too much force.

Nissan said on Oct. 23 it is calling back an additional 260,000
vehicles in Japan, Europe and China over air-bag concerns, even
though there have been no reports of injuries.

The financial toll continues to grow.  GM, having issued 75
recalls this year, said on Oct. 23 that it spent an additional
$700 million on repair costs in the third quarter.  Takata is
taking a hit as its biggest rival, Sweden's Autoliv Inc., said on
Oct. 23 that it has been taking business from Takata over the past
three months.

Takata's share price, which fell 23% Tuesday, resumed its slide on
Thursday, falling another 6.2% after remaining unchanged on
Wednesday.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amplified its
concern about Takata's air bags last week, urging U.S. car owners
in regions of hot and humid climates to go to a dealer and replace
front air bags immediately.

If replacement parts are unavailable, then affected buyers are
encouraged to avoid sitting in the front passenger seat and have
front air bags deactivated.

NHTSA, already under fire for how it responded to the widespread
and deadly ignition-switch defect in GM vehicles, apologized for
how it has handled some of its recent communication with U.S.
consumers.  On Oct. 22, NHTSA apologized for problems with its
recall website, which crashed on Oct. 21, and for providing
inaccurate data on which models are affected by the Takata air-bag
recalls.

"We greatly regret that the information provided in our initial
safety advisory was inaccurate and that we have experienced
signification problems with our web site," the regulatory agency
said in a statement.  NHTSA blamed the website problems on what it
described as a "software change that affects how the system
interacts with the Internet" and ruled out any traffic overload or
hacking.

The U.S. agency didn't explain why the first advisory released on
Monday containing a list of models affected by the Takata recalls
was inaccurate and undersized.  It only offered that the list
didn't include the "full universe of affected vehicles." The list
now contains 7.8 million vehicles, five million of which are
Hondas.


AUTOLIV INC: Oct. 30 Opt Out Deadline for Direct Purchasers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to opt out of the U.S. class action settlement for
direct purchasers is October 30, 2014, Autoliv Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Plaintiffs in these
civil antitrust class actions generally allege that the defendant
suppliers of occupant safety systems have engaged in long-running
global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant safety systems
or components thereof in violation of various antitrust laws and
unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs in these
civil antitrust class actions make allegations that extend
significantly beyond the specific admissions of the Company's
Department of Justice plea. The Company denies these overly broad
allegations.

Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases seek to represent purported classes
of direct purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors (i.e. consumers)
who purchased occupant safety systems or components either
directly from a defendant or indirectly through purchases or
leases of new vehicles containing such systems. Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs in the Canadian cases seek to represent purported
classes encompassing direct and indirect purchasers of such
products and seek similar relief under applicable Canadian laws.

Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its
competitors are defendants in a total of eighteen purported
antitrust class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and
October 2013. Fourteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
and have been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS)
segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-
District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability,
entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives
of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL. Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million
to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto
dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor
settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was
expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the
plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes
would release Autoliv from all claims and demands that were or
could have been asserted in the MDL. The direct purchaser
settlement is subject to potential downward adjustments to a floor
of $24 million based on the volume of Autoliv's sales represented
by direct purchasers who may elect to opt out from the direct
purchaser settlement class. Each settlement can be voided if opt-
outs exceed certain thresholds.

On July 1, 2014, the settlements received preliminary court
approval. Each settlement remains subject to final approval by the
MDL Court following notice to the settlement class, an opportunity
for settlement class members to object or opt out, and a fairness
hearing. The deadline to opt out of the class settlement for the
direct purchasers is October 30, 2014.

It is currently anticipated that the fairness hearing for the
direct purchaser class settlement will occur in December 2014, and
that notices to the settlement classes and the fairness hearings
for the other two class settlements will be deferred by the
plaintiffs and the MDL Court for processing with additional,
future settlements due to the cost of giving notice to large
settlement classes. These settlements, if approved, will not
resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt out of the
settlements or the claims of any purchasers of occupant safety
systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such
as states and municipalities.


AUTOLIV INC: Facing 4 Class Action Lawsuits in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Autoliv Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four lawsuits are
pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v.
Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et
al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013;
Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet
Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's
Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of
Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014).

The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of
both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems.
The Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits
and intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable
that the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian
antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases
currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a
loss has been recorded as of September 30, 2014. There is
currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the
Canadian cases.


AUTOLIV INC: Hearing on CLPT Settlement This Week
-------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for the end of October 2014 to approve the
settlement in the class action by the Construction Laborers
Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis, Autoliv Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On April 17, 2013, the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of
Greater St. Louis ("CLPT") filed a purported class action
securities lawsuit against Autoliv and two of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Civil Action File No. 13-CIV-2546) (the "Lawsuit"), and later
added as a third individual defendant an employee of one of the
Company's subsidiaries. The amended complaint alleged, among other
claims, misrepresentations or failures to disclose material facts
that artificially inflated the Company's stock price in violation
of the federal securities laws, in particular Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
CLPT purports to bring the Lawsuit on behalf of a class of
purchasers of common stock of the Company between October 26, 2010
and July 21, 2011. CLPT seeks to recover damages in an unspecified
amount.

On June 27, 2014, the Company announced that it entered into a
memorandum of understanding with CLPT reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the Lawsuit and the claims of the alleged
class for a payment of $22.5 million. The parties subsequently
entered into a definitive settlement agreement. The agreement is
not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the
Company or any of the individuals named in the complaint. The
defendants are settling to eliminate the uncertainties, risk,
distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The
agreement is subject to final approval by the court. A hearing to
approve the settlement is scheduled for the end of October 2014.

If approved, the settlement will resolve the claims asserted in
the Lawsuit against the Company and the individuals named in the
complaint, including the claims of the settlement class members
who do not opt out of the settlement. Autoliv has recorded a net
expense of approximately $4.5 million in its results for the
second quarter of 2014. The balance of the settlement amount will
be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier.


BUMBLE BEE: Class Suit Alleging Tuna Misrepresentation Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing Bumble
Bee Foods of misrepresenting tuna and related products as "rich in
natural Omega-3," but remanded the lawsuit to Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Tricia Ogden sued San Diego-based Bumble Bee in
2012.  She claimed the company's seafood products, labeled "rich
in natural Omega-3" or "excellent source Omega-3," were
misbranded.

Bumble Bee sells canned and pouched tuna, salmon, shrimp, crabs,
clams, oysters, sardines, mackerel, and chicken.

Several of the products sported a logo or seal with the allegedly
bogus claims, Ogden said, which conveyed to consumers "the net
impression that a food makes only positive contributions to a
diet, or does not contain any nutrients at levels that raise the
risk of a diet-related disease or health-related condition."

Companies that sold similar products with unauthorized Omega-3
claims were found to be in violation of labeling law by the Food
and Drug Administration, Ogden said.

Bumble Bee specifically, she added, made food label claims that
were prohibited by federal and California law.

Ogden sought class certification in May 2013, and Bumble Bee moved
for summary judgment in August 2013.

In January, the San Jose Federal Court granted in part and denied
in part Bumble Bee's motion.

The court granted summary judgment on Ogden's claims for damages,
finding that she failed to provide sufficient evidence that she
was entitled to restitution under the Unfair Competition Law, Fair
Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, or disgorgement
under the unfair competition and fair advertising laws.

The court also granted summary judgment on Ogden's sole federal
claim, holding that it "fail[ed] as a matter of law."

But the court ruled that Ogden was entitled to pursue injunctive
relief.

Ogden subsequently withdrew her motion for class certification,
and both parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with
prejudice earlier this year.

In April, six weeks after the litigation had ended, three
plaintiffs filed the instant class action lawsuit in Santa Clara
County Superior Court.

The putative class was limited to California consumers.  Bumble
Bee sought to remove the case to Federal Court in June.

Bumble Bee filed a motion to dismiss or stay the case the same
month, which the plaintiffs opposed in August.

U.S. District Judge Lucy on Oct. 16 granted the plaintiff class's
motion to remand the case to Santa Clara County and denied as moot
Bumble Bee's motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit.

Koh said Bumble Bee failed to show that the Federal Court had
subject matter jurisdiction.

"Plaintiffs argue in their motion to remand that removal was
improper because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
their lawsuit," Koh wrote.  "According to plaintiffs, they have
'pleaded no claims under federal law, and plaintiffs' proposed
class consists of California residents only.'"

Koh cited the ruling in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.
Thompson, (1986), in which the U.S. Supreme Court found no federal
question jurisdiction in a lawsuit over the drug Bendectin, which
allegedly caused birth defects.

"Bumble Bee offers no reason why the issue of FDCA misbranding is
more 'substantial' here than it was in Merrell Dow," Koh wrote.

"Not only are the federal issues insufficiently substantial under
Merrell Dow, but exercising jurisdiction over this California
class action would circumvent the FDCA's [Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act] lack of a private cause of action.  Although the
court recognizes that it has already evaluated some of the
substantive state law issues involved in this case, the court did
so only because it had jurisdiction under CAFA [Class Action
Fairness Act]."

The 9-page ruling adds: "With no federal statutory hook to
maintain jurisdiction here, the court finds that the
'congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities' tips in favor of remanding."

Koh also denied plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees or costs,
citing 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

"'(A)n order remanding the case may require payment of just costs
and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a
result of the removal,'" Koh wrote.  "The Supreme Court has
explained that 'courts may award attorney's fees under Section
1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively
reasonable basis for seeking removal.'"

Bumble Bee, Koh said, "had an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal."

The case is Patrick Garrett v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Case No.
5:12-CV-02546-LHK, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Law Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cribb, writing for Toronto Star, reports that an
unprecedented class action lawsuit striking at the economic
foundations of junior hockey in Canada alleges the Canadian Hockey
League and its teams "conspired" to force young players into
signing contracts that breach minimum wage laws.

A statement of claim filed in a Toronto court on Oct. 17 and
obtained by the Star, seeks $180 million in outstanding wages,
vacation, holiday and overtime pay and employer payroll
contributions for thousands of young players given as little as
$35 a week for practices, games, training and travelling that
could add up to more than full-time hours.

The league and its teams "conspired and agreed together . . . to
act in concert to demand or require that all players sign a
contract which the defendants knew was unlawful," the claim
alleges.  "Such conduct was high-handed, outrageous, reckless,
wanton, deliberate, callous, disgraceful, wilful and in complete
disregard for the rights of the (players)."

The allegations have not been proved in court.

David Branch, president of the CHL, said on Oct. 19 that he hadn't
yet seen a copy of the lawsuit but said the league "will
vigorously defend the way our teams operate."

"Our position is our players are amateur student athletes and we
provide the best playing experience to our 1,300 players. . . It's
important that we defend this because it could have a huge impact
on all amateur sport in this country."


CAPITAL COLLECTION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vasyliy Krylyuk, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Capital Collection Service, Inc. d/b/a
Capital Collection Service and Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Case
No. 2:14-cv-05969-RB (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Wirth, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, LP and Does 1 Through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05968-LFR (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2014)
seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Wirth, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Does 1 Through 10
Inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-05966-LFR (E.D. Pa., October 21, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CMS ENERGY: Arguments in Supreme Court Case Set for Early in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and
Trading Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc.,
and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in five
class action lawsuits arising as a result of alleged inaccurate
natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade
information.  Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural
gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.  Plaintiffs are making
claims for the following:  full consideration damages, treble
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorney fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process.  In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases.
The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court decision and remanded the case to the
district court judge for further proceedings.  The appellate court
found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these
cases.  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial
of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims.

In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which
CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In July 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.  Arguments are expected to
occur early in 2015 with an opinion expected in the first half of
2015.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Court Refused to Disqualify Gibson Dunn
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge considering conflict-of-interest claims against
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher sided on October 16, 2014, with the
powerful law firm.

Though she said Gibson Dunn "engaged in troubling conduct" in HLP
Properties LLC v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, U.S.
District Judge Lorna Schofield found no need to disqualify its
lawyers from the case.

The finding comes in a lawsuit by Manhattan developer HLP
Properties to make Con Edison's subsidiary pay $24 million for the
cleanup of a site once known as the West 18th Street Gas Works.

Between 1834 and the early 1900s, Con Edison dumped large amounts
of coal tar and other pollutants in the soil and groundwater in
its operations there, the lawsuit alleges.

The West Chelsea neighborhood is currently experiencing a real
estate boom after the city transformed once-abandoned, elevated
train tracks into the vibrant High Line Park.

HLP Properties says that it has spent at least $3.6 million so far
in government-mandated remediation, and it expects to spend $24
million more.

Gibson Dunn's Randy Mastro filed the suit for HLP a day after
spearheading an action in New York to rescue Chevron from a $9.5
billion judgment in Ecuador over oil contamination.

Mastro's claims of a "shakedown" in the Amazon persuaded a federal
judge here to rule this past March that the Ecuadorean verdict had
been "procured by corrupt means."

Con Edison meanwhile sought to evade Mastro's attempt to have it
foot HLP's bill by pointing out that another Gibson Dunn partner,
Washington-based John Olson, signed an engagement letter with Con
Edison's parent company in 2003.

HLP retained Gibson Dunn in 1999.

Though Schofield found that Gibson Dunn lawyers had met with Con
Edison representatives about the environmental dispute "on at
least four occasions" between those years, Con Edison's subsidiary
did not cry foul about the alleged conflict until 2014.  Schofield
found "no indication of an actual or apparent conflict in
loyalties," but said Gibson Dunn should have sought waivers from
both parties to guard against the potential for one.

The judge also suggested that Con Edison's lawyers may have
drummed up controversy for "tactical" reasons.  To avoid leaving
HLP without its longtime legal team, Schofield refused to
disqualify Gibson Dunn.

"Were it not for this consideration, the outcome of this motion
might well have been different," her opinion states.

Mastro applauded the decision.

"We're gratified by the court's decision denying this belated
motion to disqualify our firm from continuing to represent a
client we've been representing for the past 15 years adverse to a
Con Edison subsidiary when, only years later, Con Edison then
retained our firm to represent its parent board on unrelated
matters, knowing of our firm's adversity to its subsidiary,"
Mastro said in an email.  "This motion was brought for transparent
tactical reasons, it failed, and now, we look forward to
litigating this case to resolution and holding this Con Edison
subsidiary responsible for the costs of remediating this site."

Gibson Dunn is still awaiting judgment from the 2nd Circuit
regarding a defense in yet another case that could pose trouble
for its Ecuadorean litigation.

In this third case, the firm represents one of the entities
accused in a class action of "sewer service."  The practice
involves buying debt on the cheap, failing to serve a complaint on
the debtor and then filing a false affidavit claiming that the
notice has been served.

At a hearing this past February, Gibson Dunn attorney Miguel
Estrada told the 2nd Circuit that federal anti-racketeering law
does not allow the class led by Monique Sykes to sue for
injunctive relief.

Lawyers for the Ecuadoreans have claimed that success for this
argument in the 2nd Circuit could void the legal basis for
Chevron's RICO victory against them.

Chevron meanwhile denounced the controversy as a "stunt" by the
Ecuadoreans and denied any concern with its lawyers.

While Chevron did not deny that the Gibson Dunn strategy in Sykes
completely contradicted its own, the oil giant predicted that the
U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately decide the legal controversy.

No court date has been set for Chevron's showdown with the
Ecuadoreans in the 2nd Circuit.

The case is HLP Properties, LLC, et al. v. Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01383-LGS, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


CRITTENDEN REGIONAL: Faces Second Class Action Following Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that the
ultimately fatal financial troubles at Crittenden Regional
Hospital in West Memphis might have started three years ago,
according to a federal lawsuit filed last month against the
hospital's former directors.

The lawsuit was filed by former employee Rhonda Michelle
Goodfellow, who is seeking class-action certification for her
case.  She accused the hospital and its directors of using
employees' money that was earmarked for the hospital's self-
insured health benefit plan as operating revenue for the hospital,
possibly as far back as 2011.

She is the second employee to sue over the allegations that the
hospital took the employees' health insurance premium money. Both
lawsuits are seeking class-action status and are pending. The
cases might be merged together.

"We do not know exactly when the diversion of funds commenced"
because discovery hasn't started, one of Ms. Goodfellow's
attorneys, Tim Edwards of Memphis, told Arkansas Business.  "We
know there had been problems with payment of claims for several
years back, so we assume that's when the diversion of employee
funds that were deducted from paychecks" started.

The hospital's failure to forward the money to the third-party
administrator resulted in the employees being responsible for
paying medical bills that they assumed were covered by insurance,
Ms. Goodfellow's lawsuit said.

The law firm for the hospital and its officers and directors said
in a statement that there wasn't a deliberate attempt to damage
the hospital's finances.

"The evidence we have seen contradicts the allegation that
contributions collected from employees for the Health Plan were
used for anything unrelated to the Health Plan and employee health
benefits," Mark Peters -- mark.peters@wallerlaw.com -- of Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis, of Nashville, Tennessee, said in a
statement.  "Employee contributions typically accounted for less
than a quarter of the claims annually incurred under the Health
Plan. The Hospital made additional contributions to the Health
Plan."

Ms. Goodfellow's 41-page complaint also shines a little more light
on the collapse of the nonprofit hospital, which was operated by
Crittenden Hospital Association.  CHA filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy protection last month and listed $33.3 million in debts
and $27.75 million in assets.

Ms. Goodfellow's lawsuit alleged that the hospital's directors
knew that "without additional capital CHA would ultimately fail.
Therefore, in an effort to financially prop up CHA, the Officer
and Director Defendants decided that CHA could save money if CHA
simply 'took a pass' on making the necessary and required
contributions to the Plan."

Through the alleged scheme, the hospital deducted an average of
about $200 a month from employees' wages, supposedly to pay for
health insurance.  By not paying the third-party administrator,
the hospital kept about $100,000 per month and more than $4
million between 2011 and September 2014, the lawsuit said.

"We can only assume that it was being used for operating capital,"
Mr. Edwards said.  "We don't have any evidence that it was used
for anything other than keeping the doors of the hospital open."

Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Cigna Health & Life
Insurance Co., of Bloomfield, Connecticut, which was the third-
party administrator of the hospital's self-insured plan.

When hospital employees would quiz Cigna as to why their claims
weren't being paid, "Cigna would respond that [the employees] were
fully covered and they were under health insurance," Mr. Edwards
said.

In September, though, employees learned that they haven't had any
coverage since May, he said.  "It was quite a shock to them,"
Mr. Edwards said.

Ms. Goodfellow has received medical bills totaling $9,500 that she
thought she had coverage for, the lawsuit said.

Peters said that hospital officials had asked providers not to
pursue payment from the hospital's employees.  So far, at least
three providers have agreed not to pursue payment from the
employees.

The U.S. Department of Labor is looking into the health insurance
issue, according to an affidavit filed last month in the
bankruptcy case by the hospital's former CEO, Gene Cashman.

Cigna, Mr. Cashman wrote, claimed it was owed $32,000 for
administrative fees and would not handle claims for the Crittenden
Regional employees until it was paid.  Mr. Cashman said the
$32,000 was sent, but Cigna then said more was owed for stop-loss
premiums. The hospital didn't have the money to pay that, so Cigna
canceled its contract, he said.

"The true amount owed on health insurance claims is still
unknown," Mr. Cashman wrote.

Crittenden County Judge Woody Wheeless said last week he's still
trying to find a buyer for the hospital.


DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hip Implant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a jury issued
a favorable verdict for defendants Depuy Orthopedics, Inc., a
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, after an almost two-month-long
trial in the first bellwether case in the hip replacement device
multidistrict litigation in Dallas federal court.

Michael Powell -- mpowell@lockelord.com -- a partner in the Dallas
office of Locke Lord, represents DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.  Mr.
Powell served as lead for Locke Lord on this case.  He did not
immediately return a call seeking a comment.

