CAR_Public/141105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 220

                             Headlines

AETNA INC: Faces "Mayer" Suit in Cal. Over Violation of ERISA
AETNA INC: Released Settlement Reserve After Deal Terminated
ALABAMA: To Review Correction Programs for Offenders Amid Suits
AMAZING DESIGN: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Approval in Marcus Suit

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Okay in "Kaufman" Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Supreme Court Denies Appeal in "Adams"
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Award Partially Restored in "Marcotte" Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Approve Accord in "Lopez" Case Denied
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Texas Court Approves Deal in Securities Case
APPLE INC: Faces "Book" Suit Over Graphical Defects of MacBook
ASDA STORES: Faces Class Action Over Equal Pay Issues
ARSIM ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Espindola" Suit Says
BANKRATE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

BANKRATE INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Class Action
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BEL CO: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
BLUE EARTH: Faces Class Action on SeekingAlpha.com Article
BOCA RATON, FL: Ticket Clinic Mulls Red Light Camera Class Action

BP PLC: WSJ Says Oil Spill Fund "All-You-Can-Eat" Buffet
CBCS: Faces "Elvin" Suit in N.J. Over Illegal Collection of Debt
CLECO CORP: Trial in Discrimination Claim to Commence in January
CLECO CORP: Ratepayers Action Dismissed and Fully Resolved
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Debt

CVS PHARMACY: 1st Cir. Reverses Remand of Wage Class Action
DA MARCELLA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DONALD TRUMP: Cal. Court Certified RICO Class in "Cohen" Suit
DOW CHEMICAL: To Review of $1.06-Bil. Judgment to Supreme Court
EI DU PONT: Settles Majority of Imprelis(R) Claims and Lawsuits

EI DU PONT: Trial in Drinking Water Actions to Begin in Sept 2015
EL PASO PIPELINE: "Allen" Case Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
EMCOR GROUP: USM Subsidiary Faces Class Action by Janitors
ESTATE INFORMATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FANNIE MAE: Settles Securities Class Action for $170 Million

FULLBAR LLC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over "All Natural" Label
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal of Suit Over DBCP Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: DBCP Action in Costa Rica Still Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Filed in Third Circuit Over DBCP
FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Supreme Court Decision Still Pending

FRESH DEL MONTE: Unit Satisfied Judgments in Unpaid Wages Action
GIANT SPORTS: Sued for Misrepresenting Protein Amount in Product
GT ADVANCED: Faces "Ringer" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
GREAT SOUTHERN: Awaits Ruling on Investor Class Action Settlement
HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: 2nd Cir. Certifies Author Class

HERBALIFE LTD: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Marketing Practices
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Petersen" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
IBIO INC: Rosen Law Firms Files Securities Class Action
ICM PARTNERS: Intern Class Action Mediation Set for December 15
INBLOOM GROUP: "Holland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage

INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Sen. Durbin to Look Into Contract Complaints
JOHN CRANE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hays Mesothelioma Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Chester County Sues Over Mortgage Recording Fees
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Surgical Gowns
LEADER SERVICES: "Batres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "James" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee
MICHAELS GENUINE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NAVISTAR INC: Faces Fike Suit Over Faulty MaxxForce Advanced EGR
NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: To Settle Welfare Recipients' Class Action

NII HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Extend Automatic Stay of Class Action
NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
OWENS & MINOR: Recovered $5.3MM From Anti-Trust Suit Settlement
PACIFIC GATEWAY: Sued Over Unsafe Policies Against Identity Theft
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Capacitors-Price Fixing

PANDORA MEDIA: Oral Argument Not Set in Video Rental Privacy Suit
PANERA BREAD: Faces "Boswell" Class Action Suit in E.D. Missouri
PAYPAL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
PEARSON EDUCATION: Sued by Textbook Authors on Improper Royalties
PG&E CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Complaint

PORTLAND GENERAL: Evaluating How to Proceed With Class Actions
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Federal Securities Class Action Dismissed
RADARIS LLC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
RETAIL PROPERTIES: Suits Against Company and D&Os Now Closed
SANCTUARY GOLF: Florida Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages

SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S: Strip Club Dancers Entitled to Minimum Wage
SCOTT COUNTY, MS: ACLU Class Action Over Indigent Defense Ongoing
SECURITY CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konakova" Suit Claims
SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases
STATE FARM: Colludes to Lowball Repair Shops, Antitrust Suit Says

SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Houser" Suit Over Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rail Transfer Suit Over Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Schram" Suit Over Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORP: Faces Suits in Cal. and Fla. Over Air Bag Defects
TESCO PLC: Texas Pension Fund Files Securities Class Action

TRANSCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreement Reached in Continuum Case
TRANSFORM YACHT: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Oregon Plaintiffs Drop Injunction Bid
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Further Activity in Del. Class Suits
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Car Buyers' Suits Settled for Immaterial Amount

TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Actions Over Merger Transaction
UNITED BUILDING: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UNITED STATES: EFF 4th Amendment Fight vs. NSA's Spying Continues
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Heads to Trial Over Hepatitis C Outbreak
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Posts $27.6MM After-Tax Charge Related to Deal

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Sued for Violating ADA, FMLA and FLSA
VERISK ANALYTICS: Final Approval of Interthinx Litigation in 2015
VERISK ANALYTICS: Plaintiffs File Appeal in ISO Litigation
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces 5 Antitrust Class Actions

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Contaminated Baby Wipes
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: "Maryland" Suit Moved to District Court
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Class Action Over Landfill Odor
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WESTFALL MASONRY: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

WORD SMART: Called People on "Do Not Call Registry," FTC Says
WORLD WRESTLING: Sued by Wrestler for Hiding Brain Injury Dangers

* Bill to Eliminate Counsel Fees for Minor Consumer Fraud Claims
* Bogus Health-Care Schemes Emerge Amid Ebola Global Threat
* Bogus Scheme to Collect Class Suit Damages Reported in N.M.
* Cal. State & Federal Courts Split on Arbitration of PAGA Claims
* Oceania Calls for Enforcement of Shrimp Product Labeling Laws

* Stephen Tillery Against Reinstatement of Justice Karmeier


                             *********


AETNA INC: Faces "Mayer" Suit in Cal. Over Violation of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Mayer, Jr., M.D., Lutz Surgical Partners PLLC, and NYC
Corrective Chiropractic Care P.C., on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aetna Inc. and Aetna
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-08266 (C.D. Cal., October
24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Defendants own and operate a health care provider company
based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael J. Olecki, Esq.
      Tim B. Henderson, Esq.
      GRODSKY & OLECKI LLP
      2001 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 210
      Santa Monica, CA 90403
      Telephone: (310) 315-3009
      Facsimile: (310) 315-1557
      E-mail: michael@grodsky-olecki.com
              tim@grodsky-olecki.com


AETNA INC: Released Settlement Reserve After Deal Terminated
------------------------------------------------------------
In the fourth quarter of 2012, Aetna Inc. recorded a charge of
$78.0 million ($120.0 million pretax) related to the settlement of
purported class action litigation regarding Aetna's payment
practices related to out-of-network health care providers. That
charge included the estimated cost of legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In the
first quarter of 2014, Aetna exercised its right to terminate the
settlement agreement. As a result, Aetna released the reserve
established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of
amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first
quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67.0
million ($103.0 million pretax), Aetna said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The Company is named as a defendant in several purported actions
and individual lawsuits arising out of the Company's practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the
Company's members by health care providers with whom the Company
does not have a contract ("out-of-network providers").

The Company said, "Among other things, these lawsuits allege that
we paid too little to our health plan members and/or providers for
these services, among other reasons, because of our use of data
provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors
("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of
similar litigation or have settled similar litigation.

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal
antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").   In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of
approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied.

"On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and
plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement
agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date
of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the
settlement agreement was in our best interests.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims
brought by the plaintiffs. As a result of this termination, we
released the reserve established in connection with the settlement
agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator,
which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative
expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax)."


ALABAMA: To Review Correction Programs for Offenders Amid Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kala Kachmar, writing for Montgomery Advertiser, reports that
community supervision for offenders is one of three areas the
Council of State Governments Justice Center is looking at with a
panel of criminal justice stakeholders in Alabama, the Prison
Reform Task Force.  The goal is to determine what legislative and
policy changes will help reduce recidivism, reduce prison
overcrowding and improve public safety.