"We are pleased with the jury's decision, which reflects the facts
of this case," Mindy Tinsley, a company spokeswoman, said in a
press release.  "The evidence showed that ULTAMET Metal-on-Metal
was designed to meet the needs of patients and is backed by
clinical data showing a track record of safety and effectiveness
in reducing pain and restoring mobility for patients suffering
from chronic hip pain."  The statement noted that "[t]he company
expects additional cases to be tried in the coming months and
remains committed to the long-term and vigorous defense of the
allegations in these lawsuits."

Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, who represents the
plaintiff in the case along with Wayne Fisher of Fisher, Boyd,
Johnson & Huguenard, also in Houston, emailed his conclusion about
the trial outcome: "A tough first battle in a long war.  We look
forward to pressing on with some more ammunition," he wrote.
This first bellwether case was scheduled to help set a pattern for
future trials in the MDL, which includes more than 4,000
complaints related to the hip replacement system filed against its
manufacturers.

In the bellwether case, Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics, the
plaintiff, Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, filed a complaint in July 2012
alleging that "defendants have known, or should have known, that
the Pinnacle device was not safe or durable and presented a
considerable risk of injury to those implanted with it."

In her complaint, the plaintiff also alleged that "defendants
knew, or should have known, of reports that metal-on-metal
implants, such as the Pinnacle, generated unusually high amounts
of metal debris over time due to unusual, premature or increased
wear and tear.  This debris can spread throughout the surrounding
bone and tissue and cause serious complications and damage."


DIRECTV INC: Fails to Pay All Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zaid Al Azawi, Ernesto Alanis, Jr., Forrest Alford, Jon Allen,
Reynaldo Arreaga, Ronald Chase, Christian Colon, Gregory Dooley,
Cody Edge, Richard Elliott, Juan Garcia, Robert Gardner, Garnett
Gerlt, Paul Granger, Jonathan Guajardo, Chimya Johnson, Dana
Johnson, Man Leung, Weldon Nix, Cesar Posadas, Gustavo Rodriguez,
Edward Rodriguez, Alejandro Sosadelgado, John Spence, Andrew
Umbaugh, Joseph Waldrop, Bill Arellano, Jimmy Baines, Roger Goras,
Kenneth Haynes, Tony Mallard, Xavier McCook, Joby Vega, and Marvin
Edwards v. DirecTV, Inc., DirecTV, LLC, MasTec North America,
Inc., and Multiband Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-02962 (S.D. Tex.,
October 17, 2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay all minimum wage and
overtime wages due to the Plaintiffs, failing to properly
calculate the Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for determining the
overtime premium pay owed, and improperly deducting money from the
Plaintiffs' pay.

DIRECTV, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in El
Segundo, California.  DIRECTV is the largest provider of satellite
television services in the United States.  MasTec North America,
Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in Coral Gables,
Florida.  Multiband Corp. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered
in New Hope, Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. Couhig, Jr.
          Jonathan P. Lemann
          COUHIG PARTNERS, LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3250
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 588-1288
          Facsimile: (504) 588-9750
          E-mail: couhigre@couhigpartners.com
                  lemannjp@couhigpartners.com

               - and -

          Jesse B. Hearin, III, Esq.
          HEARIN, LLC
          1009 Carnation Street, Suite E
          Slidell, LA 70460
          Telephone: (985) 639-3377
          Facsimile: (877) 821-8015
          E-mail: jbhearin@hearinllc.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan D. O'Dell, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          CA Bar No. 290802
          500 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5826
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: odell@stuevesiegel.com


DOMETIC CORP: Removes "Connell" Liability Suit to W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Connell, et al. v. Dometic Corporation, Case
No. 29CV-14-117-1, was removed from the Hempstead County Circuit
Court to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas (Texarkana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-04136-PKH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit concerns a fire to a camper trailer, which was owned
by the Plaintiffs and located in Hempstead County, Arkansas, at
the time of the fire.  The Connells allege that the cooling unit
installed in the Dometic refrigerator was defectively designed or
constructed in a defective and improper manner so that it caused
the fire made subject of the Complaint.

Dometic Corporation is a Kentucky for profit corporation doing
business worldwide supplying certain appliances to the RV and
Marine industries.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard N. Watts, Esq.
          WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A.
          200 S. Commerce St., Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1406
          Facsimile: (501) 372-1209
          E-mail: richard.watts@wdt-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kyle Ray Wilson, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: kwilson@wlj.com


DONALD TRUMP: Liable for Operating Unlicensed School, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a rough court week for Donald Trump, one court found the
property magnate personally liable for operating an investment
school without a license, just as one of his former models brought
a labor class action, reports Molly Willms at Courthouse News
Service.

The October 15 decision comes in a case New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman brought against Trump last year for fraud,
claiming Trump Entrepreneur Initiative -- formerly Trump
University -- had cheated students out of $40 million.

Beginning in 2004, Trump operated the school with entrepreneur
Michael Sexton.  Students who signed up for a free seminar were
encouraged to sign up for another seminar on real estate
investment strategies, but this one cost $1,500, the decision by
the New York County Supreme Court states.

The court found that Trump's school also encouraged students to
participate in "Trump Elite Programs" that cost upwards of $20,000
and involved a year of one-on-one mentoring.

Schneiderman said Trump lied about having handpicked the school's
instructors.  Further, promises the students would receive
extensive support were not fulfilled, and the Elite programs
provided little or no additional assistance, according to the
complaint.

Even a special appearance by Trump himself turned out to be a
sham, the lawsuit states, noting that students had their picture
taken with a life-size photograph of "The Apprentice" star.

New York previously wrote Trump University to cease operation
without an education license, the decision states.  This led the
school to remove the word "university" from its name but continue
operating as usual, the court found.

Though Justice Cynthia Kern found that the statute of limitations
had elapsed on some of the attorney general's requests, she held
Trump Entrepreneur Initiative liable for operating without a
license.

Trump and Sexton, who served as the school's president, knew that
the school's continued operation was against the law, the decision
states.  The court also dismissed a counterclaim by the Trump
defendants for malicious prosecution.

A determination of damages will follow further proceedings on the
state's remaining claims.

Just as the state court was issuing its decision, a model filed a
federal class action in Manhattan against Trump Model Management,
claiming she was paid just $3,880 for 21 modeling jobs over three
years, despite being promised $225,000.

Alexia Palmer says she was charged so much for expenses that she
took home less than 2 percent of her base salary of $75,000
yearly.

"The lure of a higher wage of $75,000, well above the legally
required prevailing wage of $45,490 per year, was done merely to
get models to agree to work for the defendants while the
defendants would later 'offset' such outlandish wage offer [sic]
by directly withholding money from the plaintiff for obscure
expenses," the complaint states.

Palmer was allegedly sent to a dermatologist, asked to take
walking lessons, forced to travel in expensive limousines and
"constantly supplied with numerous unnecessary makeup kits," the
complaint states.  Trump made her foot the bill each time, she
claims.

Trump Model Management then lied on Palmer's H1-B visa
applications and Labor Condition Application for Nonimmigrant
Workers, stating it was paying her the agreed-upon amount, the
complaint states.

Palmer hopes to represent a class seeking damages and an
injunction for fraud and violations of federal anti-racketeering
law and federal labor law.

Palmer is represented by:

          Naresh Gehi, Esq.
          GEHI & ASSOCIATES
          118-21 Queens Blvd., Suite 409,
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 263-5999

The first case is The People of the State of New York, by Eric T.
Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York v. The
Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC f/k/a Trump University LLC, et
al., Case No. 451463/13, in the Supreme Court of New York, County
of New York.


E-Z RENT A CAR: "Legg" Suit Moved from California to Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Legg v. E-Z Rent A Car, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01124, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).  The Florida
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01716-PGB-DAB to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRA RUBEL
          555 West Beech Street, Suite 230
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (800) 836-6531
          E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          664 E Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen R. Smerek, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1735
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: ssmerek@winston.com


ELDREDGE LUMBER: Accused of Discriminating Against Iraq Veteran
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hart, an Individual residing in the Town of Sanford,
County of York, and State of Maine v. Eldredge Lumber & Hardware,
Inc., a Maine Corporation doing business in the Town of York,
County of York, and State of Maine, Case No. 2:14-cv-00420-JDL
(D. Me., October 21, 2014) challenges the Defendant's alleged
unlawful:

   (1) discrimination against the Plaintiff on the basis of his
       disability in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act, the
       Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Uniformed
       Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act;

   (2) retaliation against the Plaintiff for requesting a
       reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation
       of the MHRA, the ADA and USERRA; and

   (3) refusal to retain or reinstate the Plaintiff to his
       position as a result of his past military service and
       service-related disabilities, in violation of USERRA.

Mr. Hart was employed by Eldredge as a commercial driver from May
2013 until his termination on October 23, 2013.  Upon being hired
by Eldredge, he said he disclosed that he was a disabled veteran
of the Iraq War.

Eldredge Lumber & Hardware, Inc. is a Maine Corporation doing
business in Maine and operating in the Town of York, County of
York, and state of Maine.  Eldredge is a lumber and hardware
company in York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura H. White, Esq.
          William J. Gallitto, Esq.
          BERGEN & PARKINSON, LLC
          62 Portland Rd., Suite 25
          Kennebunk, ME 04043
          Telephone: (207) 985-7000
          E-mail: lwhite@bergenparkinson.com
                  wgallitto@bergenparldnson.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Battlefield 4 'Puffery' Is Not Fraud, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts stockholders cannot claim securities fraud over
the game developer's corporate "puffery" in extolling the virtues
of its troubled "Battlefield 4" game, reports Julie Baker-Dennis
at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered
on October 20, 2014.

Lead plaintiffs Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro filed a class action
suit last year against Electronics Arts and its officers and
executives, for making false assurances to investors about the
readiness of its action game "Battlefield 4."  They represent
anyone who purchased Electronic Arts common stock between May 8,
2013 and Dec. 5, 2013.

While Electronic Arts has a history of developing successful video
games for existing and next-generation gaming consoles -- with
"Battlefield 3" generating more than 10 percent of the company's
total revenue in 2012 -- investors and gamers alike also knew of
the company's history of botched game launches and failed attempts
to transition its games to different consoles.

Investors and gamers tuned in to video game conferences where
"BF4" garnered positive prelaunch reviews at live demonstrations.
At the Electronic Entertainment Expo in 2013, EA's demonstration
on Microsoft's Xbox One went on to nab 21 awards -- leading to a
huge jump in preorders for the game.

Despite challenges in development, the atmosphere at EA remained
positive.  "BF4" executive producer Patrick Bach also denied a
possible release delay by stating "Luckily we've overcome those
hurdles" in a prelaunch interview.

But customer complaints immediately followed Electronic Arts'
three-string rollout, beginning with the release of the game for
existing consoles on Oct. 29, 2013.  Common complaints included
that the game would not start or gave crash error messages, and
that it froze so often that customers said it was unplayable.

It took more than three months for the company to fix BF4's
defects.

Investors pointed to eight statements made by EA's executives --
all defendants in the action -- about the technology and
development of "BF4," including one by CEO Andrew Wilson stating
that they had achieved "a level of quality at launch that we
didn't get to last time and our teams are already starting to
think about investment in new innovation for the future."

Electronic Arts and its executives lobbied for a dismissal of the
investors' securities fraud claims, arguing that the investors had
not shown they had relied on the misstatements in buying stock.
The company also pointed out that five of the eight statements
which some of the investors claim to have relied on were actually
made after they had purchased EA stock.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston acknowledged this, and held that
Kelly and Mastro cannot pursue securities fraud claims based on
statements made after their Oct. 16, 2013 stock purchases.
However, Illston said she will allow the investors to substitute
new lead plaintiffs who bought stock based on misstatements made
on Oct. 29 and Dec. 3. -- provided their stock was purchased after
those dates.

The judge also agreed with EA that some of the alleged
misstatements amounted to nothing more than corporate confidence.

"Defendant [CFO Blake] Jorgensen's Oct. 29, 2013 statement
comparing 'BF4' to a World Series ace pitcher is puffery," Illston
wrote.  "Defendant Wilson's Oct. 29, 2013 statement explaining
that EA 'worked more closely with Microsoft and Sony throughout
the entire process' resulting in a 'launch slate of games that are
the best transition games that I've ever seen come out of this
company' is an inactionable opinion, as well as a vague statement
of corporate optimism."

Illston also dismissed investors' claims of intentional or
deliberate recklessness, finding that "the complaint fails to
adequately allege falsity and scienter for reasons articulated by
defendants."

Kelly and Mastro have until November 3rd to fix their complaint.

The case is Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,
et al., Case No. C 13-05837 SI, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.


ELNA CO: Faces "Quathimatine" Suit Over Capacitor Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quathimatine Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Divicom, USA, on behalf of
itself and all those similarly situated v. ELNA Co., Ltd., ELNA
America Inc., AVX Corporation, Kemet Corporation, Kemet
Electronics Corporation, NEC-Tokin Corporation, NEC-Tokin America,
Inc., Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Co. America,
Ltd., Hitachi AIC Inc., Nichicon Corporation, Nichicon (America)
Corporation, Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation, United Chemi-Con
Corporation, Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation,
Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Electronic
Devices Co. Ltd., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sanyo North America
Corporation, Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.), Inc., Rohm Co.
Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Rubycon Corporation, Rubycon
America Inc., Samsung Electromechanics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electro-
Mechanics America, Inc., Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd., Taiyo Yuden (USA)
Inc., Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., and Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-04704-KAW (N.D. Cal., October 22, 2014) alleges
violations of antitrust laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are guilty of unlawful
conduct to restrain competition in the market for aluminum and
tantalum electrolytic capacitors.

Capacitors, together with resistors and inductors, typically make
up what are known in the electronics industry as "passive
component parts."  Capacitors are found in nearly every electronic
product on the market in a wide variety of industries, including
consumer products (audio and visual), telecommunications,
automotive, computer, and industrial equipment.

ELNA Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place
of business located in Yokohama, Japan.  ELNA Co., Ltd. produced
and sold aluminum electrolytic capacitors during the Class Period.
ELNA America Inc. is a California corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ELNA Co., Ltd. with its principal place of business
in Gardena, California.  ELNA America Inc. sold and distributed
aluminum electrolytic capacitors during the Class Period.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Capacitors globally
and in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212)-907-0700
          Facsimile: (212)-818-0477
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  mperez@labaton.com

               - and -

          Damon J. Chargois, Esq.
          Kamran Mashayekh, Esq.
          MASHAYEKH & CHARGOIS, LLP
          One Riverway, Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 840-6313
          Facsimile: (713) 622-1937
          E-mail: damon@cmhllp.com
                  kamran@cmhllp.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Cert. Granted in Lewis and Raffone Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a court
has only granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone
lawsuits.

First American said the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or
one of its agents face lawsuits that they charged an improper rate
for title insurance in a refinance transaction.  The lawsuits
include:

   1. Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
September 29, 2010 and pending in the United States District Court
of New Jersey,

   2. Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court
of Pennsylvania,

   3. Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho,

   4. Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County,
Florida, and

   5. Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
December 19, 2005 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only
granted class certification in Lewis and Raffone. The class
originally certified in Slapikas was subsequently decertified. For
the reasons stated above, the Company has been unable to assess
the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range
of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate,
the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed
consolidated financial statements as a whole.


FIRST AMERICAN: Narrow Class Certified in "Edwards" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a narrow
class has been certified in the case, Edwards v. First American
Financial Corporation, filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company purchased minority interests
in title insurance agents as an inducement to refer title
insurance underwriting business to the Company or gave items of
value to title insurance agents and others for referrals of
business in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

The Company has been unable to estimate the possible loss or the
range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class in "Gale" Case Was Decertified
----------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
class originally certified in the Gale case was decertified.

Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., was filed
on October 16, 2006 and is pending in the United States District
Court of Connecticut.  The lawsuit alleges the Company engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law.

The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Plaintiff in "Kirk" Case Files Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2014, for quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company faces lawsuits that alleged it overcharged or improperly
charged fees for products and services, denied home warranty
claims, and gave items of value to developers, builders and others
as inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations,
including:

   1. Bushman v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on November 21, 2013 and pending in the Circuit Court of the
State of Michigan, County of Washtenaw,

   2. Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court of New Jersey,

   3. Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky,

   4. Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   5. Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

   6. Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

   7. Snyder v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on June 21, 2014 and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado,

   8. Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, and

   9. In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class
actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a
class was certified but that certification was subsequently
vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded, plaintiff has
filed a notice of appeal and the Company filed a cross appeal.

The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where
the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
believes the amount is immaterial to the condensed consolidated
financial statements as a whole.


FORD MOTOR: Explorers Expose Passengers to Lethal CO, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a defect in Ford Explorers
exposes passengers to lethal carbon monoxide and other gases, a
New York federal class action alleges.

Angela Dixon, a resident of Broward County, Fla., says she leased
a new 2013 Ford Explorer in October 2012 from a dealership in
Lynbrook, N.Y.  When she brought the fifth-generation vehicle into
the dealership for service, Dixon allegedly complained about an
exhaust odor in the passenger compartment while the Explorer was
in use.  Dixon says the dealership advised her that certain air-
conditioning operation would resolve the issue, but that she had
to bring the vehicle in to another dealership, this time in
Plantation, Fla., for the same exhaust problem.

Carbon monoxide, "an odorless, colorless and tasteless gas that is
toxic to humans," enters Dixon's vehicle's passenger compartment
as well, according to the federal complaint she filed in the
Eastern District of New York.

Ford has issued two bulletins since 2012 regarding the possibility
of an "exhaust odor" in some 2011-14 Explorers, but those notices
"do not correct the condition, and they fail to acknowledge that
carbon monoxide may enter the passenger compartment of affected
vehicles," the complaint states.

Since such bulletins are provided to authorized dealerships, non-
Ford automotive repair shops are not directly notified of the
exhaust problems, Dixon says.

Ford purportedly fixed the problem upon receiving numerous
complaints about the exhaust issue over the years, but it
"provided no notice to plaintiff . . . about the defect and the
potential exposure to lethal carbon monoxide in 2011 through 2015
model-year Ford Explorers," the complaint continues.

Dixon says the various replacements or repairs that Ford
recommended in its bulletins about the exhaust issue reveal that
it was "hoping, but not knowing" of a way to remedy the exhaust-
odor complaints.

The class seeks damages and covered repairs for the defectively
designed vehicles, alleging breach of warranty, deceptive acts and
other claims.

U.S. District Judge Sandra Feuerstein and U.S Magistrate Judge
Arlene Lindsay were assigned the case.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sachs, Esq.
          114 Old Country Road, Suite 460
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-7575
          E-mail: Steven@StevenSachsLaw.com


FRANKLIN FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Over Glen Allen Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that
another class action lawsuit has its hooks in a big Richmond M&A
deal.

A shareholder of Franklin Federal Savings Bank's holding company
is looking to potentially block the Glen Allen bank's pending $275
million acquisition by Suffolk-based TowneBank and has filed suit
in Richmond federal court.  Franklin shareholder Andrew Malon is
the lead plaintiff in a case filed Oct. 1 that calls the deal a
"flawed process" that allegedly undervalues the company and would
result in a negative premium for Mr. Malon and his fellow
shareholders.  The case is seeking class action status with Mr.
Malon filing on behalf of potentially thousands of Franklin
Financial Corp. shareholders.  It claims breach of fiduciary duty
against Franklin Federal, Franklin Financial, its CEO Rick Wheeler
and the rest of the company's board of directors.  TowneBank is
also named as a defendant for claims of aiding and abetting the
alleged breaches.  The case also claims violations of certain
federal securities laws.

TowneBank and Franklin Federal announced the acquisition on
July 15.  As proposed, Franklin shareholders would receive 1.4
shares of TowneBank stock for each of their Franklin shares.

The deal's value was based on Franklin's closing stock price
$23.04 per share the day before the announcement.  The Malon
lawsuit argues that Franklin's stock has fallen to as low as
$18.81 per share since the deal was announcement.  It closed at
$19.90 per share on Oct. 17.  Towne's stock closed at $14.59 per
share on Oct. 17.

"Despite the company's solid and continually improving
performance, the board failed to secure a sufficient price for the
Franklin stockholders' stock," the lawsuit claims.

The payouts, or so-called "golden parachutes" that will be due to
Franklin executives upon closing of the deal, are also pointed out
in the suit.  Mr. Wheeler, for example, is due a total of $3.4
million in cash, equity, and other compensation, according to
court documents.

Franklin and TowneBank's deal is at least the third recent merger
or acquisition involving local firms to be targeted by a class
action case.

Richmond-based Union First Market Bank got caught up in a similar
suit during its acquisition of StellarOne Bank.  That case was
eventually settled.

Mechanicsville-based Owens & Minor is facing a similar suit for
its acquisition of a New York medical supply company. The case is
still pending.

The cases all make similar claims and use similar language.

Washington, D.C. law firm Levi & Korsinsky is representing the
shareholder in the Franklin case.  It was one of many law firms
that took to the internet within days of the deal's announcement
using alerts aimed at getting the attention of Franklin
shareholders who might not agree with the terms of the acquisition
and would be willing to stamp their name as lead plaintiff onto a
class action case.

The practice has become the norm with big mergers involving
publicly traded companies.  TowneBank is publicly traded, and
Franklin Financial went public with a $138 million IPO in 2011.

As is typical of such cases, the Franklin-Towne suit does not ask
for specific damages, but requests that a judge to order the deal
stopped either temporarily or permanently.  These cases are often
settled by the companies being sued with a payment going to the
plaintiff and a payday for the lawyers.  Other such cases are
dismissed if the companies agree to make certain changes to the
language of deal's proxy documents.

Mr. Wheeler said he could not comment on the case.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Internet Outages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eyre, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that
Frontier Communications customers have filed a class-action
lawsuit against the company in West Virginia, alleging Frontier
failed to provide the high-speed Internet services it advertised.

Customers also complained about frequent Internet outages, and
having to repeatedly turn their modems off and on to restore
broadband service, according to the lawsuit filed in Lincoln
County Circuit Court.

Frontier advertised a service called "High-speed Internet Max,"
which provides speeds up to 12 megabits per second.  But the
company "throttled" back Internet speeds, particularly in rural
areas, without properly notifying customers, according to the
lawsuit.  Some customers were receiving speeds below 1 megabit per
second, but paying for the faster service, the suit alleges.

Frontier's "false advertising" violates the West Virginia Consumer
Credit and Protection Act, according to the complaint.

"The Internet service provided by Frontier does not come anywhere
close to the speeds advertised . . ." wrote Benjamin Sheridan, a
Hurricane lawyer who filed on the lawsuit on behalf of three
Frontier customers.

Frontier spokesman Dan Page said the customers suing the company
got the Internet service they paid for.

"Although we cannot guarantee Internet speeds due to numerous
factors, such as traffic on the Internet and the capabilities of a
customer's computer, Frontier tested each plaintiff's line and
found that in all cases the service met or exceeded the 'up to'
broadband speeds to which they subscribed," Page said.

Frontier shared the information with the customers and their
lawyers, Page said.

"Nonetheless, the plaintiffs filed their case in Lincoln County,
where none of them lives," he said. "If necessary, we are prepared
to defend ourselves in court and bring the facts to light."

In the lawsuit, the customers say Frontier's alleged dialing back
of customers' Internet speeds -- a practice known in the industry
as "provisioning" -- saves the company a "fortune" in costs that
Frontier must pay Internet wholesalers such as Sprint and AT&T.

" . . .  Frontier's practice of overcharging and failing to
provide the high-speed, broadband-level of service it advertises
has created high profits for Frontier but left Internet users in
the digital Dark Age," Mr. Sheridan wrote.

Frontier, the state's largest Internet provider, has "a monopoly
on Internet services in most of West Virginia," according to the
lawsuit. In rural communities, Frontier is often the only Internet
service option, and customers in those areas get slower Internet
speeds, the suit alleges.

"As a result, students are prevented from being able to do their
homework, and rural consumers are unable to utilize the Internet
in a way that gives them equal footing with those in an urban
environment," Mr. Sheridan wrote.

The lawsuit also criticizes Frontier for taking $42 million in
federal stimulus funds to install high-speed fiber-optic cable
across the state.  The fiber network serves schools, libraries,
county courthouses, jails, 911 centers, State Police detachments
and other public buildings.  State officials overseeing the
project promised that Frontier's competitors would be able to use
the network to serve homes and businesses.

That hasn't happened.

"Frontier's deceptive scheme is compounded by the fact it has used
enormous sums of public money to promote its own ends without
regard to the needs of its customers," Mr. Sheridan wrote.
"Frontier's acceptance of public funds to create this monopolistic
exploitation of rural West Virginians is a violation of our public
trust."

The lawsuit alleges only 12 percent of Frontier's customers
receive Internet speeds that meet a state and federal download
speed standard of 4 megabits per second.  By contrast, 80 percent
of Suddenlink and Comcast subscribers have Internet speeds that
meet the standard.

The lawsuit has three plaintiffs so far: April Morgan, a Frontier
customer who lives in Marion County; and Greenbrier residents
Trisha Cooke and Michael Mr. Sheridan, who is Ben Sheridan's
father.  The three subscribed to Frontier's "High-speed Internet
Max" service for about $40 a month.

That product's Internet speeds weren't sufficient to view YouTube
videos and streaming video services such as Netflix, according to
the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Frontier didn't have the Internet
network capacity to provide its faster speeds to all customers.

After Michael Sheridan complained to Frontier General Manager Dana
Waldo about poor Internet service, Ms. Waldo wrote back, "If as
you suggest, we 'opened up the throttle' for every served
customer, it could create congestion problems resulting in
degradation of speed for all customers," according to an email
exchange cited in the lawsuit.

The three customers also complained about "innumerable" Internet
service outages.  Morgan alleged she had to restart her DSL modem
five to 10 times a day to connect to the Internet.  Sheridan said
Frontier had to replace his modem "many times just to maintain a
basic connection to the Internet," according to the suit.

". . . The service provided by [Frontier] is plagued by outages,
disconnections and other problems rendering it extremely difficult
to use and often unavailable . . ." the lawsuit says.

The suit notes that Frontier's "terms of service" agreement
includes a clause that forces customers to settle any disputes
with the company through binding arbitration or small claims court
-- not through individual lawsuits, class-action cases and jury
trials.

The lawsuit alleges the agreement is only available online, so
it's not available to people signing up for Internet service.
Frontier gets customers to agree to its terms without securing
"informed written consent," according to the lawsuit.

The Hurricane law firm of Klein, Sheridan & Glazer is handling the
lawsuit. The case has been assigned to Lincoln Circuit Judge Jay
Hoke.

Although the three plaintiffs don't live in Lincoln County,
lawyers can file class-action suits in any West Virginia county
where a defendant does business. Frontier has customers in Lincoln
County.

Mr. Sheridan would not comment last week for this report.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Inspector General
started an investigation into the $42 million fiber-optic cable
network that Frontier built with federal stimulus funds in West
Virginia.

Federal investigators have told state officials to turn over
Frontier's invoices and thousands of other documents related to
the high-speed Internet project.  A letter sent to the state
suggests the Inspector General is looking into whether Frontier
padded invoices with unnecessary costs -- and whether high-ranking
state officials turned a blind eye to any fraudulent billings.


FUJI HIBACHI: Class Members are Entitled to OT Premium, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Xian Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Fuji Hibachi Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Mr. Sushi
& Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak House, James Yu Lam, John Does and
Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 7:14-cv-08444-KMK (S.D.N.Y., October 22,
2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class are
entitled to (i) unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, and (ii)
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Queens County, New York, and was
employed by the Defendants as a sushi chef at Mr. Sushi & Grill
from August 30, 2012, to April 24, 2013.

Fuji Hibachi Restaurant LLC, doing business as Mr. Sushi & Grill
Japanese Hibachi Steak House, is a New York corporation with a
principal place of business at in Middletown, New York.  James Yu
Lam is an owner, officer, shareholder, and manager of Mr. Sushi &
Grill.  The Doe Defendants are owners, officers, shareholders, and
managers of Mr. Sushi & Grill.  The Defendants operated a
restaurant known as Mr. Sushi & Grill Japanese Hibachi Steak
House.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Bergman Files Ignition-Switch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Atiyeh, writing for CarandDriver, reports that a group of
lawyers wants to sue General Motors for more than $10 billion in
what will likely become the largest class-action lawsuit against
the automaker for ignition-switch defects that have claimed at
least 29 lives.

Hagens Berman, the law firm that in 2012 won $1.1 billion in
economic damages against Toyota for its unintended-acceleration
recalls, has essentially scrapped a $350-million class-action suit
against GM it filed in March.  That filing, released a month after
GM issued the first ignition-switch recall in mid-February and
later expanded it, sought $250 per owner for approximately 1.4
million cars.  The amended lawsuit, filed on Oct. 14 with two
other firms, includes every new and used GM car sold between
July 11, 2009 -- the day after GM emerged from bankruptcy as a new
company -- until July 3 of this year.  The all-reaching document
lists 68 plaintiffs, including two used-car dealers, from 40
states and Washington, D.C., as examples alleging how GM models
have lost more value than they would have had GM not tried to
"falsely assure" buyers that their cars were "safe and reliable."

A second suit from Hagens Berman filed the same day, which did not
specify expected damages, is after many of the older vehicles --
sold before the 2009 bankruptcy -- that GM recalled this year for
ignition-switch problems.  A total of 151 claims allege that GM
violated warranties and committed fraud in all 50 states along
with intent to prove the automaker had deliberately "concealed the
existence of the defects."

Much of the evidence comes from GM marketing materials touting
safety and quality, the damning internal audit by Anton Valukas,
complaints filed to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, and GM's stream of 76 recalls this year.  Several
significant points are up for contention.  One is whether the
roughly 10 million other cars GM recalled in the U.S. for various
ignition-switch problems are directly related to the initial 2.2
million cars that set off this chain of events.  GM has only
admitted switch failure on those cars; on the rest, it has either
cut new keys, plugged keychain holes, or refitted existing key
fobs.  Hagens Berman, according to their filings, thinks GM is
trying to patch a single, more serious problem.

"New GM's supposed fix does not address the defect or the safety
risks that the defect poses," the suit says.  "The real answer
must include the replacement of all the switches with ones that
have sufficient torque to resist foreseeable rotational forces."

The filings also allege that GM's more recent recalls are further
evidence that the company knew of older problems and actively
tried to hide them from the public.  That kind of judgment,
however, is rather weak unless NHTSA levies additional civil fines
against GM for those particular recalls; so far, GM has already
been fined the maximum $35 million and is addressing so many
problems at once that it's likely to escape case-by-case scrutiny,
if only for the sheer volume of recalls it has put out this year.

But Hagens Berman has a larger problem: All used cars depreciate
regardless of what a manufacturer does or doesn't do.  One of the
suits lists examples of GM vehicles that dropped by hundreds of
dollars over a six-month period, yet there's no indication that
this isn't a normal rate.  Beyond that, used-car prices
continually fluctuate according to region, available trims, a
vehicle's condition, whether it was involved in a crash, how many
similar models come off lease -- the list of variables is
extremely long and difficult even for industry experts to
quantify.  A recent study from Black Book [which, like C/D, is
owned by Hearst] on popular vehicles affected by large recalls,
including some GM models in the present ignition-switch recalls,
found little drop in values.

Also at issue is the present validity of GM's bankruptcy shield,
which the company has invoked to essentially toss out any lawsuit
involving cars built under the "old GM."  A U.S. bankruptcy judge
has been mulling over the argument for months and has yet to reach
a conclusion.  If GM's victim-compensation fund ends up paying
more victims -- so far, settlement negotiator Kenneth Feinberg has
approved 29 death claims in connection to ignition-switch-related
accidents -- the judge may find GM's defense too thin to stand.


GENERAL MOTORS: 107 Putative Class Actions Over Recalled Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that through October
20, 2014, GM is aware of 107 putative class actions that are
pending against GM in various U.S. District Courts and state
courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles
have been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls
announced this year and/or the underlying vehicle conditions
associated with those recalls.

In the aggregate, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for
purported compensatory damages, including alleged diminution in
value of the vehicles, punitive damages, and injunctive and other
relief.

In addition, through October 20, 2014, GM is aware of 63 actions
pending against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects
that may be the subject of recalls announced in the nine months
ending September 30, 2014, including faulty ignition switches
and/or the failure of air bags to properly deploy due to faulty
ignition switches. In the aggregate, these personal injury cases
seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive
damages, and other relief.

Since June 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that
certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits
involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that
may be related to the recalls announced this year be transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern
District of New York (the multidistrict litigation).

Through October 20, 2014, 130 cases have been transferred and
consolidated as part of the multidistrict litigation. GM has
requested that various other recently filed federal lawsuits also
be transferred and consolidated in the multidistrict litigation.
The court in the multidistrict litigation has appointed lead
counsel to prosecute the claims on behalf of all plaintiffs in the
consolidated cases.

On October 14, 2014, lead counsel filed two amended consolidated
complaints. In addition to the cases pending in the multidistrict
litigation, other economic-loss and personal injury cases related
to ignition-switch and other alleged defects that may be the
subject of recalls in 2014 are pending in various other state and
federal courts throughout the country. Additionally, through
October 20, 2014, 17 putative class actions have been filed in
various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking similar relief as the
U.S.-based cases.


GENERAL MOTORS: Provides Update on GM Korea Wage Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on GM
Korea Wage Litigation.

Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former
hourly employees of GM Korea filed eight separate group actions in
the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in
aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea
failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its
calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of
the Korean Labor Standards Act.

On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level
appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the
Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees
which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and
initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation
of the relevant statute.

The Company said, "In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a
decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with
us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases
pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner
which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while
the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in
the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for
retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain
circumstances."

"On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with
respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and
remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its
December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union
agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in ordinary wages
retroactively to March 1, 2014.

"We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450,
"Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 557 billion
South Korean Won (equivalent to $528 million) at September 30,
2014, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014.

"We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried
employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation.
At September 30, 2014 we have identified a reasonably possible
loss in excess of the amount of our accrual of 164 billion South
Korean Won (equivalent to $155 million). Both the scope of claims
asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual
claim elements may change if new information becomes available.
These cases are currently pending before various district courts
in Korea and the Supreme Court."


GENERAL MOTORS: Trial in GMCL Dealers' Case Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that trial of the class
issues in a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers is
currently ongoing.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL)
on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers
(the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down
agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global
restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might
be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the
Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their
exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down
their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or
such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31,
2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and
Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL
failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its
statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the
Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to
coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down
agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the
wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers'
initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding"
Canadian Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific
measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff
Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to
proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have opted
out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the
certified class. Trial of the class issues is currently ongoing.

The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because
liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to
this litigation.

"We cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the
event of liability as the case presents a variety of different
legal theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid," the
Company said.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Urges Court Not to Certify Gender-Bias Suit Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Goldman
Sachs urged a magistrate judge on October 22, 2014, not to certify
a class action lawsuit accusing them of running a "boy's club,"
and requested the green light for an expert who chalked up the
bank's gender wage gaps to its "extreme jobs."

The start of a two-day hearing marked a turning point in a gender
discrimination lawsuit that three former Goldman employees filed
against the megabank four years ago in federal court.

The lead plaintiff, H. Cristina Chen-Oster, alleges that her
manager sexually assaulted her, while plaintiff Shanna Orlich
claims her manager hired female escorts "wearing short black
skirts, strapless tops, and Santa hats" for a holiday party.

Although Goldman Sachs failed to force the women into arbitration
three years ago, the bank tried in court on October 22 to fend off
the certification of a class action.  The bank also hopes to
disqualify their adversaries' experts, while leaving its own
standing.

In a 92-page report, Purdue University Professor Michael Campion
-- a Goldman Sachs expert -- floated the idea that Goldman's
female staffers might have been paid less because of their alleged
distaste for "extreme jobs."  Campion wrote that a Harvard
Business Review article coined this phrase to describe jobs with
"long work hours, responsibility for profit and loss, a fast-paced
work environment, events outside of regular work hours, and
related features common to Goldman Sachs."  He stated in his
report that "research shows that women may be slightly less
competitive on average in such extreme jobs."

But plaintiffs' attorney Rachel Gemen, of the firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, slammed that explanation as having "no
scientific credibility."

"Given the self-selection of the women who choose to work at
Goldman, Dr. Campion's theory is nonsensical on its face," Geman
replied in a motion to strike the "extreme jobs" thesis.

However, Goldman Sachs also attacked the women's expert,
University of Denver professor Wayne Cascio -- putting Gemen on
the defensive in proceedings before U.S. Magistrate Judge James
Francis.

Goldman's lawyer, Barbara Brown, played a videotaped deposition of
Cascio from Nov. 14, 2013.  And while Cascio's report faulted
Goldman's systems for failing to meet "basic standards," he
appeared in the footage to stop short of saying that these defects
caused the wage gaps.

Gemen countered that Cascio avoided such a sweeping conclusion
because he is "a sophisticated scientist."

"No one expert has to be the soup-to-nuts causation expert," she
added.  "He is not a statistician, nor does he have to be."

Francis did not rule on the motions, and arguments were moved on
to different experts on October 23.


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Opperman" Class Suit Over 95% Stock Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a more than 95 percent stock drop and bankruptcy befell a
company after its supply deal with Apple never materialized, a
federal shareholder class action alleges.

Vance Opperman filed suit in New Hampshire on October 14 against
various officers from the now-bankrupt GT Advanced Technologies
Inc., a leading manufacturer of consumer electronics materials.
He says GT went bankrupt on Oct. 7 after already obtaining $440
million in prepayments from Apple on a multiyear agreement to
supply the tech company with a scratch-resistant material called
sapphire crystal.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple is withholding the
final $139 million installment of the $578 million it committed to
pay GT for that deal, according to the complaint.

GT has just $85 million in cash-on-hand, already below the $125
million "trigger point" at which Apple's deal allows it to demand
reimbursement of its prepayments, Opperman says.

GT announced its Apple deal on Nov. 4, 2013, and CEO Thomas
Gutierrez told shareholders the next day that GT "was in a 'good
position' with regard to its capital and financing," the complaint
states.

Richard Gaynor, the chief financial officer at GT, allegedly
expressed confidence that the company's "projected cash levels are
adequate to run the business for the foreseeable future."

Opperman now calls those statements "materially false and
misleading."

"In truth, [the] company was facing an impending liquidity crisis
and knew that it would not be able to meet the requirements of the
Apple agreement without experiencing significant cash-flow
problems," according to the complaint.  "Further, the ostensible
risks that defendants identified in the offering materials for the
offerings were false and misleading because those risks had
already materialized at the time the statements were made and were
negatively impacting the company's business."

Though Apple had used sapphire crystal in the camera lenses of
older iPhone models, neither of the two latest iPhone models
unveiled on Sept. 9, 2014, "contain displays made from GT's
sapphire material," the complaint states.

GT's stock price then dropped over 25 percent -- from $17.15 to
$12.78 per share -- over two trading days, while the price of the
debt dropped from $1,613 to $1,279 per note, shareholders say.