Andy Barbee, research manager for the CSG, said part of the
problem is that there aren't enough resources, but another part is
that the existing resources aren't always used as effectively as
they could be.

Assessing the risk of an offender's likelihood to commit another
crime is supposed to help probation and parole officers triage
offenders, manage their workloads and make sure the few resources
available get to those who would benefit the most, Mr. Barbee
said.

But during the CSG's analysis of the criminal justice system,
Barbee said a survey of probation and parole officers found that
only about 24 percent placed "high value" on using these risk
assessment tools.

Surveys of probation/parole officers and community corrections
agents found that more than 70 percent in each group said mental
health programs are sometimes available, rarely available or non-
existent.  Fewer than 26 percent in surveys of both groups felt
they were usually or readily available.

Mr. Barbee said community correction programs, which are governed
by the Alabama Department of Corrections but can be operated by a
government entity, a nonprofit or an authority board, and the
Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole "use" the tool, but aren't
always taking the information and using it to shape and guide the
approach to matching inmates with services and programs.

Community corrections departments in the state perform assessments
that determine whether an offender's likelihood of committing
another crime is low, moderate, high or very high based on factors
such as a person's financial situation, education and substance
abuse problems, Brown said.

Community corrections programs vary from county to county, and not
all counties have a program, Mr. Barbee said.

The CSG also found that participants in community corrections are
generally low-risk offenders, even though it's supposed to be a
diversional program for high-risk offenders.

The key is that there needs to be a tighter connection between who
is making it into community corrections and the kind of risk they
present, as well as the programs matched with those on parole and
probation.

"It's not about the seriousness of the offense they committed,"
Mr. Barbee said.  "What risk means is what is the likelihood
they're going to continue committing crimes."

Foster Cook, executive director of Treatment Alternatives for
Safer Communities (TASC), which is Jefferson County's community
corrections program, said the essence of good programming has to
do with good risk-needs assessments.

"Matching the level of supervision and the types of supervision
with the needs of the offender is important," Mr. Cook said.
"One-size fits all doesn't work."

Mr. Cook also said the state struggles with transitioning people
out of prison while ensuring there is adequate medical care,
mental health care, planning and coordination of services between
the institution and community supervision.

TASC is working closely with parole/probation and the ADOC on a
strategic re-entry plan that will make transitions smoother and
more effective, Cook said.

Mr. Barbee said Alabama's system also lacks clear policies on
targeting resources to the highest risk populations.  The 200 to 1
caseload ratio between officers and inmates makes it difficult to
ensure accountability.

He also said there isn't a consistent, structured or timely
approach across different counties for responding to supervision
violations.  About 43 percent of probationers in jail awaiting a
violation hearing wait more than two weeks.

Paul Brown, executive director of the Montgomery County's
community corrections program, said it's important to make sure
offenders placed in programs get the frequency, duration and
intensity they need.

"If you put a low-risk offender in a group of high- or moderate-
risk offenders, he will start to socialize with that group of
individuals," Brown said. "The potential is there to do more harm
than good, and you don't want to waste your precious resources on
those that truly don't need it."

Mr. Barbee said it's not that tools aren't available to assess
offenders, but there's evidence that there's not a lot of quality
or consistent "buy in."  He also said there's a misperception that
using these assessment tools to shape decisions comes at the cost
of officer discretion.

Scarcity of programs

But Brown said another piece to the problem is that the services
being offered through community corrections are the same services
offenders compete for in diversion programs, drug courts and on
probation or parole.  He said availability of programs and
services needs to be addressed across the system, both for inmates
and offenders on community supervision.

The strength and success of programs and services for inmates also
varies from county to county, Mr. Barbee said.

For example, Jefferson County's community corrections program is
one of the strongest in the state because it's part of the
University of Alabama at Birmingham and has several community
partners.  Rural counties have fewer offender programs than bigger
cities such as Huntsville, Montgomery and Mobile.

Brown said part of the solution for rural parts of the state will
likely be regionalizing services and distant learning technology
that will give offenders the opportunity to engage in programs.

Alan Smith, executive director of Renascence Inc., said there is a
shortage of programs in the state that give nonviolent offenders
the guidance they need to re-emerge into society.  Often,
individuals who don't have a stable home plan when they go up for
parole will sit in jail until the end of their sentence, he said.

The Renascence program -- which only houses about 12 offenders at
a time -- teaches inmates how to live healthy productive lives,
both through mandatory programming and through the environment at
the facility.  Offenders can get there through community
corrections, probation, parole or by being sentenced to a halfway
house.

"It's not just a place to lay your head," Mr. Smith said.  "We try
to provide them with every step they need to be successful."

The state has to invest more heavily in programs and services for
offenders, Mr. Barbee said.

"Skimping on that part of the system forces you to spend a whole
lot more money when you have large numbers of (offenders) failing
in the community and ending up in the custodial part of the
system," Mr. Barbee said.

Low-risk offenders don't usually need programming, Mr. Barbee
said. Resources for the highest risk population is the most
important, and the first step is to identify what exists and what
there's not enough of for those offenders.

After that, the state needs to step up and fill the gaps where
they can, which would likely include putting out Requests for
Proposals from organizations who provide services.

But Mr. Barbee said there has to be a continual assessment of what
the population looks like in terms of risks.

"Lock them up and let them go does not work," Mr. Smith said.
"We've got to start treating these folks and the issues that
caused them to have a problem."

CSG research shows that with the right programs in place, 30 to 40
percent fewer people under community supervision will commit new
crimes and go back into the system.

Data shows that 40 percent of all Alabama prison admissions in
2013 are violators of either probation or parole.  Of the 8,313
total admitted that year, 39 percent had substance abuse problems,
mental health needs or both, according to ADOC intake screening.

"When people come out of prison and they come back into
communities without support, without jobs, without services --
then they go right back to prison," Mr. Cook said.  "Efforts to
get people out of prison are only as good as the ability to keep
people out. The answer to that is what do they find when they come
home."

Mr. Smith said the staff at Renascence helps offenders find jobs,
find apartments and obtain things such as a driver's license.
They also offer support and advice for anyone who was previously
in the program.

"The best approach to the criminal justice problem is a
comprehensive approach and (one that) involves all the
stakeholders at all levels of this continuum," Mr. Brown said.
"The resources need to be available to address the problem at
whatever level the offender enters the system."

Mr. Barbee said fully investing in resources for offenders will
have a dramatic improvement on public safety and recidivism rates,
which will naturally lower the prison population.

"In every way, if Alabama lets resources get in the way of this,
what they're doing is resigning themselves to some combination of
a more expensive and dangerous situation," Mr. Barbee said.

The state is already facing two class-action lawsuits; one filed
by the Southern Poverty Law Center on the quality of medical care
and another by the Equal Justice Initiative on the violence and
mistreatment of inmates at St. Clair Correctional Facility.  Both
of these situations are caused in part by overcrowding.

"It seems inescapable that if something doesn't change, the third
shoe will drop," Mr. Barbee said, adding that a refusal to put
resources into these systems is a commitment to spending "vastly"
more money at a later date or releasing a lot of inmates from
prison that won't really be controlled.


AMAZING DESIGN: "Herrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Herrera, and other similarly situated individuals v. Amazing
Design and Services LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Rafael R. Rodriguez, Individually, and Llerena Juan, Case No.
1:14-cv-23975 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a wed design company in Miami Dade,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Approval in Marcus Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is awaiting final approval of the
settlement in the class action The Marcus Corporation v. American
Express Company, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in a
putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American
Express Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an
unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge
cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal
laws. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and
an unspecified amount of damages."

"In December 2013, we announced a proposed settlement of the
Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging our anti-
steering or non-discrimination provisions. The settlement, which
provides for certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes,
received preliminary approval in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York. The final approval hearing
was held on September 17, 2014 and we are awaiting decision."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Settlement Okay in "Kaufman" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement approval hearing was held on June 11, 2014 in
the case Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, and
the Company is awaiting the Court's decision, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs'
principal allegation is that our gift cards violate consumer
protection statutes because consumers allegedly have difficulty
spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the
imposition of monthly service fees. The Court preliminarily
certified a settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions)
"all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued
by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of
preliminary approval of the settlement.""

"We are also a defendant in Goodman v. American Express Travel
Related Services, a putative class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that
involves allegations similar to those made in Kaufman. Plaintiffs
in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman proceedings and will be
subject to any final settlement in Kaufman that may be approved
over their objections. A final settlement approval hearing was
held on June 11, 2014 and we are awaiting decision."