When GT announced its bankruptcy, it had about $1.5 billion in
assets and $1.3 billion in liabilities as of June 28, according to
the complaint.

News of GT's repayment obligations after the bankruptcy
announcement sent shares into a tailspin, according to the
complaint, which says "the price of GT stock declined from $11.05
per share to $0.80 per share, or almost 93%, on heavy trading
volume."

"Similarly, the price of the debt issued pursuant to the debt
offering, which had a face value of $1,000 per note, declined from
$1,083 per note to $315 per note, or almost 71 percent," the
complaint continues.

Opperman hopes to represent GT shareholders from roughly the last
year.

In addition to the 11 officers and directors, GT's underwriters,
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Canaccord Genuity, are named as
defendants.

The class seeks damages for violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  It is
represented by Jason Crance of Hanover, N.H., and Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen of Minneapolis.


GT ADVANCED: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of GT
Advanced Technologies, Inc., on Oct. 20 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of GT Advanced securities between November 5, 2013 and
9:40 AM on October 6, 2014, inclusive.  The lawsuit is entitled
Deerhaven Capital, LLC. v. Gutierrez, et al, and docketed as 14-
cv-00463.

Please contact Lesley F. Portnoy 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.

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 misled investors that there were significant risks that
the Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements of an
agreement with Apple, Inc. to supply sapphire material; and that,
as a result the Company was facing a liquidity crisis.

On September 9, 2014, Apple revealed that its new iPhone 6 and
iPhone 6 Plus smartphones utilized Corning's Gorilla Glass for the
display instead of GT Advanced's sapphire material as investors
were expecting.  On this news, shares of GT Advanced declined
$2.29 per share, nearly 13%, to close on September 9, 2014, at
14.94 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

On October 6, 2014, GT Advanced announced that the Company was
filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.  According to
the Company, as of September 29, 2014 GT Advanced had
approximately $85 million of cash remaining.  On this news, shares
of GT Advanced declined $10.25 per share, nearly 93%, to close on
October 6, 2014, at $0.80 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than December 8, 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
Lesley F. Portnoy.  If you inquire by email, please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.


HARMONY GOLD: South Africa Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
A class action in South Africa by former employees of Harmony Gold
Mining Company Limited is presently ongoing, the Company said in
its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 23, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2014.

On August 23, 2012, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries were
served with court papers entailing an application by three of its
former employees requesting that the South Gauteng High Court
certify a class for purposes of instituting a class action. In
essence, the applicants want the court to declare them as suitable
members representing a class of current and former mineworkers for
the purposes of instituting an action for relief and to obtain
directions as to what procedure to follow in pursuing the relief
required against Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries.

On January 8, 2013, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries,
alongside other mining companies operating in South Africa
(collectively the respondents), were served with another
application to certify two classes of persons representing a class
of current and former mine workers who work or have worked on gold
mines owned and/or controlled by the respondents and who allegedly
contracted silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases, and
another class of dependents of mine workers who have died of
silicosis and who worked on gold mines owned and/or controlled by
the respondents. Harmony filed notices of its intention to oppose
both applications and has instructed its attorneys to defend the
claims. Following the receipt of the application, Harmony was
advised that there was a potential overlap between the application
of August 23, 2012 and the application of January 8, 2013. After
deliberation between the respondents' attorneys and the
applicants' attorneys, it was resolved that the applicants'
attorneys will consolidate the two applications, together with
three other similar applications and serve an amended application
which will be considered by the respondents.

On October 17, 2013 the five certification applications were
consolidated by Order of Court. It was agreed between the parties
that the respondents have until May 30, 2014 to reply on the
allegations made in the application, and state reasons why a class
should not be certified. On May 30, 2014, Harmony and certain of
its subsidiaries served the opposing affidavit on the applicants'
attorneys. On September 15, 2014, the applicants' attorneys
delivered their replying affidavit to the answering affidavit. The
applicants' attorneys are also seeking to amend the relief sought
in the consolidated application and to join further applicants to
the present proceedings. The matter is presently ongoing.

"At this stage, and in the absence of a court decision on this
matter it is uncertain as to whether the company will incur any
costs (except legal fees) related to silicosis claims in the near
future. Due to the limited information available on any claims and
potential claims and the uncertainty of the outcome of these
claims, no estimation can be made for the possible obligation,"
the Company said.


HARMONY GOLD: U.S. Class Action Has Concluded
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. class action against Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited
has been concluded and the settlement amount has been paid into
escrow by the company's insurers and will be distributed to the
plaintiffs once the administrative processes pertaining to the
distribution have been completed, Harmony said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

The Company reached a mutually acceptable settlement with the
class plaintiffs during fiscal 2012 in a pending class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in which certain ADR and ADR Option holders sought damages
against the Company growing out of and relating to a misstatement
of earnings for the fiscal third quarter of 2007.

This earnings misstatement, which was discovered by the Company
and disclosed at the time that fourth-quarter earnings for 2007
were reported, was the result of not including certain costs in
the third quarter earnings calculation. This was a consequence of
the installation, which was ongoing at the time, of a new
Enterprise Resource Planning system, which resulted in the costs,
that were not included in the calculation of third-quarter
earnings for 2007, to be missed by the Company in its calculation
of those earnings.

The settlement was approved by the Court in November 2011, but a
single class member filed an appeal of the Court's order approving
the settlement. That appeal resulted in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the decision of the
District Court on more than one occasion.

The objecting plaintiff requested that the United States Supreme
Court review the decision of the Second Circuit. That request was
denied by the Supreme Court, bringing the case to an end.
Following the denial of the request for review of the case by the
Supreme Court, in May 2014, the case has been concluded. The
settlement amount has been paid into escrow by the company's
insurers and will be distributed to the plaintiffs once the
administrative processes pertaining to the distribution have been
completed.


HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Former Executive Chef Files OT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
one California labor lawsuit claims that an executive chef working
in the Golden State was improperly misclassified as management and
was therefore denied overtime pay, an affront to California labor
law.

The lawsuit names Harvest Management Sun LLC (Harvest), an entity
that operates a chain of assisted-living and independent-living
facilities across the country under the Holiday Retirement banner.
The class action was filed by a California man on behalf of any
and all employees of Harvest who may have been denied overtime
under California and labor law, as well as similar statutes
observed by other states and, federally, the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The plaintiff -- who was not named in the report -- worked as an
executive chef at one of Holiday's independent-living homes in
Pinole.  The complaint alleges that the position of executive chef
was classified as a management position by the defendant, but that
the plaintiff had very few managerial responsibilities.  The
plaintiff alleges that he typically worked more than 50 hours in
any given week, but was not paid overtime in accordance with good
practice under California and employment law.

The lawsuit, which also affects the company's Simi Hills facility
in the Simi Valley and The Bonaventure located in Ventura, seeks
damages for affronts to California labor employment law going back
four years in the state; together with similar affronts to federal
law under the Fair Labor Standards Act going back two to three
years.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, back pay for
uncompensated overtime hours, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

Many a California labor lawsuit has taken an employer to task for
misclassifying an employee as exempt from claiming overtime due to
having management responsibilities, while having few if any real
management duties to perform.  While some employers appear to
misclassify in error, there are many others who undertake the
misclassification in an attempt to save money by not paying an
employee overtime for work performed beyond the standard 40-hour
workweek or eight-hour day, as mandated under California labor
law.  Managers, who are correctly classified as exempt, are
normally paid a higher salary that takes into account the
expectation for working longer hours.

The class-action California labor lawsuit was filed earlier this
month in US District Court for the Northern District of
California.


HERBALIFE LTD: Requests for More Time to Finalize Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Products Insider reports that Herbalife Ltd. has requested
another extension of deadlines in a putative class-action lawsuit
as the nutrition and weight management company works to possibly
finalize a settlement agreement.

Since advising a federal judge in August that Herbalife and the
plaintiffs "had tentatively agreed on the principal terms of a
settlement," an Oct. 17 court filing stated, "the parties have
continued to work cooperatively to resolve the remaining material
issues."

"The Parties, however, need a limited amount of additional time to
complete the mediation and settlement process, and, if
appropriate, file a joint motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement," the filing added.

Court filings requested extending to Nov. 10 the deadline for
Herbalife to respond to an amended lawsuit and for plaintiffs to
request certification of the class.  The filing also requested
extending to Dec. 22 the deadline for a hearing on a motion for
class certification.

The parties have spent roughly 90 hours on mediation and
settlement talks over the past 10 months, the lawyers told U.S.
District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell.

Herbalife declined to comment on Oct. 20 beyond the filings.
Jason Hardin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't respond to a
request for comment.

Over the summer, Herbalife stipulated to the filing of an amended
complaint that added four former Herbalife distributors as
plaintiffs, provided the company could move to dismiss the lawsuit
or otherwise respond to it.  The former distributors alleged
suffering losses after joining the company.

Dana Bostick, the original plaintiff and a former Herbalife
distributor, accused the company of running an unlawful pyramid
scheme, an allegation state and federal authorities including the
FTC are investigating.

Herbalife has repeatedly denied the pyramid scheme allegations.


KAYCAN LTD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Torres v. Kaycan Ltd. Incorporated, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23924-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2014) is an action to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Kaycan Ltd. Incorporated is a Foreign Corporation, authorized to
conduct business in Florida having its main place of business in
Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant.  The Company is a manufacturer and distributor of
vinyl, wood and aluminum siding, and other finishing products for
the construction industry.  The Company operates many distribution
warehouses across North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KODIAK OIL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 20 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of shareholders of Kodiak Oil &
Gas Corp. who held shares on July 13, 2014, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Kodiak by Whiting Petroleum Corporation.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 20, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Kodiak's Board of Directors with violations
of the federal securities laws in connection with defendants'
efforts to complete the sale of Kodiak to Whiting pursuant to an
unfair process and for an unfair price.  The complaint also
includes class and derivative claims against defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting.

On July 13, 2014, defendants announced that the Board had agreed
to sell Kodiak to Whiting for approximately $6 billion in Whiting
common stock.  Pursuant to the parties' Arrangement Agreement
dated July 13, 2014, Kodiak shareholders will receive 0.177 of a
share of Whiting common stock for each share of Kodiak stock they
own.  Based on the closing price of Kodiak's common shares of
$14.23 per share on July 11, 2014, the Proposed Transaction had an
implied price of $13.90 per share.  If the Proposed Transaction is
allowed to close, Whiting shareholders will own approximately 71%
and Kodiak shareholders will own 29% of the combined company.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure stockholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on August 18, 2014, the
Board issued a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A that
contained materially false and misleading information in violation
of 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Proxy Statement, which recommends that Kodiak stockholders vote
their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction, prevents
stockholders from being able to cast fully informed votes by
failing to disclose, among other things, the following material
information: (i) Kodiak's strategic alternatives and long-term
strategic plan; (ii) the terms of the transactions proposed by
third parties that contacted the Company in early June 2014; (iii)
details regarding the Board's selection of financial advisors; and
(iv) the inputs and assumptions underlying the valuation analyses
performed by the parties' financial advisors.  The omitted
information is material to Kodiak stockholders' decision on
whether to vote to approve the Proposed Transaction and/or whether
to seek an appraisal of their shares.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of stockholders who
held Kodiak shares on July 13, 2014.  The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor
class actions and extensive experience in actions involving
financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


LA MICHOACANA VARIETY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Sanchez Morales v. Maria L. Alcantar, dba: La Michoacana
Variety Store, and La Michoacana Variety Store, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01672-HU (D. Or., October 21, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
did not pay the Plaintiff at 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff worked as a butcher for the Defendants from 2008 to
December 31, 2013.

Maria L. Alcantar and The Michoacana Variety Store are residents
of Wasco County, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq.
          THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          815 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 757-4749
          Facsimile: (503) 200-1289
          E-mail: quinn@kuranzlaw.com


LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Removes "Novoa" Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Novoa v. Limousines of South
Florida, Inc., Case No. 14-23927-CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-23919-FAM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos Alberto Mesa, Esq.
          MESA & PEREIRA PA
          11780 SW 89th Street, Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 569-3005
          Facsimile: (305) 403-2998
          E-mail: cmesa@mesafloridalawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Anthony Pancier, Esq.
          MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
          9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
          Telephone: (954) 862-2217
          Facsimile: (954) 862-2287
          E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com


LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 6,361 Product Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20,
2014, 7,381 product liability cases are pending against cigarette
manufacturers in the United States.  Lorillard Tobacco is a
defendant in 6,361 of these cases.  Lorillard, Inc. is a co-
defendant in 643 pending cases, and is a defendant in one case in
which Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant.  A total of 3,734 of
these lawsuits are Engle Progeny Cases.  In addition to the
product liability cases, Lorillard Tobacco and, in some instances,
Lorillard, Inc., are defendants in Filter Cases and Tobacco-
Related Antitrust Cases.

Pending cases against Lorillard are those in which Lorillard
Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc. have been joined to the litigation by
either receipt of service of process, or execution of a waiver
thereof, and a dismissal order has not been entered with respect
to Lorillard Tobacco or Lorillard, Inc.  Certain Flight Attendant
Cases that were dismissed for administrative reasons, but which
may be reinstated pursuant to the settlement agreement in Broin v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al. have been included in the
count of pending cases.

The table below lists the number of certain tobacco-related cases
pending against Lorillard as of the date listed:

                                           Total Number of Cases
                                           Pending against
                                           Lorillard
   Type of Case                            as of October 20, 2014
   ------------                            ----------------------
Conventional Product Liability Cases                 25
Engle Progeny Cases                               3,734
West Virginia Individual
  Personal Injury Cases                              38
Flight Attendant Cases                            2,563
Class Action Cases                                    1
Reimbursement Cases                                   1
Filter Cases                                         62
Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases                       1

Conventional Product Liability Cases.  Conventional Product
Liability Cases are brought by individuals who allege cancer or
other health effects caused by smoking cigarettes, by using
smokeless tobacco products, by addiction to tobacco, or by
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Lorillard Tobacco is a
defendant in each of the Conventional Product Liability cases
listed in the table, and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in four
of the Conventional Product Liability Cases.

Engle Progeny Cases.  Engle Progeny Cases are brought by
individuals who purport to be members of the decertified Engle
class. These cases are pending in a number of Florida courts.
Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 3,733 of the Engle Progeny
Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in
639 Engle Progeny Cases, and is a defendant in one case in which
Lorillard Tobacco is not a defendant. The time period for filing
Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and no additional
cases may be filed. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on
behalf of multiple class members. Some of the courts hearing the
cases filed by multiple class members have severed these suits
into separate individual cases. It is possible the remaining suits
filed by multiple class members may also be severed into separate
individual cases.

West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. In a 1999
administrative order, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
transferred to a single West Virginia court a group of cases
brought by individuals who allege cancer or other health effects
caused by smoking cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using smokeless
tobacco products (the "West Virginia Individual Personal Injury
Cases"). The plaintiffs' claims alleging injury from smoking
cigarettes have been consolidated for trial. The plaintiffs'
claims alleging injury from the use of other tobacco products have
been severed from the consolidated cigarette claims and have not
been consolidated for trial. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in
each of the West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases listed
in the table.  Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of the
West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases. The time for
filing a case that could be consolidated for trial with the West
Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases expired in 2000.

Flight Attendant Cases. Flight Attendant Cases are brought by non-
smoking flight attendants alleging injury from exposure to
environmental smoke in the cabins of aircraft. Plaintiffs in these
cases may not seek punitive damages for injuries that arose prior
to January 15, 1997. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in each of
the Flight Attendant Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is
not a defendant in any of the Flight Attendant Cases. The time for
filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional
cases in this category may be filed.

Class Action Cases. Class Action Cases are purported to be brought
on behalf of large numbers of individuals for damages allegedly
caused by smoking. Lorillard Tobacco but not Lorillard, Inc. is a
defendant in the Class Action Case listed in the table.  Neither
Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a defendant in additional
Class Action Cases that are pending against other cigarette
manufacturers, including approximately 16 "lights" Class Action
Cases and one Class Action Case seeking a court-supervised medical
monitoring program.

Reimbursement Cases. Reimbursement Cases are brought by or on
behalf of entities seeking equitable relief and reimbursement of
expenses incurred in providing health care to individuals who
allegedly were injured by smoking. Plaintiffs in these cases have
included the U.S. federal government, U.S. state and local
governments, foreign governmental entities, hospitals or hospital
districts, American Indian tribes, labor unions, private companies
and private citizens. Included in this category is the suit filed
by the federal government, United States of America v. Philip
Morris USA, Inc., et al., ("Philip Morris"), that sought to
recover profits earned by the defendants and other equitable
relief. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in the case, and
Lorillard, Inc. is not a party to this case. In August 2006, the
trial court issued its final judgment and remedial order and
granted injunctive and other equitable relief. The final judgment
did not award monetary damages. In May 2009, the final judgment
was largely affirmed by an appellate court. In June 2010, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied review of the case.

Filter Cases. Filter Cases are brought by individuals, including
former employees of a predecessor of Lorillard Tobacco, who seek
damages resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
that were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in
61 of the 62 Filter Cases listed in the table. Lorillard, Inc. is
a co-defendant in two of the 61 Filter Cases that are pending
against Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. is also a defendant in
one additional Filter Case in which Lorillard Tobacco is not a
defendant.

Tobacco-Related Antitrust Cases. In 2000 and 2001, a number of
cases were brought against cigarette manufacturers, including
Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that defendants conspired to set the
price of cigarettes in violation of federal and state antitrust
and unfair business practices statutes. Plaintiffs sought class
certification on behalf of persons who purchased cigarettes
directly or indirectly from one or more of the defendant cigarette
manufacturers. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in one Tobacco-
Related Antitrust Case as set forth in the table. Lorillard, Inc.
is not a defendant in this case. All of the other cases have been
either successfully defended or voluntarily dismissed.


LORILLARD INC: No Ruling Yet on Unit's Motions in "Major" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Lorillard Tobacco
filed a motion for a new trial and a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in the case, Major v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al.  As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not
ruled on these motions.

On July 30, 2014, a verdict was returned in Major v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County), a case in which plaintiff alleged that the smoker's
injuries were caused by asbestos fiber and tobacco smoke
inhalation.  Lorillard Tobacco was the sole defendant at trial.
The jury awarded plaintiff $2,736,700 in economic compensatory
damages and $15,000,000 in non-economic compensatory damages, for
a total compensatory damages award of $17,736,700. Punitive
damages were not at issue in this trial. The jury apportioned 50%
of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 17% to
Lorillard Tobacco, and 33% to exposure to cigarettes manufactured
by companies other than Lorillard Tobacco. The jury found that
exposure to asbestos was not a substantial factor in the smoker's
injuries.

On August 25, 2014, the Court entered judgment awarding plaintiff
$2,550,000 in non-economic damages (which represents Lorillard
Tobacco's 17% share as found by the jury) and the amount of
$1,368,350 in economic damages (under California law, Lorillard
Tobacco is responsible for the amount of non-economic damages that
the jury found was the fault of anyone other than plaintiff, not
just its 17% share), for a total award against Lorillard Tobacco
of $3,918,350.


LORILLARD INC: No Cases Scheduled for Trial in Remainder of 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there were no
cases scheduled for trial in the remainder of 2014 and some cases
are scheduled for trial in 2015.

Since January 1, 2010, verdicts have been returned in eleven
Conventional Product Liability Cases against cigarette
manufacturers, in addition to the case, Major v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, et al.  Lorillard Tobacco was the only defendant
in one of these eleven trials, Evans v. Lorillard Tobacco Company
(Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts). Lorillard Tobacco
paid $79 million in compensatory damages and interest to fully
satisfy the Evans judgment in October 2013.

Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a defendant in
the ten other trials since January 1, 2010.  Juries found in favor
of the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages in four of
these trials and also awarded $4.0 million in punitive damages in
one of these trials.  Defendants appealed the verdicts in three of
these trials.  The verdict in the first case was affirmed on
appeal in July 2013; judgment has since been satisfied and this
case is concluded.

As of October 20, 2014 the appeal in the second case remains
pending.

In September 2013, an agreement was reached between the parties in
the third case and no further appellate review will be taken.
Satisfaction of judgment has been filed and this case is
concluded. An appeal is pending in the fourth case.

The plaintiff in another case was awarded $25 million in punitive
damages in a retrial ordered by an appellate court in which the
jury was permitted to consider only the amount of punitive damages
to award. Defendant's appeal of the judgment in this case remains
pending. Juries found in favor of the defendants in the five other
trials. Three of these five cases have concluded. Plaintiffs in
two of the cases did not pursue appeals. Plaintiff in the third
case noticed an appeal, which was affirmed in February 2013, and
then did not seek any further review. Plaintiff in the fourth case
filed a notice of appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court from the
order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial and that appeal
remains pending. Plaintiff's appeal in the fifth case remains
pending.

In rulings addressing cases tried in earlier years, some appellate
courts have reversed verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs
in whole or in part, while other judgments that awarded damages to
smokers have been affirmed on appeal. Manufacturers have exhausted
their appeals and have been required to pay damages to plaintiffs
in fifteen individual cases since 2001. Punitive damages were paid
to the smokers in six of these cases. Neither Lorillard Tobacco
nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party to any of these matters.

As of October 20, 2014, there were no cases scheduled for trial in
the remainder of 2014. Some cases are scheduled for trial in 2015.
As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in three
of these cases and Lorillard, Inc. is a co-defendant in one case.
Trial dates are subject to change.


LORILLARD INC: Judge Wants 200 Cases Trial Ready by January 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Judge William G.
Young of the District of Massachusetts has issued an order calling
for three groups of Engle Progeny cases to be prepared for trial
on the following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made
trial ready by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made
trial ready by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be
made trial ready by July 1, 2015.

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in Engle v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al., which had been certified as a
class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of
Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical
conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. During a
three-phase trial, a Florida jury awarded compensatory damages to
three individuals and approximately $145 billion in punitive
damages to the certified class.

In its 2006 decision, the Florida Supreme Court vacated the
punitive damages award, determined that the case could not proceed
further as a class action and ordered decertification of the
class. The Florida Supreme Court also reinstated the compensatory
damages awards to two of the three individuals whose claims were
heard during the first phase of the Engle trial. These two awards
totaled $7 million, and both verdicts were paid in February 2008.
Lorillard Tobacco's payment to these two individuals, including
interest, totaled approximately $3 million.

The Florida Supreme Court's 2006 ruling also permitted Engle class
members to file individual actions, including claims for punitive
damages.  The court further held that these individuals are
entitled to rely on a number of the jury's findings in favor of
the plaintiffs in the first phase of the Engle trial. The time
period for filing Engle Progeny Cases expired in January 2008 and
no additional cases may be filed.  In 2009, the Florida Supreme
Court rejected a petition that sought to extend the time for
purported class members to file an additional lawsuit.

Engle Progeny Cases are pending in various Florida state and
federal courts. Some of the Engle Progeny Cases were filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs. Various courts have entered orders
severing the cases filed by multiple plaintiffs into separate
actions.

In 2009, one Florida federal court entered orders that severed the
claims of approximately 4,400 Engle Progeny plaintiffs, initially
asserted in a small number of multi-plaintiff actions, into
separate lawsuits. In some cases, spouses or children of alleged
former class members have also brought derivative claims.

In 2011, approximately 500 cases that were among the 4,400 cases
severed into separate lawsuits in 2009, filed by family members of
alleged former class members, were combined with the cases filed
by the smoker from which the family members' claims purportedly
derived.

On August 1, 2013, Judge William G. Young of the District of
Massachusetts took over responsibility for the Engle cases in the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. Judge Young
issued an order that day that called for three groups of cases to
be prepared for trial on the following schedule: approximately 50
cases to be made trial ready by January 2, 2014, approximately 107
cases to be made trial ready by May 2014, and approximately 120
cases to be made trial ready by September 2, 2014.

On January 17, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an
additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the
following schedule: approximately 200 cases to be made trial ready
by January 2, 2015, approximately 150 cases to be made trial ready
by April 1, 2015, and approximately 150 cases to be made trial
ready by July 1, 2015.

On April 15, 2014, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by
counsel for plaintiffs in 49 of the cases that are to be made
trial ready pursuant to the Court's January 17, 2014 order.  The
plaintiffs in these 49 cases had six months to come forward in
order to avoid dismissal.

As of October 20, 2014, 46 of these cases remain pending against
Lorillard Tobacco.

On June 23, 2014, Judge Young issued an order calling for an
additional three groups of cases to be prepared for trial on the
following schedule: approximately 146 cases to be made trial ready
by January 4, 2016, approximately 144 cases to be made trial ready
by May 1, 2016, and approximately 139 cases to be made trial ready
by September 1, 2016.

Since the issuance of these three orders, 305 of the cases to be
prepared for trial have been dismissed in their entirety, and
Lorillard Tobacco has been dismissed from an additional 110 cases
involving other defendants. These cases have either been
voluntarily dismissed or resolved.


LORILLARD INC: Florida Court Dismissed 3,567 Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that since January 2010
and through October 20, 2014, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a total of
approximately 3,567 Engle Progeny cases.

In some instances, the plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed also
were pursuing cases pending in other courts. In other instances,
the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs asked the court to
enter dismissal orders because they were no longer able to contact
their clients.

In January 2013, the Court granted a motion by defendants and
dismissed approximately 520 cases in which the plaintiffs were
deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of these 520 cases to the United
States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit.

In June 2013, the Court dismissed an additional approximately 440
cases for a variety of reasons. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
of approximately 70 of these cases, in which the plaintiffs were
deceased at the time their personal injury lawsuits were filed or
where the cases were barred by the statute of limitations. The
Court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the appeals from
the January and June orders dismissing these groups of federal
cases.

On September 10, 2014, the United States Court of Appeal for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals in these consolidated
appeals.  On July 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from
an order dismissing 14 cases for failure to produce signed
authorizations, and that appeal remained pending, as of October
20, 2014.  Other courts, including state courts, have entered
orders dismissing additional cases.


LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 20 Engle Progeny Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20,
2014, verdicts had been returned in twenty Engle Progeny Cases in
which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant.  Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in one of these twenty cases at the time of verdict.

Juries awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs in fifteen
of these cases. In four of the fifteen cases in which juries
awarded compensatory damages, plaintiffs were awarded punitive
damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In another case, the court entered
an order following trial that awarded plaintiff compensatory
damages.

The twenty cases in which Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant are in
the order in which the verdicts were returned:

In Rohr v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), a jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including Lorillard
Tobacco, in October 2010. Plaintiff in Rohr did not pursue an
appeal and the case is concluded.

In Mrozek v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Circuit Court, Fourth
Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded
plaintiff a total of $6 million in compensatory damages and $11.3
million in punitive damages in March 2011. The jury apportioned
35% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker and 65%
to Lorillard Tobacco. The final judgment entered by the trial
court reflected the jury's verdict and awarded plaintiff
$3,900,588 in compensatory damages and $11,300,000 in punitive
damages plus the applicable statutory rates of annual interest. In
December 2012, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed
the final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and
Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of the appellate court
opinion was denied in February 2013. In March 2013, Lorillard
Tobacco filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking
review of the appellate court decision. On February 13, 2014, the
Florida Supreme Court declined to grant review of this case. In
March 2014, Lorillard Tobacco amended the bond necessary to
maintain a stay on payment of the final judgment. On March 28,
2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the United States
Supreme Court, seeking review of the due process issue, and
requested that the petition be held and resolved in the same
manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases, also pending before
the United States Supreme Court. On June 9, 2014, the United
States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking review. The
trial court announced on June 25, 2014 that it had granted
Lorillard Tobacco's motion to determine the applicable rates of
post-judgment interest that were in dispute. On June 27, 2014,
Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of $17,500,197 to satisfy the
final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages and
post-judgment interest. On July 25, 2014, the court entered an
order confirming satisfaction of judgment. On July 28, 2014,
plaintiff appealed the order determining the rate of post-judgment
interest payable on the final judgment, and that appeal remained
pending as of October 20, 2014. The Florida First District Court
of Appeal provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for
intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees, ruling that the
trial court is authorized to award appellate fees if the trial
court determines entitlement to attorneys' fees. In June 2013, the
trial court granted plaintiff's motion for entitlement to trial
court attorneys' costs and fees and also determined that plaintiff
was entitled to intermediate appellate court attorneys' fees. As
of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not determined the amount
of trial court or intermediate appellate court fees to award. On
February 13, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court provisionally granted
plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees in connection with the
appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, in the amount of $2,500,
conditioned on the trial court's determination of entitlement.

In Tullo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff a total of $4.5 million in compensatory damages,
in April 2011. The jury assessed 45% of the fault to the smoker,
5% to Lorillard Tobacco and 50% to other defendants. The jury did
not award punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court entered a
final judgment that awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory
damages from Lorillard Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. On October
16, 2013, defendants noticed an appeal from the final judgment to
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. In August 2013, the
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final
judgment. Defendants filed a notice with the Florida Supreme Court
seeking review of the appellate court decision. On March 10, 2014,
the trial court entered an order confirming that Lorillard Tobacco
had satisfied the judgment awarding compensatory damages and post-
judgment interest for an amount totaling approximately $263,400.
On March 18, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of their petition seeking review of the Florida Supreme
Court and the Court entered an order dismissing the petition for
review as to Lorillard Tobacco on May 21, 2014. The Florida
Supreme Court declined to accept review of the petition as to the
other defendants. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
provisionally granted plaintiff's motion for appellate attorneys'
fees, ruling that the trial court is authorized to award appellate
fees if the trial court determines entitlement to such attorneys'
fees. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not determined
the amount of trial court costs or appellate court fees to award.

In Sulcer v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), in April 2011,
the jury awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages to the plaintiff
and it assessed 95% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker with 5% allocated to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury returned a
verdict for Lorillard Tobacco as to whether plaintiff is entitled
to punitive damages. The court entered a final judgment that
incorporated the jury's determination of the parties' fault and
awarded plaintiff $11,250 in compensatory damages. Lorillard
Tobacco paid approximately $246,000 to resolve the verdict, costs
and fees, as well as all post-trial motions and any potential
appeal by the plaintiff. Following this payment, Sulcer was
concluded.

In Jewett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the jury awarded
the estate of the decedent $692,981 in compensatory damages and
awarded the plaintiff $400,000 for loss of companionship in May
2011. The jury assessed 70% of the responsibility for the
decedent's injuries to the decedent, 20% to R.J. Reynolds and 10%
to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury returned a verdict for the
defendants regarding whether punitive damages were warranted. The
final judgment entered by the trial court reflected the jury's
verdict and awarded plaintiff a total of $109,298 from Lorillard
Tobacco plus 6% annual interest. In June 2012, an agreement was
reached between the parties as to the amount of trial court costs
and attorneys' fees incurred, should the judgment be upheld on
appeal, and plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees was
withdrawn. In November 2012, the Florida First District Court of
Appeal reversed the judgment awarding compensatory damages and
ordered the case returned to the trial court for a new trial. In
January 2013, the appellate court denied a motion filed by the
plaintiff for rehearing of the decision reversing the judgment.
Both the plaintiff and defendants filed notices with the Florida
Supreme Court seeking review of the appellate court decision. On
February 14, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to grant
review of this case.

In Weingart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), in
July 2011, the jury determined that the decedent did not sustain
any compensatory damages from the defendants, including Lorillard
Tobacco, and it returned a verdict for the defendants that
punitive damages were not warranted. The jury assessed 91% of the
fault for the decedent's injuries to the decedent, 3% to Lorillard
Tobacco and 3% to each of the other two defendants. Following
trial, the court granted in part a motion filed by the plaintiff
to award damages and it awarded plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory
damages. The court entered a final judgment that applied the
jury's comparative fault determinations to the court's award of
compensatory damages. The final judgment awarded plaintiff $4,500
from Lorillard Tobacco. Defendants noticed an appeal to the
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal from the order that
awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiff and amended their
notice of appeal to address the final judgment. On February 13,
2013, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the
final judgment awarding compensatory damages. Defendants filed a
notice with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of this
decision. In March 2012, the trial court entered a judgment
against the defendants for costs with Lorillard Tobacco's share
amounting to $43,081 plus 4.75% annual interest. Defendants
noticed an appeal from this costs judgment. In June 2013, all
defendants satisfied both the final judgment awarding compensatory
damages and the costs judgment, with Lorillard Tobacco's share
amounting to approximately $50,000. Defendants' petition for
Florida Supreme Court review and the appeal from the costs
judgment have been dismissed. This case is now concluded.

In Sury v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), in November 2011,
the jury awarded plaintiff $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and
assessed 60% of the responsibility for the decedent's injuries to
the decedent, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco and 20% to R.J. Reynolds.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants regarding whether
punitive damages were warranted. In March 2012, the court entered
a final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,000,000,
jointly and severally, plus 4.75% annual interest, declining to
apply the jury's comparative fault findings to causes of action
alleging intentional conduct. On June 24, 2013, the Florida First
District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment. Defendants'
motion for rehearing of this decision with the Florida First
District Court of Appeal was denied in August 2013. The Florida
Supreme Court declined review of the intermediate appellate court
decision in January 2014. On March 28, 2014, defendants filed a
petition with the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of
the due process issue, and requested that the petition be held and
resolved in the same manner as the Duke, Walker, and Brown cases,
also pending before the United States Supreme Court. On June 9,
2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the petitions seeking
review. On June 19, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of
$1,659,674 to satisfy the final judgment awarding compensatory
damages plus post judgment interest, trial level attorneys' fees
and costs, and Florida Supreme Court fees. The Court entered an
order confirming satisfaction of judgment on July 24, 2014. In
June 2013, the First District Court of Appeal determined that
plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees in connection with the
appeal to the First District Court of Appeal and directed the
trial court to determine the amount. As of October 20, 2014, the
trial court had not determined the amount.

In Alexander v. Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff $20,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$25,000,000 in punitive damages in February and March 2012.
Lorillard Tobacco is the only defendant in this case. The jury
apportioned 20% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker and 80% to Lorillard Tobacco. In March 2012, the court
entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determination to the court's award of compensatory damages,
awarding the plaintiff $16,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$25,000,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco. In May
2012, the court granted a motion by Lorillard Tobacco to lower the
amount of compensatory damages and reduced the amount awarded to
$10,000,000 from Lorillard Tobacco. Other post-trial motions
challenging the verdict were denied. The court entered an amended
final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determination to the court's award of compensatory damages,
awarding the plaintiff $8,000,000 in compensatory damages and
$25,000,000 in punitive damages. The court also awarded plaintiff
post-judgment interest (based on a statutory rate) on the
compensatory and punitive damages. Lorillard Tobacco noticed an
appeal from the amended final judgment to the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal. On September 4, 2013, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal affirmed the amended final judgment.
Lorillard Tobacco's motion for rehearing of this decision with the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal was denied in October 2013.
Lorillard Tobacco filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court
seeking review of the intermediate appellate court decision in
November 2013, and this petition was denied on September 9, 2014.
On September 23, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco made a payment of
$38,960,916 to resolve all damages, costs and fees and post-
judgment interest. Plaintiff filed a satisfaction of judgment on
September 29, 2014 and the Court confirmed satisfaction of
judgment on October 3, 2014. This case is now concluded.

In Calloway v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and a daughter of the decedent a total of
$20,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2012. The jury
apportioned 20.5% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 27% to R.J. Reynolds, 25% to Philip Morris, 18% to
Lorillard Tobacco, and 9.5% to Liggett. The jury awarded
$12,600,000 in punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and
$42,250,000 from the other defendants, for a total punitive
damages award of $54,850,000. In August 2012, the court granted a
post-trial motion by the defendants and lowered the compensatory
damages award to $16,100,000. The court also ruled that the jury's
finding on the plaintiff's percentage of comparative fault would
not be applied to reduce the compensatory damage award because the
jury found in favor of the plaintiff on her claims alleging
intentional conduct. In August 2012, the court entered final
judgment against defendants in the amount of $16,100,000 in
compensatory damages, jointly and severally, and $54,850,000
($12,600,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in punitive damages. The
court also awarded plaintiff post-judgment interest (based on a
statutory rate) on the compensatory and punitive damages, which
totaled approximately $1.8 million as of October 20, 2014 based on
the jury-apportioned fault for Lorillard Tobacco. The final
judgment also granted plaintiff's application for trial court
costs and attorneys' fees, but as of October 20, 2014, the trial
court had not awarded an amount. Defendants have noticed an appeal
from the final judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeal. On March 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in
connection with the appeal to the Fourth District. As of October
20, 2014, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had not
ruled on this motion.

In Evers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of
$3,230,000 in compensatory damages in February 2013. The jury
apportioned 31% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 60% to R.J. Reynolds and 9% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury
found that punitive damages against Lorillard Tobacco were not
warranted and awarded $12,362,042 in punitive damages from R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company. The Court granted a post-trial motion by
R.J. Reynolds for a directed verdict on punitive damages and, as a
result, the jury's punitive damages award was set aside. The Court
denied a motion filed by the plaintiff to reconsider the directed
verdict. At a post-trial hearing, the plaintiff waived entitlement
to the jury's loss of services award which amounted to $280,000 of
the total compensatory damages award. In May 2013, the court
entered a final judgment that applied the jury's comparative fault
determinations and awarded plaintiff and the estate of the
decedent $2,035,500 in compensatory damages ($265,500 from
Lorillard Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Plaintiff
and defendants have both appealed the final judgment to the
Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff also filed a
motion for entitlement to trial attorneys' fees and costs. As of
October 20, 2014, the trial court had not ruled on this motion. On
May 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion with the Florida Second
District Court of Appeal seeking attorneys' fees in connection
with the appeal to the Second District. As of October 20, 2014,
the Florida Second District Court of Appeal had not ruled on this
motion.

In Cohen v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff and the estate of the decedent a total of
$2,055,050 in compensatory damages in May 2013. The jury
apportioned 40% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 30% to R.J. Reynolds, 20% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 10% to
Liggett. The jury found that punitive damages were not warranted
against any of the defendants. On May 6, 2013, the Court entered
final judgment against defendants in the amount of $1,233,030
($411,010 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus 4.75% annual interest. On
July 10, 2013, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion for a new trial based on the plaintiff's improper arguments
during closing. This order effectively vacated the final judgment.
Plaintiff and defendants have both appealed the order granting the
motion for new trial to the Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeal. Plaintiff's petition with the Florida Fourth District
Court of Appeal seeking to disqualify the trial court judge from
further consideration of this case was denied in November 2013,
and a second petition seeking to disqualify the trial judge, filed
in January 2014, was also subsequently denied.

In LaMotte v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit
Court, First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in May 2013. The
Court entered final judgment in favor of the defendants in May
2013. Plaintiff has agreed to waive any post-trial or appellate
review of the verdict and judgment, and defendants have agreed not
to seek to recover costs or fees. This case is concluded.