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Canada Supreme Court Denies Appeal in "Adams"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada denied the appeal in the class action
captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, American Express
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

In a class action captioned Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada,
filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in
2004, plaintiffs allege that prior to December 2003, Amex Bank of
Canada charged a foreign currency conversion commission on
transactions to purchase goods and services in currencies other
than Canadian dollars and failed to disclose the commissions in
monthly billing statements or solicitations directed to
prospective Card Members. The action further alleges that
conversion commissions made on foreign currency transactions are
credit charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the
"QCPA") and cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period
under the QCPA. The class, consisting of all personal and small
business Card Members residing in Quebec that purchased goods or
services in a foreign currency prior to December 2003, claims
reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion commissions,
CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class member, interest and fees
and costs. On June 11, 2009, following trial, the Superior Court
rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank
of Canada and awarded damages in the amount of approximately
CDN$13.1 million plus interest on the non-disclosure claims, and
punitive damages in the amount of CDN$2.5 million. The Court of
Appeal overturned the decision in part, with regard to the award
of punitive damages. Amex Bank of Canada further appealed and that
appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13,
2014. On September 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the appeal.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Award Partially Restored in "Marcotte" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada partially restored the trial court's
award against Amex Bank of Canada as well as the punitive damages
award against all defendants in the class action captioned
Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al.,  American Express Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

In a class action captioned Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, et al.,
filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal in
2003, against Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Toronto-
Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, Scotiabank, National Bank of Canada, Laurentian Bank of
Canada and Citibank Canada, plaintiffs alleges that conversion
commissions made on foreign currency transactions are credit
charges under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (the "QCPA") and
cannot be charged prior to the 21-day grace period under the QCPA.
The class includes all persons residing in Quebec holding a credit
card issued by one of the defendants to whom fees were charged
since April 17, 2000, for transactions made in foreign currency
before expiration of the period of 21 days following the statement
of account. The class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency
conversions, CDN$400 per class member for trouble, inconvenience
and punitive damages, interest and fees and costs. On June 11,
2009, following trial, the Superior Court rendered a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs against Amex Bank of Canada and awarded
damages in the amount of approximately CDN$8.3 million plus
interest on the QCPA and non-disclosure claims and punitive
damages in the amount of CDN$25 per Card Member. The Court of
Appeal overturned the decision against Amex Bank of Canada and
certain of the other co-defendants. The remaining co-defendants
and the plaintiffs appealed and that appeal was heard by the
Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2014. On September 19,
2014, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the co-defendants' appeal
but granted plaintiffs' appeal in part, partially restoring the
trial court's award against Amex Bank of Canada as well as the
punitive damages award against all defendants.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Approve Accord in "Lopez" Case Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in the case
Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express
Centurion Bank, was denied without prejudice to renew, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a
class of California American Express Card Members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased.

On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide
complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement
provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and
costs of up to $6 million.

On September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was
denied without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to
the court's questions regarding the class notice and claims
processes and the request for preliminary approval will be
renewed.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case Ross, et al. v. American Express Company,
have appealed the Court's dismissal of their claims, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "In July 2004, a purported class action
complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American
Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion
Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that we conspired with
Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign
currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration
clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements. The suit seeks
injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as
"all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders
who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American
Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of
the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning
foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012.  On April
10, 2014, following a trial of the claims asserted by the
injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in favor
of us. Plaintiffs have appealed."


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Texas Court Approves Deal in Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that two
separate class-action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the New York District Court on behalf of purported
purchasers of the Company's stock between June 12, 2009, and June
9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The
consolidated action was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston
Division (Texas District Court). The complaints allege causes of
action arising pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
purported misstatements and omissions regarding, among other
things, the Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon
events. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees
and costs. In March 2014, the parties reached a settlement in this
matter, which was approved by the Texas District Court in
September 2014. The settlement was directly funded by the
Company's insurers.


APPLE INC: Faces "Book" Suit Over Graphical Defects of MacBook
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Book, Donald Cowart, and John Manners, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-04746 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), arises out of the
graphical distortion, system instability and system failures of
2011 MacBook Pros.

Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, sells and warrants a broad range
of technology products, including the 2011 MacBook Pro laptop
computers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: 415-433-4949
      Facsimile: 415-433-74311
      E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Steven N. Berk, Esq.
      Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 1605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Email: GMason@wbmllp.com
             sberk@wbmllp.com
             enafisi@wbmllp.com


ASDA STORES: Faces Class Action Over Equal Pay Issues
-----------------------------------------------------
Europe Online Magazine reports that Asda Stores, Britain's second-
largest supermarket chain, faces legal action from tens of
thousands of shop assistants who say they should get paid the same
as warehouse staff because their work is of equal value.

Law firm Leigh Day said on Oct. 24 that it had received enquiries
from 19,000 present and former staff wanting to join any class
action against the chain.

Asda, which has 150,000 workers and a 17-per-cent share of the
market, is a subsidiary of US-based Wal-Mart Stores.

"In the supermarkets, the check-out staff and shelf stackers are
mostly women [while] the people in the warehouses are pretty much
all men," Leigh Day's Michael Newman said.  "And, as a whole, the
group that is mostly men gets paid more."

He said the pay differential could be as high as 4 pounds
(6 dollars) an hour.


ARSIM ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Espindola" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cesario Espindola Garcia, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Arsim Associates Inc. (d/b/a Lenox Hill
Grill & Pizza), and John Politidis, Case No. 1:14-cv-08527
(S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours
per work week.

The Defendants own and operate Lenox Hill Grill & Pizza diner,
located at 1105 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


BANKRATE INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Bankrate, Inc.
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and docketed
under 14-cv-81183, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Bankrate securities between
March 1, 2013 and September 15, 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 Bankrate securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 17, 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.

Bankrate is a leading publisher, aggregator and distributor of
personal finance content on the Internet.  Through its online
network including Bankrate.com, its flagship website, the Company
provides consumers with independent personal finance editorial
content in subject matters such as mortgages, deposits, insurance,
credit cards, and other categories, such as retirement, automobile
loans, and taxes.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Bankrate's financial statements contained errors related to the
improper recognition of revenues and expenses; (2) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 15, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing, among other things, that the SEC is investigating the
Company's financial reporting during 2012 and some of its
previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied
upon.  On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.90, or over 13%,
to close at $11.92 per share on September 15, 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.


BANKRATE INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Oct. 24 disclosed that on
October 22, 2014, it filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
all purchasers of Bankrate, Inc. securities during the period
between March 1, 2013 and September 15, 2014, inclusive.

Bankrate is a leading publisher, aggregator, and distributor of
personal finance content on the Internet.  Through its online
network including Bankrate.com, the company provides consumers
with independent personal finance editorial content in subject
matters such as mortgages, deposits, insurance, credit cards,
retirement, automobile loans, and taxes.

The complaint alleges that Bankrate and certain of its executives
made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The claims arise out of Bankrate's materially false and
misleading financial statements which contained errors related to
the improper recognition of revenues and expenses.  Bankrate,
moreover, lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting during the Class Period.

As alleged in the complaint, on September 15, 2014, Bankrate
disclosed that the SEC is conducting a non-public formal
investigation relating to the company's financial reporting during
2012.  Bankrate also announced that its audit committee concluded
that the company's previously issued financial statements for
fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 should no longer be relied upon
pending the conclusion of a full internal review.  Bankrate's
stock price fell substantially following the announcement.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased Bankrate securities from March 1, 2013 through
September 15, 2014.  Cohen Milstein has significant experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving
securities fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New
York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, and Palm Beach Gardens.

The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been
recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead
positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation.
Cohen Milstein has taken a lead role in numerous important cases
on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been responsible for a
number of outstanding recoveries which, in the aggregate, total in
the billions of dollars.

If you purchased Bankrate securities from March 1, 2013 through
September 15, 2014, you may move the court no later than November
17, 2014 (a previous case had been filed against Bankrate in
September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida), and request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  To
be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will
adequately represent the class.  Your share in any recovery will
not be enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Cohen Milstein, or
other attorneys, to serve as your counsel in this action.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Jordan Hill
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
East Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
       jhill@cohenmilstein.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
INVOLVING BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC., PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
DERIVATIVE ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF THE
COMMON STOCK OF BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS OF THE PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT, OCTOBER 15, 2014, UPDATED OCTOBER 22,
2014, WHO CONTINUE TO HOLD SUCH SHARES

THIS SUMMARY NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
OF THE DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, WESTMORELAND COUNTY EMPLOYEE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF BAXTER INTERNATIONAL
INC., PLAINTIFF, V. ROBERT L. PARKINSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., NOMINAL DEFENDANT, CASE NO. 10 C 6514
(N.D.ILL.) (THARP, J.) PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties have entered into a
proposed settlement to resolve the issues raise in the Action.

Please be further advised, that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a
hearing will be held before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. on
February 27, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at Courtroom 1419 of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.  The purpose of the
hearing is to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii)
whether the Court should award attorney's fees and reimbursement
of expenses for Lead Plaintiff's Counsel, and in what amount; and
(iv) to hear such other matters as may properly come before the
Court.

IF YOU ARE A CURRENT COMPANY STOCKHOLDER, YOU MAY HAVE CERTAIN
RIGHTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

This is a summary notice only.  If you have not seen publication
of the full-length Notice of Proposed Settlement of Derivative
Action, Final Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear, you may
view the Notice on the Baxter website (www.baxter.com) and in
Baxter's third quarter 2014 Form 10-Q.

If you wish to obtain additional information about the claims
asserted in the Action and the terms of the proposed Settlement,
please contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:

Judith S. Scolnick, Esq.
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174
E-mail: jscolnick@scott-scott.com
Telephone: (212) 223-6444

Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Lead Plaintiff's
Counsel's application for attorney's fees and reimbursement of
expenses must be filled with the Court and delivered to Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel and counsel for Baxter and the Individual
Defendants such that they are received no later than February 6,
2015, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice
and at the addresses set forth in the Notice.

If you are a current Company Stockholder and you do not take steps
to appear or to object to the proposed Settlement as set forth in
the Notice, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of
the Court, you will be bound the Settlement and release of claims,
and you will be forever barred from: (i) objecting to the
fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the proposed Settlement;
and (ii) objecting to the fairness or reasonableness of
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO,
EITHER THE COURT OR THE CLERK's OFFICE REGARDING THIS SUMMARY
NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


BEL CO: "Chavez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Chavez and other similarly situated individuals v. Bel Co,
LLC d/b/a Window Gang Miami and Jose Manuel Belsol, Case No. 1:14-
cv-23957 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bel Co, LLC owns and operates a contracting company in Miami-Dade,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE EARTH: Faces Class Action on SeekingAlpha.com Article
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Earth Inc. said in a Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, that a
class action lawsuit, captioned "Jordan Cianci, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Earth, Inc.,
Johnny R. Thomas (an executive officer), Brett Woodard (an
executive officer) and John Francis (a non-executive officer)",
was filed on October 24, 2014, in United States District Court
Central District of California (Case No. 2:14-cv-08263) against
Blue Earth, Inc. (the "Company") and the aforementioned officers
of the Company.  The complaint is based, in large part, on the
allegations contained in an anonymous article posted on October
21, 2014 on the website "SeekingAlpha.com".  The Company has
previously responded to the "SeekingAlpha" allegations in a press
release dated October 21, 2014 and refuted the veracity of the
claims made in the article.  The Company believes the claims
contained in the complaint are without merit and will vigorously
defend this matter.

Blue Earth, Inc. provideS energy efficiency and alternative OR
renewable energy solutions for small and medium sized commercial
and industrial facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BOCA RATON, FL: Ticket Clinic Mulls Red Light Camera Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BocaNewsNow.com reports that the City of Boca Raton may find
itself as a defendant if attorneys seize on the recent appeals
court ruling that declared red light camera tickets illegal in
Florida.

Boca is among several cities that outsourced the red light camera
ticket business to a private company -- something the court just
said is wrong.

The popular "Ticket Clinic" is considering a class action lawsuit
on behalf of those issued a red light camera ticket in Florida.

October 24, 2014
Dear Ticket Clinic Client,

As you may be aware, our law firm, The Ticket Clinic, has been
challenging the legality of red light cameras in Florida for
years.  We won our appeal to the 4th District Court of Appeals.
The Court agreed with our position that the tickets are void and
the process that is currently in place violates Florida law.

We are now investigating this issue with a view toward filing a
class action lawsuit, if our investigation uncovers sufficient
facts to support class treatment of this case.  As part of this
investigation we typically contact clients whom we represent to
confirm their current and past circumstances and to explore
information that may be relevant to our investigation and how it
may impact them.  This e-mail is being sent to you for these
purposes.

In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called "class
representatives" sue on behalf of other people who have similar
claims against the same person or company called "the defendant."
The purpose of the class action lawsuit we are investigating is to
attempt to recover the money that has been paid by drivers/car
owners for these red light camera violations.  We are currently
interviewing clients who may have pertinent information, may be
class members, and may request to serve as class representative if
they received these violations in Broward and/or Palm Beach
Counties after July 1, 2010.  This type of case is handled on a
contingency basis, meaning if there is any payment of attorney's
fees that it will come out of the recovery and the law firms will
advance all costs of the litigation.  There is no cost to you to
participate.

Among other things, those persons wishing to qualify as a class
representative must meet these requirements:

1) The class representative must have received a Notice of
Violation (NOV) for $158.00 or a Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC)
for $264.00 or $277.00 after July 1, 2010.  The NOV and/or UTC
must have been paid without having first gone to court.

2) The NOV or UTC must have been issued in Broward or Palm Beach
County after July 1, 2010.

3) The class representative must have a clean history (no criminal
convictions).

We are also interested in speaking with individuals that received
a NOV or a UTC while driving a rental vehicle.

Class representatives will be acting on behalf of many other
people in the "class."  There will be some time required by the
class representative, as depositions will take place.  Class
representatives are not promised any more recovery than anyone
else who is also in the class.

If you feel that you have information that would be relevant to
our investigation, or you have interest in participating in the
case as a class representative, please e-mail me at: TedHollander.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ted L. Hollander, Esq.
The Ticket Clinic, a law firm
1580 South Federal Highway
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: 954-990-1479


BP PLC: WSJ Says Oil Spill Fund "All-You-Can-Eat" Buffet
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that an
editorial in the Wall Street Journal lambasted trial lawyers for
their apparent greed in pushing claims through the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill settlement agreement that may not be related to
the oil spill itself and serve as the basis for a challenge to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

Last year BP was turned down at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit when they asked that the settlement agreement be
decertified saying that Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau was
inaccurately calculating some claims without making claimants
prove they actually suffered damage.  However, the court did
require Mr. Juneau to change the way he calculated business
economic loss claims -- something BP now says cost them hundreds
of millions of dollars which they are trying to get back from
claimants who were overpaid or never should have been paid in the
first place.

The last ditch appeal to decertify the class now looks like it is
on it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court and BP has also requested
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the case, to
remove Juneau as Claims Administrator.  BP's requests to remove
Mr. Juneau is based on accusations of corruption in his office
that has resulted in five top level employees stepping down or
being fired and severe inefficiency wherein administrative costs
have topped $1 billion and claims payments have slowed to a
trickle.

In its sharply worded editorial, the WSJ pointed to a "wave of
abuse" on behalf of the trial attorneys involved in engineering
settlement action, known as the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
(PSC) who as part of their settlement got a $660 million payout
off the top, as well as that of Juneau.

"The fund has become an all-you-can-eat buffet and everybody is
invited, regardless of the cause of the damages they may or may
not have suffered," the editorial states.

The editorial goes on to say that the issue is an opportunity for
the Supreme Court to put trial lawyers in their place, which may
have ramifications for other class action settlements to come.

"[T]he major question for the High Court to resolve isn't a narrow
dispute about whether Mr. Juneau's or BP's interpretation of the
terms is right.  Rather, it's whether the courts can certify a
class in which thousands of people cannot prove they suffered
injuries that the defendant caused and could never succeed in an
individual lawsuit," the editorial states.

LaPlace-based attorney Daniel Becnel represents numerous claimants
in the case, but is not part of the PSC.  Mr. Becnel has been very
critical of the settlement since its inception.

"The BP oil spill has been a feeding frenzy for plaintiffs'
lawyers.  Legitimate clients have not yet been paid, and people
who do not deserve money have been paid millions, despite the fact
that Judge Barbier has tried to control this case and is a very
hard working judge," he said.