In Ruffo v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff $1,500,000 in compensatory damages in May 2013.
The jury apportioned 85% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to
the smoker, 12% to Philip Morris, and 3% to Lorillard Tobacco.
Defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict were
denied. On October 4, 2013, the Court entered a final judgment
against defendants that applied the jury's comparative fault
determinations and awarded plaintiff $225,000 in compensatory
damages ($45,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) plus the statutory rate
of interest, which is currently 4.75%. Defendants noticed an
appeal from the final judgment to the Florida Third District Court
of Appeal. On May 12, 2014, the trial court entered an order
confirming that Lorillard Tobacco had satisfied the judgment
awarding compensatory damages and post-judgment interest for an
amount totaling $46,857. On May 9, 2014, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal entered an order recognizing Lorillard
Tobacco's voluntary dismissal of their appeal to the final
judgment. The appeal remains pending as to Philip Morris.
Plaintiff filed a motion with the trial court seeking entitlement
to attorneys' costs and fees. In April 2014, the trial court
denied this motion. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal to the
Florida Third District Court of Appeal from the order denying
attorneys' fees and costs.

In Gafney v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff a total of $5,800,000 in compensatory damages in
September 2013. The jury apportioned 34% of the fault for the
smoker's injuries to the smoker, 33% to R.J. Reynolds, and 33% to
Lorillard Tobacco. Lorillard, Inc. was also a defendant in this
trial but damages and comparative fault were not assessed
separately for Lorillard, Inc. Because the jury found in favor of
the defendants on the claims alleging intentional conduct, the
plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages. On September 26,
2013, the Court entered a final judgment that applied the jury's
comparative fault determinations and awarded the plaintiff a total
of $3,828,000 in compensatory damages ($1,914,000 from Lorillard
Tobacco), plus the statutory rate of interest. Defendants' post-
trial motions challenging the verdict were denied in November
2013. Defendants have noticed an appeal from the final judgment to
the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Plaintiff has filed a
motion with the trial court seeking entitlement to attorneys' fees
and costs. As of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not ruled
on this motion.

In Jacobson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Southern District, Miami, Florida), the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants on October 29, 2013. The Court
entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on October 30,
2013. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which was denied in
January 2014. On February 10, 2014, the Court entered an order
granting Lorillard's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
Lorillard has agreed not to enforce its right to fees and costs in
exchange for plaintiff's agreement not to pursue an appeal of the
verdict. This case is concluded.

In Chamberlain v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida) the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants on November 15, 2013. The Court
entered final judgment in favor of the defendants on November 20,
2013. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied on April 25,
2014. On June 27, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from
the final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal
Court, Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), the jury awarded
plaintiff a total of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages on May 15,
2014. The jury apportioned 50% of the fault for the smoker's
injuries to the smoker, 25% to R.J. Reynolds, 15% to Philip
Morris, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco. The jury awarded $500,000 in
punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco and $2,000,000 from the
other defendants for a total punitive damages award of $2,500,000.
The Court ruled that the jury's finding on the plaintiff's
percentage of comparative fault would not be applied to reduce the
compensatory damage award because the jury found in favor of the
plaintiff on her claims alleging intentional conduct. On June 11,
2014, the Court entered a final judgment against defendants in the
amount of $5,000,000 in compensatory damages, jointly and
severally, and $2,500,000 ($500,000 from Lorillard Tobacco) in
punitive damages, plus the statutory rate of interest. The Court
denied defendants' post-trial motions challenging the verdict. On
October 10, 2014, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the
final judgment with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The
final judgment also granted plaintiff entitlement to trial court
costs, but as of October 20, 2014, the trial court had not awarded
an amount. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs was
denied. As of October 20, 2014, the time period for filing appeals
had not expired.

In Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Federal Court,
Middle District, Jacksonville, Florida), on July 31, 2014, the
jury found that one of the smoker's alleged Engle qualifying
diseases did not manifest prior to the cut-off period for
membership in the Engle class, and that the smoker's other alleged
Engle qualifying disease was not caused by the smoker's addiction
to cigarettes containing nicotine. However, the jury awarded
compensatory damages on plaintiff's survival and wrongful death
claims in the total amount of $1,726,650. The jury apportioned 60%
of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the smoker, 15% to
Philip Morris, 15% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to Lorillard Tobacco,
in connection with plaintiff's survival claims. The jury
apportioned 70% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 10% to Philip Morris, 10% to R.J. Reynolds, and 10% to
Lorillard Tobacco, in connection with plaintiff's wrongful death
claims. Because the jury found in favor of the defendants on the
claims alleging intentional conduct, the plaintiff was not
entitled to punitive damages. On August 13, 2014, defendants filed
a motion for entry of judgment in favor of all defendants, arguing
that the jury's findings establish that the smoker was not an
Engle class member. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not
ruled on this motion.

In Irimi v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida), the jury
awarded plaintiff a total of $3,123,437 in compensatory damages on
August 28, 2014. The jury apportioned 70% of the fault for the
smoker's injuries to the smoker, 14.5% to Lorillard Tobacco, 14.5%
to R.J. Reynolds, and 1% to Liggett. Because the jury found in
favor of the defendants on the claims alleging intentional
conduct, the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages.
Defendants have filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict
and plaintiff has filed a motion for a new trial on the issue of
entitlement to punitive damages. As of October 20, 2014, the Court
had not ruled on defendants' motions. On September 11, 2014,
plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs and a
motion to tax costs. As of October 20, 2014, the Court had not
ruled on plaintiff's motions.

In Lourie v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. (Circuit Court,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida), the
jury awarded plaintiff and a son of the decedent a total of
$1,371,549 in compensatory damages on October 10, 2014. The jury
apportioned 63% of the fault for the smoker's injuries to the
smoker, 27% to Philip Morris, 7% to Lorillard Tobacco, and 3% to
R.J. Reynolds. The jury found that punitive damages were not
warranted against any of the defendants. A deadline to file post-
trial motions was pending as of October 20, 2014.


LORILLARD INC: Verdicts Returned in 121 Engle Progeny Trials
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20,
2014, verdicts have been returned in 121 Engle Progeny trials
since the Florida Supreme Court issued its 2006 ruling that
permitted members of the Engle class to bring individual lawsuits
in which neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant at trial. Juries awarded compensatory damages and
punitive damages in 38 of the trials. In 37 of those 38 trials,
the amount of punitive damages awarded have totaled approximately
$791.3 million and ranged from $20,000 to $244 million. In July
2014, punitive damages of $23.6 billion were awarded in one of
these cases.

As of October 20, 2014, this award was subject to challenge
through post-trial motions and the appellate process. In 34 of the
trials, juries' awards were limited to compensatory damages, and
in one trial the jury had not yet decided the amount of punitive
damages to award. In the 48 remaining trials, juries found in
favor of the defendants. Post-trial motions challenging the
verdicts in some cases and appeals from final judgments in some
cases are pending before various Florida circuit and intermediate
appellate courts.

As of October 20, 2014, one verdict in favor of the defendants and
four verdicts in favor of the plaintiff have been reversed on
appeal and returned to the trial court for a new trial on all
issues. In ten cases, the appellate courts have ruled that the
issue of damages awarded must be revisited by the trial court.
Motions for rehearing of these appellate court rulings are pending
in some cases.

In June 2009, Florida amended the security requirements for a stay
of execution of any judgment during the pendency of appeal in
Engle Progeny Cases. The amended statute provides for the amount
of security for individual Engle Progeny Cases to vary within
prescribed limits based on the number of adverse judgments that
are pending on appeal at a given time. The required security
decreases as the number of appeals increases to ensure that the
total security posted or deposited does not exceed $200 million in
the aggregate. This amended statute applies to all judgments
entered on or after June 16, 2009. The plaintiffs in some cases
challenged the constitutionality of the amended statute. These
motions were denied, withdrawn or declared moot. In January 2012,
the Florida Supreme Court agreed to review one of the orders
denying a challenge to the amended statute. In August 2012, the
Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the
defendant had satisfied the judgment.


LORILLARD INC: Unit a Defendant in 31 Personal Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20,
2014, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 of the pending West
Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases.  Lorillard, Inc. is not
a defendant in any of the IPIC Cases.

The West Virginia Individual Personal Injury Cases (the "IPIC
Cases") are brought in a single West Virginia court by individuals
who allege cancer or other health effects caused by smoking
cigarettes, smoking cigars, or using smokeless tobacco products.
Approximately 600 IPIC Cases are pending. Most of the pending
cases have been consolidated for trial. The order that
consolidated the cases for trial, among other things, also limited
the consolidation to those cases that were filed by September
2000. No additional IPIC Cases may be consolidated for trial with
this group. The court has entered a trial plan for the IPIC Cases
that calls for a multi-phase trial.

In September 2000, there were approximately 1,250 IPIC Cases, and
Lorillard Tobacco was named in all but a few of them. Plaintiffs
in most of the cases alleged injuries from smoking cigarettes, and
the claims alleging injury from smoking cigarettes were
consolidated for a multi-phase trial. Approximately 645 IPIC Cases
were dismissed in their entirety. Lorillard Tobacco has been
dismissed from approximately 565 additional IPIC Cases because
those plaintiffs did not submit evidence that they used a
Lorillard Tobacco product. These additional IPIC Cases remain
pending against other cigarette manufacturers.

As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 of
the pending IPIC Cases. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any
of the IPIC Cases.

The first phase of the consolidated trial began April 15, 2013,
and ended with a Phase I verdict returned by the jury on May 15,
2013. In its verdict, the jury found against plaintiffs on their
claims for design defect, negligent design, failure to warn,
intentional concealment and breach of express warranty. The jury
found for plaintiffs on their claim that all ventilated filter
cigarettes manufactured and sold by the defendants between 1964
and July 1, 1969 were defective because of a failure to instruct,
but found that defendants' conduct was not willful or wanton. In
pleadings filed before trial, no plaintiff in a pending IPIC Case
claims to have smoked a ventilated filtered cigarette manufactured
and sold by Lorillard Tobacco between 1964 and July 1, 1969.

On September 16, 2013, the court entered a judgment on the jury's
Phase I verdict and entered a separate order denying the parties'
post-trial motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the judgment on September 24, 2013. In a telephone conference on
October 7, 2013 (memorialized in an order entered October 28,
2013), the court informed the parties that, on its own authority,
it was vacating the September 16, 2013 judgment and order.

On October 28, 2013, the court entered a new judgment and order.
The judgment recited that: 1) ventilated filter cigarettes the
defendants manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969,
were found to be defective due to a failure to instruct consumers
as to their use; 2) all other cigarettes manufactured and sold by
defendants were not found to be defective; 3) defendants' conduct
did not justify an award of punitive damages; 4) the claims of the
individual plaintiffs remain to be decided consistent with the
Phase I verdict, and 5) there is no just reason for delay in
permitting any appellate rights of the parties to be perfected as
to the verdict rendered and this order. The order: 1) denied the
parties' post-trial motions; 2) entered final judgments against
the plaintiffs in the approximately 645 IPIC cases that were
dismissed before trial; and 3) stated that those dismissal orders
are now final and available for the proper application of the
appellate process.

On November 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
October 28 judgment and order in the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia. The defendants did not file a separate notice of
appeal. On April 2, 2014, plaintiffs perfected their appeal by
filing their brief and appendix. Defendants filed their brief on
June 16, 2014. Plaintiffs served their reply brief on July 2,
2014. As of October 20, 2014, the appeal had not been set for oral
argument.

The court has severed from the IPIC Cases those claims alleging
injury from the use of tobacco products other than cigarettes,
including smokeless tobacco and cigars (the "Severed IPIC
Claims"). The Severed IPIC Claims involve 30 plaintiffs. Twenty-
eight of these plaintiffs have asserted both claims alleging that
their injuries were caused by smoking cigarettes as well as claims
alleging that their injuries were caused by using other tobacco
products. The former claims were included in the consolidated
trial of the IPIC Cases, while the latter claims are among the
Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in seven of
the Severed IPIC Claims. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any
of the Severed IPIC Claims. Two plaintiffs have asserted only
claims alleging that injuries were caused by using tobacco
products other than cigarettes, and no part of their cases was
included in the consolidated trial of the IPIC Cases (the "Severed
IPIC Cases"). Neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. is a
defendant in either of the Severed IPIC Cases.

As of October 20, 2014, the Severed IPIC Claims and the Severed
IPIC Cases were not subject to a trial plan.  None of the Severed
IPIC Claims or the Severed IPIC Cases was scheduled for trial as
of October 20, 2014.


LORILLARD INC: No Trial in Flight Attendant Cases as of Oct. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20,
2014, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were scheduled for trial.

Lorillard Tobacco and three other cigarette manufacturers are the
defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases. These
suits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the
parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf
of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke. The settlement agreement, among other
things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these
individual suits. These individuals may not seek punitive damages
for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997. The period for
filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no additional
cases in this category may be filed.

The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried
have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit
Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The October 2000 order has
been construed by these judges as holding that the flight
attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability
elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and
breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages. The court
further ruled that the trials of these suits are to address
whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of
damages to be awarded.

Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight
Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned. Defendants
have prevailed in seven of the eight trials. In one of the seven
cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal, the case
has been returned to the trial court for a second trial. The six
remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned are
concluded. In the single trial decided for the plaintiff, French
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded $5.5
million in damages. The court, however, reduced this award to
$500,000. This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was
affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award.
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter,
including interest, was approximately $60,000.

As of October 20, 2014, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were
scheduled for trial.


LORILLARD INC: Lorillard Tobacco A defendant in 61 Filter Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of October 20,
2014, Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of October 20, 2014, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 61 Filter Cases.  Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco.

Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $35.6 million in
settlements to finally resolve 140 claims. Since January 1, 2012,
verdicts have been returned in the following three Filter Cases:
McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose
Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division Four, of Jefferson
County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, et al.,
tried in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company, et al., tried in
the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material. The jury in the McGuire case returned a verdict for
Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the Court entered
final judgment in May 2012.

On February 14, 2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the
final judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth &
Vose and on April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's
petition for rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for
discretionary review in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Lorillard
Tobacco filed its responsive brief on May 30, 2014.

On October 4, 2012, the jury in the Couscouris case returned a
verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose, and the
court entered final judgment on November 1, 2012. On June 17,
2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate
District entered an order dismissing the appeal of the final
judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but plaintiffs' appeal
of the cost judgment remained pending. However, plaintiffs
abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4, 2014, the
appeal was dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in the
DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their claims
for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8 million.
Lorillard Tobacco Company is responsible for 44%, or $3.52
million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard
Tobacco Company filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013.
As of October 20, 2014, 24 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial
or have been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are
subject to change.


LORILLARD INC: Plaintiffs File Reply Brief in Kansas Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in
Indirect Purchaser Suits in Kansas filed a petition for review by
the Kansas Supreme Court on August 18, 2014, and the Defendants
filed a response on August 29, 2014.  The plaintiffs filed their
reply brief on September 11, 2014.

Approximately 30 antitrust suits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on
behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state and
federal courts against cigarette manufacturers. The suits all
alleged that the defendants entered into agreements to fix the
wholesale prices of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust
laws which permit indirect purchasers, such as retailers and
consumers, to sue under price fixing or consumer fraud statutes.
More than 20 states permit such suits. Lorillard Tobacco was a
defendant in all but one of these indirect purchaser cases.
Lorillard, Inc. was not named as a defendant in any of these
cases. Four indirect purchaser suits, in New York, Florida, New
Mexico and Michigan, thereafter were dismissed by courts in those
states. All other actions, except for a state court action in
Kansas, were either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by the
courts.

In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified
a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002. In November 2010,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs
filed a cross motion for summary judgment in July 2011. In March
2012, the District Court of Seward County granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas suit.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied. On July 18,
2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals
for the State of Kansas. Briefing on plaintiff's appeal was
completed and argument in the Court of Appeals was held on
December 11, 2013. On July 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed a petition for
review by the Kansas Supreme Court on August 18, 2014. Defendants
filed a response on August 29, 2014, and plaintiffs filed their
reply brief on September 11, 2014.


LORILLARD INC: No Substantive Activity in Class Action Since 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Lorillard Tobacco
but not Lorillard Inc. is a defendant in the one pending Class
Action Case, in which plaintiffs seek class certification on
behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of deceased
cigarette smokers, who reside in West Virginia. There has been no
substantive activity in this case since February 2001.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have
defeated motions for class certification in a number of cases.
Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some
of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which neither
Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party. In some of
these cases, courts have denied class certification to the
plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters. On
December 17, 2013, in Caronia, et al. v. Philip Morris USA, the
New York Court of Appeals, answering a question certified to it by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held
that current or former smokers that have not been diagnosed with a
smoking-related disease could not pursue an independent cause of
action for medical monitoring under New York law.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Enters Settlement in FACTA Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement in a customer lawsuit alleging violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to the company's Oct.
22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 30, 2012, Jaroslaw Prusak, a purported customer
("Prusak"), filed a putative class action lawsuit, which was
subsequently amended, against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Prusak
Lawsuit"). Prusak alleges that the Company willfully violated the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendments to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act in connection with electronically printed
credit card receipts provided to certain of its customers.  In the
operative complaint, Prusak, for himself and the putative class,
seeks statutory damages of no less than one hundred dollars and no
more than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief.  Prusak filed a
motion seeking certification of the putative class and the parties
each filed motions seeking summary judgment with regard to matters
at issue in the case. Although the Company believes it has valid
defenses to the claims asserted, the Company has agreed to a
proposed settlement of the claims in the lawsuit, which the court
has preliminarily approved. Under the proposed settlement
agreement, the Company would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
a sum to Prusak and either a cash sum or voucher to members of the
putative class. Based upon the actual response rate received from
the putative class members, the Company has accrued $755,
including $255 in the third quarter of 2014, as the best estimate
of the probable loss that may result from this action.  In the
event the court does not grant final approval of the proposed
settlement, the Company intends to continue to defend the Prusak
Lawsuit vigorously and will assess the possibility of any loss at
that time.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Securities Suit in Virginia Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken ("Kiken") filed a
securities class action lawsuit, which was subsequently amended,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company, its founder, Chief Executive Officer
and President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Merchandising
Officer (collectively, the "Kiken Defendants"). In the amended
complaint, Kiken and an additional plaintiff, Keith Foster
(together with Kiken, the "Plaintiffs"), allege that the Kiken
Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects. In particular, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Kiken Defendants made material misstatements or
omissions related to the Company's compliance with the federal
Lacey Act and the chemical content of certain of its wood
products. In addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the Plaintiffs
seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Lawsuit by RWA Over "Unsolicited" Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
filed by Richard Wade Architects, P.C. over an alleged unsolicited
facsimile advertisement, according to Lumber's Oct. 22, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade Architects, P.C. ("RWA")
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA Lawsuit"), which was
subsequently amended, alleging that Lumber Liquidators violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an unsolicited
facsimile advertisement to RWA. RWA seeks recourse on its own
behalf as well as other similarly situated parties that received
unsolicited facsimile advertisements from the Company. The TCPA
provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars
for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that
a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA,
the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the
amount. Although the Company believes it has valid defenses to the
claims asserted, based upon the proceedings to date, the Company
has recorded an accrual of approximately $275 in the third quarter
of 2014 as its best estimate of the probable loss that may result
from this action. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the RWA Lawsuit and the legal standards that
must be met for, among other things, class certification, the
Company cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or range of
loss in excess of the amount accrued that may result from the RWA
Lawsuit.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Stock Suit by Retirement Trust in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit
filed by the City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and
Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to
the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust
("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and President and
its Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale
Defendants"). In the complaint, Hallandale alleges that the
Hallandale Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements that caused losses to investors. In particular,
Hallandale alleges that the Hallandale Defendants made material
misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's supply chain
and inventory position. In addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
Hallandale seeks to recover damages on behalf of itself and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company
disputes Hallandale's claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary
stage of the case, insurance coverage issues and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action.