Mr. Becnel has maintained the class action lawsuit should have
never been certified to begin with because those who received
damages were not united in the manner in which they were damaged.

"You cannot do a class action settlement with that many
components," he said.

He believes the Supreme Court will at least look at the case, if
not overturn it.

"I think the Supreme Court is going to do something with this
case.  Barbier is trying to impose discipline on a bunch of greedy
lawyers, but that is like trying to impose discipline in the
Amazon with a bunch of flesh easting piranhas. It is kind of hard
to do," Mr. Becnel said.

Melissa Landry, executive director of Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse
Watch, said the Supreme Court appeal is a historic one that offers
a chance to set things straight.

"Without question, the Wall Street Journal correctly assessed
Louisiana's legal climate as a 'lawsuit cesspool.'  Such harsh
words are hard to hear, but it is obvious to most observers
outside the state that unless the Supreme Court acts to address
the fundamental issue of causation, the BP settlement will
ultimately be defined as one of the worst shakedowns in the
history of the American legal system," she said.

Mr. Juneau did not respond to a request for comment on this story.


CBCS: Faces "Elvin" Suit in N.J. Over Illegal Collection of Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Elvin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CBCS and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06598
(D.N.J., October 24, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's
actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect
debt.

The Defendants own and operate a collection agency with its
principal office located at 250 E. Broad Street, 4th Floor,
Columbus, Ohio 43216 with a mailing address of PO Box 2589,
Columbus, Ohio 43216.

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


CLECO CORP: Trial in Discrimination Claim to Commence in January
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that one claim that a former employee alleged was the result
of a disciplinary warning Cleco issued to the former employee has
been remanded, and the trial is currently scheduled to commence on
January 20, 2015.

In December 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (the Court)
on behalf of eight current employees and four former employees
alleging that Cleco discriminated against each of them on the
basis of race. Each was seeking various remedies provided under
applicable statutes prohibiting racial discrimination in the
workplace, and together, the plaintiffs requested monetary
compensation exceeding $35.0 million.

In July 2010, the plaintiffs moved to add an additional current
employee alleging that Cleco had discriminated on the basis of
race. The additional plaintiff sought compensation of no less than
$2.5 million and became the thirteenth plaintiff. In April 2011,
Cleco entered into a settlement with one of the current employees
which resulted in a dismissal of one of the thirteen cases with
prejudice.

In September 2011, the Court ruled on Cleco's summary judgment
motions, with the end result that eleven of the twelve remaining
plaintiffs had at least one claim remaining.

In February 2013, the Court ruled on the second motion for summary
judgment, filed by Cleco in March 2012, in each of the eleven
cases and each such case was dismissed with prejudice. Appeals
were filed in ten of the eleven dismissed cases to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit).

In June 2013, the Fifth Circuit clerk dismissed the appeals of two
of the current employees due to their failure to file a brief in
support of their respective appeals. On various dates in August
through November 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court
judgments in favor of Cleco in seven of the eight remaining cases.

On April 8, 2014, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Court's summary
judgment dismissing the wrongful termination and other
discrimination claims of the one remaining plaintiff, a former
employee who served as one of Cleco's human resource
representatives. Excluded from the ruling was one claim that the
former employee alleged was the result of a disciplinary warning
Cleco issued to the former employee. This one claim has been
remanded to the Court, and the trial is currently scheduled to
commence on January 20, 2015.


CLECO CORP: Ratepayers Action Dismissed and Fully Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the lawsuit by ratepayers of Opelousas was dismissed
and the matter is fully resolved in favor of Cleco Power.

In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District
Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three
Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The complaint
alleged that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to
customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power
applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs claimed
that Cleco Power owed customers in Opelousas more than $30.0
million as a result of the alleged overcharges. The plaintiffs
alleged that Cleco Power should have established, solely for
customers in Opelousas, retail rates that were separate and
distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of
Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not have collected from
customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC
following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas had been properly charged the rates that were applicable
to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges had been
collected.

In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th
Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana,
repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was
submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents. In January 2011,
the presiding judge in the state court proceeding ruled that the
jurisdiction to hear the two class actions resided in the state
court and not with the LPSC as argued by both Cleco Power and the
LPSC Staff. Both Cleco Power and the LPSC Staff appealed this
ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of
Louisiana (Third Circuit).

In September 2011, the Third Circuit denied both appeals. In
October 2011, both Cleco Power and the LPSC appealed the Third
Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

In February 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC
proceeding ruled that the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the
claims raised by the class action plaintiffs. At its December 2011
Business and Executive Session, the LPSC adopted the ALJ's
recommendation that Cleco Power be granted summary judgment in its
declaratory action finding that Cleco Power's ratepayers in the
City of Opelousas had been served under applicable rates and
policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco Power's Opelousas
ratepayers had not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates
or ratemaking.

In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed their appeal of
such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District Court for East
Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. In December 2012, the
Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion accepting Cleco Power's
jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state court claims. The
appeal of the plaintiffs to the 19th Judicial District Court to
review the LPSC ruling in Cleco Power's favor that it had properly
charged the ratepayers of Opelousas was dismissed with prejudice
on May 21, 2014. With this dismissal, the matter is fully resolved
in favor of Cleco Power.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Debt
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Parnes on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and Verizon
Communications Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06242 (E.D.N.Y., October 24,
2014), alleges that the Defendants unlawfully engaged in the
collection of consumer debts in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the
collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      Adam J. Fishbein, Attorney at Law
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CVS PHARMACY: 1st Cir. Reverses Remand of Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that the First Circuit on
Oct. 24 reversed the remand of a putative wage class action
against CVS Pharmacy Inc., saying CVS' removal shouldn't have been
nixed for being filed past the 30-day deadline outlined in the
Class Action Fairness Act, since the act includes exceptions when
a suit's damages can be readily calculated.

The three-judge appellate panel slammed a lower court's remand of
a putative class action alleging CVS forces its shift supervisors
to remain on store premises when taking rest or meal breaks.  The
lower court said CVS improperly removed the suit from state court
more than 30 days after it was filed, in violation of the CAFA,
but the appellate court clarified that the act was lenient on its
timeline when damages in a suit are specified or can be calculated
easily, saying CVS properly showed the plaintiffs sought more than
$5 million.

"In line with the other circuits that have adopted a bright-line
approach, we hold that the time limits in Section 1446(b) apply
when the plaintiffs' pleadings or the plaintiffs' other papers
provide the defendant with a clear statement of the damages sought
or with sufficient facts from which damages can be readily
calculated," the opinion said.

A group of CVS shift supervisors filed the suit on Aug. 31, 2011,
in Massachusetts superior court, claiming that CVS' policy of
requiring the workers to remain on store premises during breaks
when no other managerial employees are on duty or only one other
employee is on duty violates state law, since CVS does not pay
them for these "breaks," the opinion says.

CVS filed a notice of removal on Sept. 30, 2011, and calculated
the damages -- which weren't specified in the complaint -- as
$10,396,944, assuming that the class members lost each meal break
during the class period in the suit, according to the opinion.
The district court rejected CVS' calculation and granted the
plaintiff's motion to remand the suit back to state court.

But on Jan. 18, 2013, the plaintiffs informed CVS in an email
that, during discovery, they found 116,499 meal breaks during the
period of August 2010 through June 2012 when no other shift
supervisor was working.  CVS then filed a second notice of removal
on Feb. 15, 2013, saying there was a "reasonable probability" that
the suit sought more than $5,000,000 in light of the new
information, the opinion says.

The district court once again granted the plaintiff's bid to
remand this past March, since it was filed later than the 30-day
deadline outlined in Section 1146(b)(3) of the CAFA.  But in its
Oct. 24 opinion, the appellate panel said that the section's
"thirty-day clocks" are only triggered when the complaint or the
plaintiffs' "subsequent paper" provide the defendant with
sufficient information to easily determine that the suit is
removable, as the email had done in this instance.

"The district court erred in imposing too great a duty of inquiry
on the defendant," the opinion said.

Judges Sandra L. Lynch, Juan R. Torruella and Jeffrey R. Howard
sat on the panel for the First Circuit.

CVS is represented by James N. Boudreau -- boudreauj@gtlaw.com --
and John F. Farraher Jr. -- farraherj@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg
Traurig LLP.

The putative class is represented by Thomas V. Urmy Jr. --
turmy@shulaw.com -- Rachel M. Brown -- rbrown@shulaw.com -- and
Patrick J. Vallely -- pvallely@shulaw.com -- of Shapiro Haber &
Urmy LLP.