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Accrued $3.3 Million Liability in Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that from March 13,
2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers. These actions were entitled
Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580
(S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013), Weinstein v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686 (S.D. Cal. filed March
21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-
cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April 11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April
19, 2013). The complaints alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and
business prospects and overstated the Company's reported revenue.
The complaints purported to assert claims for violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 28, 2011 and March 7, 2013,
inclusive. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff
and, on October 24, 2013, the court issued a written order
consolidating the case under the heading In re Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigation.

On January 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and
amended complaint which slightly adjusted the class period to
April 29, 2011 to March 19, 2013. In response, the Company and the
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the lead plaintiff opposed.

On May 5, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
but granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. The
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2014, and the
Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss on July
10, 2014.

On October 6, 2014, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, which included an all-in settlement value of $3.3
million. On October 16, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement.

As a result of the preliminary settlement, for the quarter ended
September 30, 2014, the Company accrued a liability of $3.3
million, which is included in "accounts payable and accrued
liabilities," and a corresponding receivable of $3.3 million,
which is included in "trade and other accounts receivable," as
this amount is payable by the Company's insurance carrier.


MIAMI-DADE CTY, FL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Lopez v. Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade Public Housing and
Community Development, Miami-Dade Public Housing, and Alpha1
Staffing/Search Firm LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-23895-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
October 21, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid wages, compensation
and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICROSOFT CORP: 3 Antitrust Cases Pending in Canada
---------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that three antitrust
and unfair competition cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario,
and Quebec, Canada have not been settled.

In March 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it
as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal
dismissed the case, in October 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court
reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British
Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in September 2015.
The other two cases were inactive pending action by the Supreme
Court on the British Columbia case.


MICROSOFT CORP: Says Remaining Cost of Settlements at $300 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
estimates the total remaining cost of the settlements in antitrust
and unfair competition cases is approximately $300 million, all of
which had been accrued as of September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair
competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various
state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes
of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005.

"We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made
in the United States. Under the settlements, generally class
members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for
purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware
and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies
by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage
of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we
ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who
make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total
remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $300 million,
all of which had been accrued as of September 30, 2014."


MICROSOFT CORP: Interlocutory Appeal Okayed in US Cell Phone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Nokia, along with
other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant
in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions
from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse
health effects.  Microsoft has assumed responsibility for these
claims as part of the acquisition of Nokia Corporation's ("Nokia")
Devices and Services business ("NDS") and has been substituted for
the Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and
are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining
10 cases are stayed.

In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to
exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the
basis of flawed scientific methodologies. The motion was heard in
December 2013 and January 2014. In March 2014, defendants filed a
separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation
testimony on the ground that it is pre-empted by federal law
because the experts challenge the safety of all cellular handsets,
including those that comply with the FCC Guidelines. In August
2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude
plaintiffs' general causation experts. The court granted an order
permitting an interlocutory appeal of its decision in October
2014. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the
appeal.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Litigation Not Yet Active
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Nokia, along with
other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant
in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used
cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of
users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint
in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants.
The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to
be served.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Multimedia Games Holding Co. too cheaply through an unfair process
to Global Cash Access Holdings, and Movie Merger Sub, for $36.50 a
share or $1.2 billion, shareholders claim in Travis County Court.


MUSCLEPHARM CORP: "Bey" Suit Transferred From Nevada to Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bey v. Musclepharm Corporation,
Case No. 14-cv-00655, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado (Denver).  The Colorado District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02881-MJW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks relief pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Refuses to Junk Football Players Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss another class action from former college
basketball and football players who claim the NCAA should allow
athletes to be compensated for their names, images and likenesses.

In March, three football players and a basketball player sued the
NCAA in a class action in New Jersey, alleging federal antitrust
violations.

Lead plaintiff Martin Jenkins played football for Clemson.

As in similar cases against the NCAA, the athletes sought an
injunction that would allow them to enter into their own licensing
agreements.

The case was transferred to California's Northern District Court,
where U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken has heard related cases
against the NCAA.

The NCAA said in September that the action should be dismissed ,
based on how Judge Wilken ruled in the case from former UCLA
basketball player Ed O'Bannon.

Wilken in August issued an injunction against the NCAA, finding
its rules prohibiting athletes from being compensated
"unreasonably restrain trade in the market for educational
athletic opportunities for Division I colleges and universities."

The NCAA argued in a Sept. 25 motion in opposition that that the
plaintiffs in the case transferred from New Jersey "are entitled
to no relief whatsoever" because they misinterpreted Wilken's
ruling in O'Bannon.

"Although O'Bannon held that restraint to be unduly restrictive to
a certain, limited extent, this court, consistent with prior
federal court decisions endorsing NCAA limitations on payments to
student-athletes, clearly rejected the premise on which the
current complaints are founded -- that any NCAA limit on payments
to student-athletes constitutes an antitrust violation," Jeffrey
A. Mishkin wrote for the NCAA in its Sept. 25 motion.

Attorneys have argued their sides last week before Wilken, who
rejected the NCAA's motion to dismiss without publishing the
reasons for it.

Wilken set a case management conference for 2 p.m. on Jan. 7,
2015.

The other named plaintiffs in the New Jersey case are football
players Kevin Perry from the University of Texas at El Paso,
William Tyndall of UC-Berkeley, and hoopster J.J. Moore of
Rutgers.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by Student Athlete Over Improper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taking a different tack from the student athletes seeking
compensation for use of their image rights, a University of
Houston soccer player hopes to represent a class against Division
I schools that deny student athletes a minimum wage, reports David
Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service.

The latest federal class action comes as the National Collegiate
Athletic Association' appeals an injunction it faces in the class
action brought by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon who
wanted a share of the revenues schools earn from use of student-
athletes' names, images and likenesses.

Samantha Sackos filed her complaint on October 20 in Indiana where
the NCAA is based, seeking damages she claims student-athletes are
owed by Division I schools under the minimum-wage provision of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sackos said that, every soccer season for four years at the
University of Houston, she "worked as an unpaid student athlete,"
at least 20 hours over six days every week.

Every Division I school from Abilene Christian University to
Youngstown State University "conspired to . . . misclassify[]
plaintiff and members of the student athlete collective as unpaid
labor rather than temporary employees, prohibiting payment of
lawfully earned, modest wages to them," the complaint states.

About a third of the 26-page complaint is dedicated to listing the
dozens of Division I schools that Sackos named as defendants
alongside the NCAA.

"Work study participants who sell programs or usher at athletic
events are paid, on average, $9.03 an hour, but student athletes
whose performance creates such work study jobs in the athletic
department are paid nothing," the complaint states.

In rebuffing an attempt by Sackos' attorneys attempts to resolve
the matter outside of court, the NCAA likened participation in
student athletics to an extracurricular activity like glee club,
according to the complaint.  Sackos says her attorneys countered
that such groups are student-organized and dissimilar to regulated
sports, which are supervised by full-time, paid coaching staffs.

In a statement on the complaint, the NCAA's chief legal officer
Donald Remy disagreed "that student-athletes are participating in
sports as employees."

"Student-athletes have a passion for their sport and a commitment
to their teammates that can't be equated to punching a time
clock," Remy added.

But Sackos says her attorneys already directed the NCAA to a
provision in the Department of Labor Field Operations Handbook
that says "an employment relationship will generally exist with
regard to students whose duties are not part of an overall
educational program . . . for example, students who work at food
service counters or sell programs or usher at athletic events, or
who wait on tables or wash dishes in dormitories."

Though some student athletes receive scholarships, such awards do
not constitute compensation because they are treated as nontaxable
income that can be spent only on academic costs, according to the
complaint.

Sackos says the NCAA did not to respond to her attorneys'
"critique" of its basis for misclassifying student athletes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
          P L MCDONALD LAW LLC
          1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 238-3835
          Facsimile: (267) 238-3801
          E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com

The case is Samantha Sackos, on her own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association (a/k/a the "NCAA"), et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-1710 WTL-
MJD, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Sued for Falsely Advertising Ginkgo Biloba Pills
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nature's Bounty, Inc, a New York Corporation, NBTY
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-100, Inclusive, Case No.
BC561527 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 22, 2014)
arises from the Defendants' alleged false representations and
false advertising of their Ginkgo Biloba products.

The Defendants specifically target the elderly by claiming:
"Ginkgo helps support memory, especially occasional mild memory
problems associated with aging," the Plaintiff alleges.
Unfortunately, the Plaintiff contends, the promise of enhanced
mental acuity and prevention of memory loss is nothing but a sham.

Nature's Bounty, Inc. is a corporation headquartered in
Ronkonkoma, New York.  Nature's Bounty is the manufacturer of the
Products.  NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Ronkonkoma, New York.  NBTY is a large manufacturer of vitamins
and dietary supplements, including the Products, and markets its
products under various name brands.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison R. Willett, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (888) 835-8055
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  awillett@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  coler@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 260,000 Cars Over Defective Air Bags
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Pfanner, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Nissan Motor Co. on Oct. 23 expanded its recall of cars equipped
with potentially defective air bags from Takata Corp., saying it
was calling back an additional 260,000 vehicles world-wide.

Air bags from Takata, a Japanese parts supplier, have been linked
to at least two deaths in the U.S., prompting an escalating series
of recalls that has grown to include more than 12 million cars
globally.  On Oct. 22, a person familiar with the situation said
federal prosecutors were investigating Takata over the incidents.

Japan is the most heavily affected market in the latest round of
recalls by Nissan, with 104,905 vehicles involved, according to
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.  The
air bag inflater could rupture owing to a foreign object in one of
the air bag parts, according to the notice.  This could cause
fragments to fly out and injure occupants.

Chris Keeffe, a Nissan spokesman, said there were no reports of
injuries connected with the latest recall.

In Japan, the recall affects Nissan Cubes from the 2008-12 model
years and Nissan March cars from the 2010-12 model years.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Still Faces Suit Over Fuel Surcharges in Col.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to face a lawsuit regarding
fuel surcharges in the US District Court for the District of
Columbia, according to the company's Oct. 22, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
the company and other Class I railroads in various Federal
district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the
District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a
class action.  The defendant railroads appealed this
certification, and the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the
case for further consideration.  The company believes the
allegations in the complaints are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the cases.  The company does not believe the
outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on the
company's financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.
A lawsuit containing similar allegations against the company and
four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling
agreement entered into in August 2008, and most recently extended
in August 2013.


ORACLE CORP: Accused of Entering Into Restricted Hiring Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that antitrust
class action suits filed against Oracle and Microsoft joined a
growing list of lawsuits accusing major tech companies of creating
no-poaching agreements in order to keep salaries down.

On Oct. 14, Greg Garrison sued Oracle for allegedly creating a
"restricted hiring agreement" with companies like Google,
Microsoft and others, who agreed not to poach each others'
managerial employees.

The companies also agreed not to cold-call each others managers
and to inform each other before hiring one anothers' employees,
the complaint says.

On Oct. 17, Deserae Ryan and Trent Rau sued Microsoft with similar
allegations, also on behalf of a class of managers.  The lawsuits
mirror a 2010 Department of Justice suit against Adobe Systems,
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar on behalf of a class of up
to 64,000 software engineers.

A September lawsuit against major animation studios like Pixar and
DreamWorks also contains similar allegations regarding animators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler J. Belong, Esq.
          Bryce A. Dodds, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG
          430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone No: (619) 238-4720
          Facsimile No: (619) 270-9856
          E-mail: tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                  bdodds@hoguebelonglaw.com

The case is Greg Garrison, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Oracle Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-04592-NC, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division.


PERDUE FARMS: False Advertising Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
three years of class litigation challenging Perdue Farms Inc.'s
assertion that it humanely raises chickens sold under one of its
brands has ended with terse statements that the poultry company
will no longer make that claim.

Perdue and the Humane Society of the United States issued
identical four-paragraph press releases in which each party
expressed that it "pleased" with the dismissal, with prejudice, on
Oct. 13 of two proposed class actions filed in 2011 and 2013 in
U.S. District Courts in New Jersey and the Middle District of
Florida.  Neither side elaborated on terms of the deal, which was
described simply as requiring Perdue to remove the words "humanely
raised" from packages of its Harvestland chicken brand.

The dismissal of Hemy v. Perdue in New Jersey and Roy v. Perdue in
Florida came after a federal judge in the Central District of
California dismissed on Oct. 10 a similar suit alleging Kroger Co.
also mislabeled its Simple Truth chickens as having been raised in
a "humane environment."

In the Perdue cases, the Humane Society alleged the poultry
producer falsely advertised its Harvestland chickens as having
been raised according to U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines
for humane treatment, implying a government imprimatur that does
not exist, according to the complaints.  Instead, Perdue allegedly
followed voluntary, self-defined guidelines to achieve "process
verification" by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, a branch
of the department dedicated to boosting the poultry industry.

In fact, the complaints alleged, Perdue's practices adhered to
those of the National Chicken Council, a trade group that
emphasizes mass-production efficiency and profit over humane
methods of raising and slaughtering chickens.  The practices it
endorses, the Humane Society said, include painful handling and
shackling of live birds; transport and holding of birds on cramped
trucks for long periods in extreme temperatures with no food or
water, and unnecessarily painful slaughter practices.

Perdue denied all allegations and said its labels were not
misleading, as did Kroger. Perdue said the company "is committed
to treating animals with respect and to ensuring their health and
safety."

Perdue's counsel are with Venable; Russomanno & Borrello; and
Connell Foley.

Plaintiffs in the Perdue cases are represented by attorneys with
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Keechl; Tycko & Zavareei;
The Humane Society of the United States; and Law Offices of David
M. Wacksman.


PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT: Removes "Zeto" Class Suit to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Zeto, et al. v. Property
Adjustment Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. L-1867-14, was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-06529-
PGS-LHG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of compensatory damages,
statutory damages, fees and costs, and equitable relief, for
alleged violations of state and federal law, including violations
of the federal "FTC Door-to-Door Sales Cooling-Off Regulation."
The Plaintiffs have also alleged state law claims pursuant to the
New Jersey Public Adjusters' Licensing Act, the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Henry Paul Wolfe, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sean Robins, Esq.
          Sean X. Kelly, Esq.
          MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C.
          Cooper River West
          6981 North Park Drive, Suite 300
          Pennsauken, NJ 08109
          Telephone: (856) 663-4300
          Facsimile: (856) 663-4439
          E-mail: srobins@moodklaw.com
                  skelly@moodklaw.com


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Ruling in Video Privacy Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal appellate court ruled on Oct. 23 that self-service movie
kiosk company Redbox did not violate the Video Privacy Protection
Act by giving an outside customer-service vendor access to its
customer database.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
Northern District of Illinois Judge Matthew Kennelly's August 2013
summary judgment for the company.

In Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC, Judge Kennelly wrote that
the information sharing fell within an exception to the law that
allows such disclosures in the ordinary course of business.
The Seventh Circuit agreed in a ruling by Judge Joel Flaum.  "If
it is permissible to disclose [personally identifiable
information] to Stream in order to respond to a customer's call,
there is nothing objectionable about Redbox's wholesale disclosure
of information pertaining to all customers, for use in the event
of such a call," he wrote.  Judges Michael Kanne and Daniel Manion
joined the opinion.

The ruling also approved disclosure of customer information in
Stream's training programs.

Redbox user Kevin Sterk's original complaint, filed in March 2011,
alleged that Redbox violated the act by unlawfully retaining
customer information.  His amended lawsuit, joined by Jiah Chung,
added the unlawful-disclosure claim.

The Seventh Circuit ruled in 2012 that the law does not provide
for monetary damages for an unlawful retention claim.

Neither Redbox nor Dentons Chicago partner Natalie Spears, who
argued for the company on appeal, responded to requests for
comment.

Roger Perlstadt, a Chicago associate at Edelson who argued the
plaintiffs' Seventh Circuit case, did not respond.

The Oct. 23 ruling echoed recent district court decisions. U.S.
District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of Georgia this month dismissed a
similar purported class action, Ellis v. The Cartoon Network Inc.
In June, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler declined to certify a
class allegedly harmed by video privacy act violations in In re:
Hulu Privacy Litigation.  In an April summary judgment, Beeler
said Hulu was not liable for sharing user information with data
analytics firm comScore Inc., but was liable for sharing it with
Facebook Inc.


RETROPHIN INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 20 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against c and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-8376, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Retrophin securities between March 27, 2014 and September 30,
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 Retrophin securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 19, 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.

Retrophin, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development, acquisition, and commercialization of therapies for
the treatment of serious, catastrophic, or rare diseases.  It
sells Chenodal, a synthetic oral form of chenodeoxycholic acid for
the treatment of radiolucent stones in well-opacifying
gallbladders, and Vecamyl, for the treatment of hypertension.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Retrophin's founder and Chief Executive
Officer was committing stock-trading irregularities and other
violations of the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan and other
securities rules; (ii) said irregularities included grants of
shares in violation of the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan
and the failure to disclose stock grants to employees; and (iii)
as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 16, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing that on September 15, 2014, it had reached an agreement
with its Chief Financial Officer, Marc Panoff, pursuant to which
Mr. Panoff's employment with the Company will terminate, effective
as of February 28, 2015.  Also, the Company announced that on
September 10, 2014, Jeffrey Paley, MD abruptly stepped down as a
member of the Board of Directors. As a result of this news, shares
of Retrophin fell $1.03 or over 8%, on unusually heavy trading, to
close at $11.46 on September 17, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors
terminated its Chief Executive Officer, Martin Shkreli, effective
immediately, and appointed Stephen Aselage as interim Chief
Executive Officer.  As a result of this news, shares of Retrophin
fell $0.40 or almost 4.5%, on unusually heavy trading, to close at
$8.62 on October 1, 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.


RICHARD ADJMI: Family Chauffer Wants to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Herrera v. Richard Adjmi, Case No. 1:14-cv-08392 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 21, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendant: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3)
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a family chauffer at the
Defendant's residence located in Brooklyn, New York.  The
Defendant's office is located in Manhattan, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


RJM ACQUISITIONS: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arleen Fackina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RJM Acquisitions LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-06532-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., October 21, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Denial of Motion to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the East Baton Rouge class action against SEI
Investments Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal with
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with respect to the
denial by the District Court of the Plaintiffs' motion to remand,
SEI said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also
names SPTC as a defendant and was certified as a class in December
2012. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All
five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in
all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.

The class action originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC
for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Two of the other five actions include claims for violations
of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In
addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of
Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting
claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.

Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to
federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order
and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the
two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court
dismissed these cases with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this
ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States
District Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings.
On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by
the United States Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit to permit
the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI believes that the trial
court correctly concluded that the claims against SEI were barred
by the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and
requested that the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal. On
January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a
writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court heard
oral argument on the appeal and on February 26, 2014 the Supreme
Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to
that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the
remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC
an extension to respond to the filings. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which
the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the
other exceptions.

SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and
SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain
named plaintiffs which the Court stated would not be set for
hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion.
The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class
certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December
5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17,
2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge
certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased or
renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit
(SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13,
2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased
SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13,
2009.

On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from
the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to
stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them to amend the
petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed
during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's
insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of
the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend.

On February 15, 2013, SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the
alternative, for reconsideration of the Court's order allowing
amendment. On February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay
proceedings in view of the pending Supreme Court case. On February
28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class
Action Petition by filing an exception.

On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed a notice
of removal removing the case to the Middle District of Louisiana
and on March 18, 2013, the insurance carrier defendants filed
answers. On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-
along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status
conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand,
a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to
supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court
record. These motions are now fully briefed. On March 25, 2013,
SEI filed a motion that the court decline to adopt the state
court's order regarding class certification, which the court
dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order that also
dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one of
the insurers.