The suit is Romulus et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., case number
14-1937, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.


DA MARCELLA: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ever Ramirez and Jhon Urichima, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Da Marcella 51 Inc., 11 West
51 Realty LLC, and Cucina Buona Group INC d/b/a Da Marcella
Restaurant, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-08532 (S.D.N.Y., October 24,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and spread of
hours compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonor Hidalgo Coyle, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th fl., Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com
              lambinder@bivas.net


DONALD TRUMP: Cal. Court Certified RICO Class in "Cohen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge certified a RICO class action accusing Donald
Trump of misrepresenting Trump University "to make tens of
millions of dollars" but delivering "neither Donald Trump nor a
university."

Lead plaintiff Art Cohen sued Donald J. Trump in October 2013,
claiming Trump "devised and executed a scheme to make tens of
millions of dollars" by misrepresenting that Trump University was
an actual university taught by a faculty of professors at least
partly selected by Trump himself.

Trump claimed that Trump University would teach some of his real
estate investing secrets.

To entice students, Trump spent up to $6 million annually on a
national advertising campaign, which included YouTube, e-mail, Web
site and postal mail solicitations, according to the complaint.

Cohen says he attended a free seminar after receiving a "special
invitation" in the mail, then paid Trump University $1,495 to
attend a three-day real estate retreat, where he purchased a "Gold
Elite" program for nearly $35,000 more.

But Cohen claims Trump did not teach students his real estate
investing secrets, did not contribute in any meaningful way to the
curriculum for the live events, and did not handpick the
instructors who taught at the three-day events or in the elite
mentorship programs.

Trump in October lost a court battle against New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman when a judge ruled that Trump was
personally liable for running the university without a license.

Schneiderman accused Trump of fraud, claiming he had cheated
students out of $40 million. New York Supreme Court Justice
Cynthia Kern found that Trump and Michael Saxton, who served as
the school's president, knew that the university was being run
without a license.

A determination of damages in that case is pending.

On October 27 in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel
ruled that Cohen's complaint can continue as a class action.

"Plaintiff has introduced evidence that the alleged
misrepresentations of a 'university' and of Donald Trump's
participation in the Trump University Live Events were prominently
featured in all Trump University marketing materials; and that a
'Playbook,' Powerpoint presentations, and scripts encouraged if
not required Trump University representatives to continue these
representations," Curiel wrote.

"The court finds this evidence provides a method for plaintiff to
establish proximate causation on a classwide basis without
resorting to individualized inquiries, by relying on a common
sense inference that consumers are likely to rely on prominently
marketed features of a product which they purchase."

Trump unsuccessfully argued that individualized determinations
will need to be met to determine whether the statute of
limitations bars class members' claims.

He claimed that Cohen could have known as early as July 2009 that
Trump University was not an actual university, based on the facts
that Cohen was not looking for a diploma, the seminars were in a
hotel, and Cohen had not made any inquiries into the accreditation
status of the university.

Judge Curiel was not persuaded: "The court has found a nucleus of
common issues and is not convinced at this point that the inquiry
into whether the individual class members in this case knew or
should have known about the fraudulent scheme as alleged in the
present action will require individualized determinations or may
depend on facts peculiar to each case," Curiel wrote.

"Although defendant may yet show that plaintiff and the putative
class members knew or should have known that defendant had devised
a scheme to falsely market Trump University via mail or wire prior
to October 2009, the court is satisfied that determination of
defendant's statute of limitations defense in this case will not
defeat the predominance of common issues in this case."

The case is Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-
WVG, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.


DOW CHEMICAL: To Review of $1.06-Bil. Judgment to Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that it will seek
judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court if its appeal of the
$1.06 billion judgment in the Urethane lawsuits is denied or the
results of any rehearing by the Court of Appeals are unfavorable.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the above described DOJ
antitrust investigation. These lawsuits were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "District
Court") or have been tolled.

On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of
purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999
through 2004. Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases were
filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are
substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded
the time period to include 1994 through 1998.

In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the
District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant,
the other defendants having previously settled.

On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages
verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which
ultimately was trebled by the District Court under applicable
antitrust laws - less offsets from other settling defendants -
resulting in a judgment entered in July 2013 in the amount of
$1.06 billion.

The Company appealed this judgment to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals ("Tenth Circuit" or "Court of Appeals"), which heard
oral arguments on the matter on May 14, 2014.

On September 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the District Court judgment. On October 14, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
(collectively the "Petition") with the Court of Appeals.

In the Petition, Dow requests that the Tenth Circuit's September
29th decision be reheard to correct fundamental errors.
Specifically, the Tenth Circuit panel's decision violates the law
of the U.S. Supreme Court as set out in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S.
Ct. 1426 (2013). Further, the Petition points out that the panel
has not followed accepted circuit court law, including precedent
from the U.S. First, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C.
Circuit Courts. To the contrary, the erroneous law applied by the
panel is not supported by any other circuit court. The Tenth
Circuit decision stands alone, and Dow's Petition asks for this to
be corrected to avoid a split in the circuit courts.

The same day that Dow filed its Petition, the Tenth Circuit
ordered the class plaintiffs to file a response to Dow's Petition
by October 24, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the Chamber of Commerce
of the United States of America filed an amicus brief in support
of Dow's Petition. On October 24, 2014, the class plaintiffs filed
a response to Dow's Petition.

The Court of Appeals may grant the Petition and rehear the case en
banc or decline to rehear the case. If the Petition is denied or
the results of any rehearing are unfavorable, the Company will
pursue a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court seeking judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"While it is unknowable whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will
accept the petition for review, there are several compelling
reasons why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the petition for
writ of certiorari and if the petition for writ of certiorari is
accepted, the Company believes it is likely that the District
Court judgment will be vacated," the Company said.

The Company has consistently denied plaintiffs' allegations of
price fixing and the Company will continue to vigorously defend
this litigation. As part of the Company's review of the jury
verdict, the resulting judgment and the Court of Appeals' opinion,
the Company assessed the legal and factual circumstances of the
case, the trial record, the appellate record, and the applicable
law including clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. Based
on this review and the reasons stated above, the Company believes
the judgment and decision from the Court of Appeals are not
appropriate. As a result, the Company has concluded it is not
probable that a loss will occur and, therefore, a liability has
not been recorded with respect to these matters. While the Company
believes it is not probable a loss will occur, the existence of
the jury verdict, the Court of Appeals' opinion and the pendency
of the appeals process indicate that it is reasonably possible
that a loss could occur. The estimate of the possible range of
loss to Dow is zero to the $1.06 billion judgment (excluding post-
judgment interest and possible award of class attorney fees).

On September 30, 2014, the "opt-out" cases that had been
consolidated with the class action lawsuit for purposes of pre-
trial proceedings were remanded from the District Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Dow also said there are two separate but inter-related matters in
Ontario and Quebec, Canada. In March 2014, the Superior Court of
Justice in London, Ontario, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Dow filed its Notice of Motion
for Leave to Appeal in March 2014, which was subsequently denied.
The Quebec case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Ontario
case. The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss
will occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with
respect to these matters.


EI DU PONT: Settles Majority of Imprelis(R) Claims and Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
company has settled or reached settlements in principle for the
majority of these claims and lawsuits.

The company has received claims and has been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused
damage to certain trees. Sales of Imprelis(R) were suspended in
August 2011 and the product was last applied during the 2011
spring application season. The lawsuits seeking class action
status were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal
court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In February 2014, the court entered the final order dismissing
these lawsuits as a result of the class action settlement.

As part of the settlement, DuPont paid about $7 million in
plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses. In addition, DuPont is
providing a warranty against new damage, if any, caused by the use
of Imprelis(R) on class members' properties through May 2015.
Certain class members opted out of the class action settlement and
made independent claims or filed suit in various state courts, the
majority of which were removed to federal court in Philadelphia.

At September 30, 2014, the company has settled or reached
settlements in principle for the majority of these claims and
lawsuits. Approximately 35 lawsuits remain pending claiming
property and related damage. This represents a decrease of about
90 over the number of lawsuits pending at June 30, 2014.