On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions
(OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to
that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the
plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013.

Along with the briefing in the Middle District of Louisiana, on
March 13, 2013, SEI notified the MDL of this case as a potential
tag-along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL
that they had filed a motion to remand and asked the panel to
decline to issue a conditional transfer order. On March 29, 2013,
the MDL issued a conditional transfer order (CTO).

On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a motion to vacate the CTO or, in the
alternative, stay any ruling to transfer the matter until after
the Middle District of Louisiana ruled on OFI's motion to remand
and sever. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on April
19, 2013. SEI's responses to those motions were filed on May 9,
2013. On June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying
the parties that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral
argument, Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On
August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred the
matter against SEI to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the claims
against OFI and remanded those claims to the Middle District of
Louisiana.

On September 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion requesting a
status conference with the Court to address the status of all
pending motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus asking the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's transfer Order and
on February 14, 2014, the Court denied the petition.

On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the
Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied
the motion to remand. This case is now pending in the Northern
District of Texas. On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Permission to Appeal with the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit with respect to the denial by the District Court
of the Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Excessive Use of Oil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that certain 2011-14 Subaru models
consume excessive amounts of oil, damaging the engine, a class
action claims in New Jersey Federal Court.


SYNGENTA SEEDS: Faces "Sanders" Product Liability Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William O. Sanders, on behalf himself and all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Corporation and
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01076-TFM (M.D.
Ala., October 21, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brannon Jeffrey Buck, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-0036
          Facsimile: (205) 521-0037
          E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com

               - and -

          Walker Percy Badham, III, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK, LLC
          2585 Wachovia Tower
          420 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-0036
          Facsimile: (205) 521-0037
          E-mail: pbadham@badhambuck.com

               - and -

          Christina Diane Crow, Esq.
          Lynn Wilson Jinks, III, Esq.
          Nathan Andrew Dickson, II, Esq.
          JINKS CROW & DICKSON, PC
          P O Box 350
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Telephone: (334) 738-4225
          Facsimile: (334) 738-4229
          E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com
                  ljinks@jinkslaw.com
                  ndickson@jinkslaw.com

               - and -

          Mahaley P. McInnes, Esq.
          WEBB & ELEY, P.C.
          P. O. Box 240909
          Montgomery, AL 36124
          Telephone: (334) 262-1850
          Facsimile: (334) 262-1772
          E-mail: mmcinnes@webbeley.com

               - and -

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


SYNGENTA AG: Class Actions Over Viptera Corn Seeds Pile Up
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bunge, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Syngenta AG faces escalating legal battles over its sale of
genetically engineered corn seeds that some farmers and
agricultural companies say have roiled international grain markets
this year.

U.S. farmers in 11 states have sued Syngenta in federal courts
during the past few weeks, alleging losses they say arose from the
Swiss seed-and-chemical company's move to sell biotech seeds
before the corn was approved by Chinese authorities for import
there.  China's rejections of U.S. corn shipments found to contain
the Syngenta strain starting last November allegedly depressed
overall market prices for the grain, driving more than $1 billion
in losses for U.S. farmers, according to documents filed in the
lawsuits.

The farmers' suits, filed in U.S. district courts and seeking
class-action status, follow separate cases filed last month by
grain exporters Cargill Inc. and Trans Coastal Supply Co., arguing
that they lost tens of millions of dollars after Chinese grain
inspectors detected the Syngenta corn in cargoes and turned away
shipments.  On Oct. 17, farmers filed complaints against Syngenta
in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana after earlier
lawsuits spanning other farm states.

Syngenta officials said the cases have no merit, and that it has
been transparent about the approval process for the GMO corn in
question, known as Viptera.

"We continue to believe that [we have] complied with all the laws,
rules and regulations of the countries in which we're selling the
product," John Ramsay, Syngenta's chief financial officer, said on
Oct. 16 during a conference call with analysts to discuss
earnings.

Attorneys for the farmers seek damages to compensate for an
alleged hit to corn prices.  Corn futures prices have dropped
about 18% this year, as favorable weather nurtured what is
expected to be the largest U.S. corn crop in history.  Prices fell
40% last year thanks to a similar bumper crop.

China's rejection of U.S. corn imports effectively added supply to
the broader corn market, lowering the price of corn by about 11
cents a bushel, farmers' attorneys charged in the lawsuits.

James Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- a partner at
Hausfeld LLP, a Washington-based law firm coordinating some of the
farmers' legal effort against Syngenta, alleges the company misled
farmers.

"Syngenta should not have marketed and aggressively promoted
Viptera while misrepresenting that Chinese approval was imminent
and also downplaying the importance of the Chinese export market,"
Mr. Pizzirusso said.

Syngenta since 2011 has sold Viptera to farmers in the U.S.,
Argentina and Brazil, with those governments' approval.  Syngenta
says the product provides tougher defenses against pests such as
black cutworms and corn earworms, and that U.S. farmers shouldn't
have to rely on the Chinese government to decide what products
they can use on their farms.

Farmers suing Syngenta face a challenge identifying any hit to
corn prices arising directly from China's rejections of corn
shipments over Viptera, said Christopher Hurt, professor of
agricultural economics at Purdue University.  "I also don't know
how they will counter the argument that says 'you planted it
voluntarily, and it has this restriction on it,'" he said.

Analysts said the lawsuits and the prospect of more to come could
diminish farmers' interest in Viptera, which represents 30% of
Syngenta's North American corn-seed sales.  Despite the seeds'
effectiveness against crop-destroying pests, farmers might worry
that grain companies might not buy corn grown with the seeds, said
Andrew Benson, an analyst with Citigroup Inc.  "They may think, I
don't need any hassle," Mr. Benson said.

The lawsuits come as the agricultural sector faces growing
questions over its management of genetically modified seeds.  The
U.S. Department of Agriculture last month said it discovered
unauthorized, genetically modified wheat growing near a research
station in Montana, which had been a site for Monsanto Co. field
trials 11 years ago.  Last year the USDA discovered a separate
strain of GMO wheat, also developed by Monsanto, growing in a
farmer's field in Oregon.  A USDA investigation failed to
determine how that wheat came to be on the Oregon field, though
Monsanto officials have said they suspected sabotage.

While the Oregon wheat discovery temporarily halted imports of
U.S. wheat by several Asian nations, some agriculture experts said
the flap over Syngenta's Viptera corn represents the farthest-
reaching upheaval because of a genetically modified crop in more
than a decade.  Hundreds of food products were recalled in 2000
after StarLink, a type of corn then approved for use in animal
feed, erroneously was added to human food products such as taco
shells and corn chips, costing the industry hundreds of millions
of dollars.


TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Cook" Suit Consolidated in Securities MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cook v. Telexelectric, LLLP, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00134, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Worcester).  The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:14-cv-40154-TSH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In Re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL No. 2566, currently
pending in Massachusetts.  The actions in the litigation share
factual questions relating to the allegation that the TelexFree
companies operated a Ponzi pyramid scheme involving the
recruitment of investors in marketing TelexFree's telephone
service plan and that the Defendants directly participated in or
aided and abetted the alleged scheme.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Tate, Esq.
          TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
          P. O. Box 9060
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 234-3030
          Facsimile: (912) 234-9700
          E-mail: tlgservice@tatelawgroup.com


TV PRODUCTS: Chauffer Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gomez v. Jennifer Kurani, Jay "Jeff" Kurani, TV Products
USA Inc., and Kishore Samtani, Case No. 1:14-cv-08393 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 21, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from Defendants (1) unpaid overtime, (2)
liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and costs.

TV Products USA Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in
New York City.  Kishore Samtani is the Chairman or Chief Executive
Officer of TV Products.  Jennifer Kurani and Jay "Jeff" Kurani are
residents of New York City.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a family chauffer at
their residence in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 576-1857
          Facsimile: (212) 576-1888
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com

               - and -

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


UNITED NATIONS: Haitians Seek Court OK to Send Cholera Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blaming the United Nations for the "worst cholera epidemic in
modern times," a lawyer for the Haitian victims told a federal
judge on October 23, 2014, that diplomatic immunity has prevented
her clients from delivering a lawsuit some 4 miles uptown to the
organization's headquarters overlooking the East River, reports
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

While Secretary General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged the UN's "moral
responsibility" earlier this year for the outbreak that killed
8,000 and infected 700,000 Haitians, he has insisted that the
institution should not face legal liability.

The United Nations has dodged a class action lawsuit from the
victims for more than a year.

Lawyers for Delama Georges, whose father died during the outbreak,
and other Haitians have been unable to serve the federal complaint
because UN premises is considered "inviolable."  They asked a
federal judge to acknowledge service, or allow for the
unprecedented step of mailing, faxing, or emailing their lawsuit
to the United Nations.

Hoping to avoid a diplomatic headache, the United States
dispatched attorneys from the Justice Department and State
Department to prevent that fate.

This first hearing in the high-profile case October 23 drew dozens
of spectators to the grand courtroom of New York's Thurgood
Marshall Courthouse, but arguments largely focused on arcane
details of international law.

Beatrice Lindstrom, representing the plaintiffs for the Institute
of Justice & Democracy in Haiti, said the fundamental facts of the
case are "not disputed."  Her clients' lawsuit alleges that the UN
responded to a Haiti's earthquake four years ago by sending
personnel from Nepal, "a country in which cholera is endemic and
where a surge in infections had just been reported."

The UN troops disposed of human waste in open-air pits outside
their base on the banks of the Meille Tributary that flows into
the Artibonite River, Haiti's longest river and primary water
source, the Haitians say.

Lindstrom reminded the court that former U.S. President Bill
Clinton, who served as the UN Special Envoy for Haiti,
acknowledged two years ago that the virus traced back to a U.N.
peacekeeper.

For U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken, however, 2nd Circuit
precedent on immunity gives the Haitians "a steep hill to climb"
with their lawsuit.

Lindstrom countered that the Haitians brought "a case of first
impression that has never been in from of the court of the United
States."  She contends that the UN trampled upon its obligation
under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities to settle claims
against its officials. The UN never established a claims
commission for Haiti's cholera crisis, she noted.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Blain meanwhile said the case turns
on whether the "UN Charter means what it unambiguously says."

The United States took no position on whether the UN breached its
obligations to settle claims, Blain added.

International law experts and NGOs joined the Haitians in seeking
to overcome the UN's immunity.

Kertch Conze, of the Haitian Lawyers Association, became
particularly passionate and indignant as he emphasized the
thousands of innocent victims claimed by the UN's alleged
negligence.

"These people who have been infected, they did nothing wrong," he
said.

Conze echoed the plaintiffs' arguments that the UN's alleged
violation of one section of the treaty waived whatever immunity
the other portion provided.

"If you breach the contract and you come to court and tell the
judge, 'I have immunity,' then you come to court with unclean
hands," Conze said.

Such a position also would be "patently unfair," he added.


UNITIL CORP: Decision of Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is
pending on an appeal by the plaintiffs in a class action against
Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), Unitil said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellerman et al
v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary
housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain
and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers
in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice
storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December, 2008. The
Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 ice storm.

On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying
it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs
in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case
as a class action.

On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. As a
result of this decision, the lawsuit would now proceed with only
the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages; however, the
plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"). The SJC accepted the matter
for review, briefs have been submitted and oral arguments have
been held. The decision of the SJC is pending.

The Town of Lunenburg has also filed a separate action in the
Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to
this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the
decision of the SJC in Bellermann. The Company continues to
believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend
itself vigorously.

Unitil is a public utility holding company headquartered in
Hampton, New Hampshire. Unitil is subject to regulation as a
holding company system by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.


USG CORP: Reached Agreement in Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims made in the direct and indirect purchaser class actions
consolidated in the lawsuit, In re: Domestic Wallboard Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2437, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the
agreement in principle to settle, which is subject to finalization
of a settlement agreement and court approval, USG will make a
payment of $48 million. USG strongly denies any wrong-doing for
the claims made in the lawsuits, but settled to avoid the expense,
distraction and risk of further litigation. USG expects to make
this cash payment within the next twelve months, while recording
the $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014.

"It is very disappointing to settle this lawsuit when we strongly
believe we have done nothing wrong," said James S. Metcalf,
Chairman, President, and CEO.  "However, we have to be realistic
about the cost and risk a lawsuit like this creates for USG.
Settling allows us to put this issue behind us and continue to
focus on serving our customers. USG has always established its
prices and pricing policies independently and in full compliance
with the law. In addition, we still expect to achieve our de-
levering targets over the planning horizon."

USG said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 23, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014, that in late 2012, USG Corporation and
United States Gypsum Company were named as defendants in putative
class action lawsuits alleging that since at least September 2011,
U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price
of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate
the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job
quotes on wallboard. These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the
title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437.

One group of plaintiffs purports to represent a class of entities
that purchased gypsum wallboard in the United States directly from
any of the defendants or their affiliates from January 1, 2012 to
the present. The second group of plaintiffs purports to bring
their claims and seek damages on behalf of indirect purchasers of
gypsum wallboard. These indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek to
certify a separate class of persons or entities who from January
1, 2012 through the present indirectly purchased wallboard in the
United States from the defendants or their affiliates for end use
and not for resale.

In the fall of 2013, similar lawsuits were filed in Quebec and
Ontario courts on behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada.
These Canadian lawsuits also name as defendants CGC,as well as
other Canadian and U.S. wallboard manufacturers.

USG has denied the allegations made in these wallboard pricing
lawsuits, believes these cases are without merit, and that USG's
actions were at all times lawful. U.S. antitrust litigation,
however, is expensive and protracted, with inherent risks and
uncertainties, including the potential of triple damages and joint
and several liability.

"To avoid these expenses, risks and further distraction of
management, in October 2014, we entered into a settlement
agreement in principle with the attorneys representing the direct
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the U.S. wallboard pricing
lawsuits. Pursuant to the settlement in principle, which is
subject to finalization of a settlement agreement and court
approval, USG will pay a total of $48 million to resolve the U.S.
direct and indirect purchaser cases. Accordingly we have recorded
a $48 million charge in the third quarter of 2014 related to this
settlement.  If we are unable to settle the U.S. litigation under
the terms currently contemplated, or at all, there can be no
assurance that the outcome of these lawsuits will not have a
material effect on our business, financial condition, operating
results or cash flows," the Company said.

The settlement does not include the Canadian lawsuits.  "At this
stage of the Canadian lawsuits, we are not able to estimate the
amount, if any, of any reasonably possible loss or range of
reasonably possible losses. We believe, however, that these
Canadian lawsuits will not have a material effect on our results
of operations, financial position, or cash flows," the Company
said.

USG is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials.


WELLS FARGO: Gets Final OK of $14.7MM Settlement in "Dyer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on October 22, 2014, awarded $3.6 million in
attorneys' fees from a settled $14.7 million class action accusing
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage of shorting employees on commissions,
reports Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar granted final approval of the
settlement, awarded fees and awarded two key plaintiffs $10,000 in
incentives apiece for their key roles in the litigation.

Of the class of 8,695 branch sales managers or home mortgage
consultants, only 3 opted out of the settlement, Tigar found.

The total value of the settlement fund will be $14,743,101 - 32.7
percent of the amount the class claimed they would have received
had they won at trial.

The lead class counsel is:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N Franklin St., Floor 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 275-5272
          Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

The case is Bobbie Pacheco Dyer, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 13-cv-02858-JST, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.


WEST BROM: Class Action Over Mortgage Rate Hike Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emma Lunn, writing for Mortgage Solutions, reports that a group of
landlords has been given permission to take West Brom Building
Society to court after the lender hiked rates on buy-to-let
tracker mortgages.

The class action was told on Oct. 17 that it could have a trial
after Nov 17 and is now waiting for a court date to be set.

The campaign, headed by Property 118 founder Mark Alexander
(pictured), has been gathering pace ever since West Brom announced
the rate hike in September 2013.  The building society announced
it would be upping rates on 6,700 tracker mortgages by two
percentage points in December 2013, despite no change in the Bank
of England base rate which tracker deals are supposed to follow.

The change affected landlords with multiple properties who took
out a mortgage through West Brom's now defunct specialist lending
arm West Bromwich Mortgage Company.

West Brom pointed to contract small print stating that "the rate
may be varied to reflect market conditions and ensure the business
is carried out prudently, efficiently and competitively".

However, landlords didn't take the news lying down and joined
together to fight the move.  The class action consists of more
than 400 mortgage cases with almost GBP500,000 raised to help
fight the case.  Some landlords have 10 or more mortgages with
West Brom, meaning the rate rise caused their monthly mortgage
payments to go up by thousands of pounds.

If the class action succeeds, West Brom could be forced to refund
all overpayments as well as meeting court costs.

Borrowers with the Bank of Ireland face a similar fate.  In
February 2013 it announced it was upping tracker rates for both
buy-to-let and residential borrowers.  Landlords fared worse and
saw their pay rate jump from bank rate plus 1.75% to bank rate
plus 4.49%.

Lawyers for both groups of affected borrowers have stressed that
the clause allowing lenders to change rates due to market
conditions is buried deeply in the small print and therefore
unenforceable.


ZOOM MEDIA: Sued for Not Properly Paying Earned Commission Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Wawryk, an individual, for himself and those similarly
situated; Roes 1 through 50,000 inclusive; and the putative class
v. Zoom Media Corp., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC561047 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., October 17, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs earned
commission wages for which they were not paid correctly.

Zoom Media Corp. is a Delaware corporation doing business in the
state of California.  Zoom sells advertising throughout
California.  The Plaintiff and the Putative Class are ignorant of
the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Palay, Esq.
          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
          PALAY LAW FIRM
          121 North Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
          E-mail: djp@palaylaw.com
                  mike@palaylaw.com
                  brian@palaylaw.com


* Experts Address Issue on Electronic Health Records Cybersecurity
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a cybersecurity framework for medical devices and
health-care technology needs to be developed in a partnership
between the government, manufacturers and health-care providers,
officials from across the public and private sectors during a
workshop convened by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
"Right now, for cybersecurity, we're all in a reactive mode," said
Deborah Kobza, executive director of the National Healthcare
Information Sharing and Analysis Center.  "We need to change that
to be in a preventive mode."

The concern is that hackers could cause medical devices to
malfunction, disrupt health-care services or steal patient
information and electronic health records.  The FDA, along with
the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of
Homeland Security, sponsored the two-day workshop last week.

The Advanced Medical Technology Association's Jeffrey Secunda said
that, "for devices that are facing the Internet, you do have the
risk of advanced persistent threats."

How the FDA is going to approach cybersecurity, including evidence
that devices have led to patient harm, "is exactly why we're
convening this meeting," said Suzanne Schwartz, director of the
FDA's emergency preparedness/operations and medical
countermeasures in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Workshop participants said they were unsure how much tolerance
there is for the risk that patients information could be breached
in the effort to make electronic health records and health
information technology "interoperable" and more accessible to
patients.

Dr. William Maisel, the FDA's chief scientist and deputy center
director for science at CDRH, said there are 100,000 medical
devices on the market and the technology changes rapidly.  The FDA
doesn't view it as a solution to take in all the information about
digital security vulnerabilities in medical devices and pass it on
to the community, he said.

Instead, federal regulators want an "ecosystem where that
information is being shared," such safe harbors for medical device
manufacturers and health-care providers to make reports about
cybersecurity breaches without incurring liability, he said.

Participants said that providers don't report digital security
breaches for fear or exposure during litigation.

The National Healthcare Information Sharing and Analysis Center's
Ms. Kobza noted that her group has entered a memorandum of
understanding with the FDA to develop a protocol about sharing
information about medical devices.


                             *********

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  * * *