The company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims. There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time. Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

At September 30, 2014, DuPont had recorded charges of $1,175
million, within other operating charges, to resolve these claims,
which represents the company's best estimate of the loss
associated with resolving these claims. The company did not take
any charges related to this matter during the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2014. The three months ended September
30, 2013 included net charges of $40 million, consisting of a $65
million charge offset by $25 million of insurance recoveries. The
nine months ended September 30, 2013 included net charges of $155
million, consisting of charges of $180 million offset by $25
million of insurance recoveries received in the third quarter
2013.

At September 30, 2014, DuPont had accruals of $312 million related
to these claims. The company has an applicable insurance program
with a deductible equal to the first $100 million of costs and
expenses. The insurance program limits are $725 million for costs
and expenses in excess of the $100 million. Insurance recoveries
are recognized when realized.  DuPont has submitted and will
continue to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers
for costs associated with this matter. The company has begun to
receive payment from its insurance carriers and continues to seek
recovery although the timing and outcome remain uncertain. To date
the company has recognized and received insurance recoveries of
$73 million.


EI DU PONT: Trial in Drinking Water Actions to Begin in Sept 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
first trial in the drinking water actions is scheduled to begin in
September 2015, and the second in November 2015.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The studies
were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.  In January 2012, the
company put $1 million in an escrow account to fund medical
monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.  The court
appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations.  Under
the program, notice has been given and the registration process,
as well as eligibility screening, to participate in diagnostic
testing has begun.

As of September 30, 2014, no money has been disbursed from the
fund.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists.

At September 30, 2014, there were approximately 2,545 lawsuits
filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West
Virginia, an increase of about 255 over June 30, 2014.  In
accordance with a stipulation reached in the third quarter 2014
and other court procedures, these lawsuits have been or will be
served and consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio
federal court ("MDL"). The majority of the lawsuits allege
personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and
thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.

There are 18 lawsuits alleging wrongful death. Based on comments
from attorneys for the plaintiffs, DuPont expects additional
lawsuits may be filed.

In the third quarter 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were
selected for the individual trial. The first trial is scheduled
to begin in September 2015, and the second in November 2015.
DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending
itself vigorously.


EL PASO PIPELINE: "Allen" Case Plaintiff Files Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company,
L.L.C., et al. has filed a notice of appeal on the dismissal of
the case, and both plaintiff and defendants have filed opening
briefs, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "In May 2012, a unitholder of EPB filed a
purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both
derivative and non-derivative claims, against us, and our general
partner and its board. We were named in the lawsuit as both a
"Class Defendant" and a "Derivative Nominal Defendant." The
complaint alleges a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale to us of a 25%
ownership interest in SNG. On June 20, 2014, defendants' motion
for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the case in its
entirety. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in July 2014, and
both plaintiff and defendants have filed opening briefs.


EMCOR GROUP: USM Subsidiary Faces Class Action by Janitors
----------------------------------------------------------
EMCOR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that one of its
subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California
provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers
by having those services performed by independent janitorial
companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores
(the "Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal class action
lawsuit brought by employees of five of USM's California
janitorial contractors. The action was commenced on September 5,
2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on
November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that
USM and the Customer violated a California statute that prohibits
USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial contractor
when it knows or should know that the contract does not include
funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with
all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the
labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that
the amounts USM pays to its janitorial contractors are
insufficient to allow those janitorial contractors to meet their
obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours
their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and
rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only
themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial
services at the Customer's stores in California during the
relevant four year time period.

"We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California
statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class
action on behalf of other employees of janitorial contractors with
whom USM contracted for the provision of janitorial services to
the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a
class action and USM is found to have violated the California
statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek
a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California
statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and interest
thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorney
fees and costs," the Company said.

EMCOR is one of the largest electrical and mechanical construction
and facilities services firms in the United States.


ESTATE INFORMATION: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Furman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Estate Information Services, LLC dba EIS Collections,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06400 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014) seeks relief
from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Settles Securities Class Action for $170 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Fannie Mae's $170 million proposed settlement of a securities
class action ended a six-year fight over who should pay for
investors' losses related to the subprime mortgage market
meltdown.

The consolidated New York federal case sprang from lawsuits filed
in 2008, after the Federal Housing and Finance Agency placed the
Federal National Mortgage Association -- Fannie Mae's formal name
-- into conservatorship.  Fannie Mae offers mortgage investment
products on the U.S. secondary mortgage market.

The Boston Retirement System, Massachusetts Pension Reserves
Investment Management and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System
claimed Fannie Mae and two former officers made false and
misleading statements about the company's exposure to risky
mortgage-loan products and its internal controls between November
2006 and September 2008.

Thomas Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow, class
colead counsel, spoke with the NLJ about the case and the
settlement announced on Oct. 24.  He also discussed the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit's November 2013 ruling affirming
dismissal of a similar case against sister company Freddie Mac,
which provides mortgage capital to lenders and is also under
conservatorship.

NLJ: Tell me about the settlement.

Thomas Dubbs: It is $170 million for common stock shareholders and
preferred stock shareholders.  It's coming from Fannie Mae.  The
case was mediated after many years of litigation.

NLJ: What were some of the major challenges in this case?

Dubbs: Fannie Mae is in conservatorship, so in some sense we were
litigating against the U.S. government.  Their strategies and
goals are different than those of a typical defendant.  An
additional wrinkle was a housing and finance agency regulation
that in essence said if a plaintiff recovered a judgment they
could not execute on that judgment, so it would be worthless.
Although two judges expressed skepticism concerning that
regulation, it was a cloud over the litigation.  Another major
challenge was the Second Circuit decision involving Freddie Mac.

NLJ: How did you deal with the risks created by the Second Circuit
ruling?

Dubbs: The challenge was to develop from the record and through
experts alternative damages theories. [To claim what's known as]
disaggregating damages, we had to recreate what lawyers call the
"but for" world of what Fannie Mae would have looked like without
the securities law violations and without the extrinsic fact of
their going into conservatorship.  That involved going through
millions of documents that detailed Fannie Mae's investment
holdings and its various practices to recreate what would have
happened had they purchased, processed and retained securities of
a certain investment grade.

NLJ: Why did this case end differently than the Freddie Mac case?

Dubbs: We studied the opinion and came to the conclusion that we
could disaggregate damages and had a very good chance of getting
around the opinion.  But given the uncertainties involved, that
was an impetus to settle.


FULLBAR LLC: Faces Consumer Class Action Over "All Natural" Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reports that Fullbar LLC, the
maker of popular appetite-curbing snacks, was slapped with a
proposed consumer class action in Florida federal court on Oct. 23
claiming it tricked consumers into paying more for its "all
natural" bars, which actually contain synthetic ingredients such
as maltodextrin and soy lecithin.

The suit, filed on behalf of a nationwide class and a separate
Florida class that purchased Colorado-based Fullbar's products,
alleges that labels on the front and back of the boxes claimed the
snacks were either "100% natural" or "all natural."  However, the
products contain maltodextrin, potato maltodextrin, soy protein
concentrate, soy protein isolate, soy lecithin and other processed
ingredients, according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Elizabeth Livingston said she purchased Fullbar
products, including the chocolate peanut butter and double
chocolate flavors, 10 to 15 times from a Wal-Mart store in
Pembroke Pines, Florida, between January and August 2014.  She
later discovered that some of the bars' ingredients were not "all
natural" as the labels claimed, according to the complaint.

"Plaintiff and members of the class would not have purchased the
products had they known that they were not '100% natural,'" the
lawsuit said.

Maltodextrin is produced through "partial acid and enzymatic
hydrolysis" of corn starch, a "relatively severe" process that
produces the "synthetic factory-produced texturizer" that doesn't
occur in nature, according to the complaint.  It also frequently
includes genetically modified organisms, which by law are not
natural because their DNA strands can be patented, according to
the complaint.

Fullbar's soy ingredients, including soy protein concentrate, soy
protein isolate and soy lecithin, are allegedly also made from
genetically modified organisms or seeds; because they were
modified technologically, they don't qualify as "100 percent
natural," the complaint said.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has defined "natural"
products as those that don't contain added colors, artificial
flavors or synthetic substances; federal laws claim an ingredient
is synthetic if it is "formulated or manufactured by a chemical
process" or "a process that chemically changes a substance
extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal or mineral
sources," the complaint said.

Ms. Livingston's suit accuses Fullbar of violating Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Magnusson-Moss
Warranty Act, as well as of negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express warranty and unjust enrichment.  She seeks damages and
restitution, as well as an order either preventing Fullbar from
using synthetic ingredients in its bars or from using the
"natural" labeling on its boxes, according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Livingston is represented by Joshua H. Eggnatz --
JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com -- and Michael J. Pascucci --
MPascucci@EggnatzLaw.com -- of the Eggnatz Law Firm.

The case is Livingston v. Fullbar, LLC, case number 0:14-cv-62430,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal of Suit Over DBCP Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that a group of
former banana cooperative workers from the Philippines filed in
February 2011, a complaint in the Philippines against two of the
Company's subsidiaries claiming injury from exposure to the
chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP"). The trial court dismissed
the complaint against the subsidiaries on October 3, 2011.
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals,
which appeal is pending.

Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide
production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce.  The
Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples,
melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears,
peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and
tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South
America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe.


FRESH DEL MONTE: DBCP Action in Costa Rica Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
On October 14, 2004, two of Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s
subsidiaries were served with a complaint in an action styled
Angel Abarca, et al. v. Dole Food Co., et al. filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles on behalf of more than 2,600 Costa Rican banana workers
who claim injury from exposure to the chemical
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP").

On January 2, 2009, three of the Company's subsidiaries were
served with multiple complaints in related actions styled Jorge
Acosta Cortes, et al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles on behalf of 461 Costa Rican residents.

An initial review of the plaintiffs in the Abarca and Cortes
actions found that a substantial number of the plaintiffs were
claimants in prior DBCP actions in Texas and may have participated
in the settlement of those actions. On June 27, 2008, the court
dismissed the claims of 1,329 plaintiffs who were parties to prior
DBCP actions.

On June 30, 2008, the Company's subsidiaries moved to dismiss the
claims of the remaining Abarca plaintiffs on grounds of forum non
conveniens in favor of the courts of Costa Rica. On September 22,
2009, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on November 16,
2009 entered an order conditionally dismissing the claims of those
remaining plaintiffs who allege employment on farms in Costa Rica
exclusively affiliated with the Company's subsidiaries. Those
dismissed plaintiffs re-filed their claim in Costa Rica on May 17,
2012.

On January 18, 2013, all remaining plaintiffs in California filed
Requests for Dismissal effecting the dismissal of their claims
without prejudice. On September 25, 2013, the Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the claim re-filed with the courts
of Costa Rica.

No updates were provided on the Costa Rica action in Fresh Del
Monte Produce Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 26, 2014.

Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide
production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce.  The
Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples,
melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears,
peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and
tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South
America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal Filed in Third Circuit Over DBCP
--------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that a notice
of appeal has been filed with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit with respect to action over exposure to the
chemical dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to
1990.

The Company said, "On May 31 and June 1, 2012, eight actions were
filed against one of our subsidiaries in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of
approximately 3,000 plaintiffs alleging exposure to DBCP on or
near banana farms in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, and Guatemala.
We and our subsidiaries have never owned, managed or otherwise
been involved with any banana growing operations in Panama and
were not involved with any banana growing operations in Ecuador
during the period when DBCP was in use. The plaintiffs include
claimants who had cases pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana which were dismissed
on September 17, 2012."

"On August 30, 2012, our subsidiary joined a motion to dismiss the
claims of those plaintiffs on the grounds that they have first-
filed claims pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The motion was granted on March 29,
2013.

"On September 21, 2012, our subsidiary filed an answer with
respect to the claims of those plaintiffs who had not already
filed in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the court granted a motion
made by a co-defendant and entered summary judgment against all
plaintiffs based on the September 19, 2013 affirmance by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
dismissal of related cases by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.

"On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary joined in a motion for summary
judgment as to all plaintiffs on the basis of the court's May 27,
2014 ruling. Plaintiffs agreed that judgment be entered in favor
of all defendants for the claims still pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on the basis of
the summary judgment granted on May 27, 2014 and the district
court entered judgment dismissing all plaintiffs' claims on
September 22, 2014.

"On October 21, 2014, a notice of appeal was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the notice
expressly limited the appeal to the claims of 57 (out of the more
than 2,400) plaintiffs."

Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide
production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce.  The
Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples,
melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears,
peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and
tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South
America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Hawaii Supreme Court Decision Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that in Hawaii,
plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme
Court based upon the Hawaii Court of Appeals affirmance in March
2014 of a summary judgment ruling in defendants' favor at the
trial court level. The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted the petition
and oral argument was held on September 18, 2014 with respect to
whether the claims of the six named plaintiffs were properly
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The decision of the
Hawaii Supreme Court remains pending.

Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide
production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce.  The
Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples,
melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears,
peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and
tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South
America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Unit Satisfied Judgments in Unpaid Wages Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s subsidiary has satisfied the
judgments in the Unpaid Wages Class Action Litigation in
accordance with the court's final order, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 26,
2014.

The Company said, "In December 2007, a class action complaint was
filed against one of our subsidiaries for unpaid wages in an
action styled Maria Delgado and Abdia Liberio, et al. v. Del Monte
Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County,
Oregon. On October 5, 2009, a jury verdict was entered against our
subsidiary. The court entered judgments in favor of plaintiffs
consistent with the jury verdict.

"On January 2, 2014, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgments. Our subsidiary appealed the Court of Appeals decision
to the Oregon Supreme Court. On May 8, 2014, the Oregon Supreme
Court denied our subsidiary's petition for review. Our subsidiary
satisfied the judgments in accordance with the court's final
order."

Fresh Del Monte Produce was incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands in 1996 and is engaged primarily in the worldwide
production, transportation and marketing of fresh produce.  The
Company sources its products, which include bananas, pineapples,
melons and non-tropical fruit (including grapes, apples, pears,
peaches, plums, nectarines, avocados, citrus and kiwis) and
tomatoes, primarily from Central America, North America, South
America, Africa, the Philippines and Europe.


GIANT SPORTS: Sued for Misrepresenting Protein Amount in Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Rodriguez v. Giant Sports Products, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
08378-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal., October 29, 2014) is a class action
brought on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States
and the state of California, who purchased the product Giant
Sports Delicious Protein from the Defendant, who misrepresents the
amount of protein available in the Product.

Giant Sports Products, LLC is a Limited Liability Company licensed
in the state of New Jersey, with a principal place of business in
Brick, New Jersey.  The Defendant designed, manufactured,
warranted, advertised and sold the Product throughout the United
States, including in the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan N. Shub, Esq.
          Scott Alan George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          434 West Alexandrine #101
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Bassma Zebib, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BASSMA ZEBIB
          811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1708
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 920-7037
          E-mail: zebiblaw@gmail.com


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Ringer" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Ringer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Thomas, Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor, Raja Bal, J.
Michael Conaway, Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E.
Massengill, Mary Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G. Watson,
Thomas Wroe, Jr., Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
and Canaccord Genuity Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00478 (D.N.H.,
October 24, 2014), made materially false and misleading statements
with respect to GTAT's relationship with Apple, as well as GTAT's
capital position.

GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a leading diversified technology
company producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth
equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics,
solar and LED industries.

The Individual Defendants are director and officers of GT Advanced
Technologies Inc.

The Company Defendants are underwriters of the Initial Public
Offerings of GT Advanced Technologies Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
      MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC
      3 North Spring Street
      Concord, NH 03301
      Telephone: (603) 228-2277
      E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
      E-mail: squire@bespc.com
              eagel@bespc.com


GREAT SOUTHERN: Awaits Ruling on Investor Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Drummond, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
former Great Southern director Jeff Mews flew from Perth to
Melbourne on Oct. 26, hoping an end to "four years of hell" may be
in sight.

The 70-year-old retired businessman will learn whether the
Victorian Supreme Court will approve a settlement of a class
action with Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and Javelin Asset Management
after the AU$1.8 billion collapse of the investment scheme in
2009.

On Oct. 24, Victorian Supreme Court justice James Judd wrote to
plaintiffs and defendants arguing he should be allowed to read
Justice Clyde Croft's judgment, which was stopped by the
settlement two days before it was due to be given on July 25.

Many see the judgment's release as the only way a verdict on the
conduct of Great Southern founder John Young, managing director
Cameron Rhodes and deputy managing director Phillip Butlin will
finally be given almost six years after its collapse.

More than 1300 investors also want the Victorian Supreme Court to
throw out the settlement.  It will see insurers of Great Southern
pay AU$20 million to clients of M+K to cover their legal costs for
the class action and AU$3.5 million spread among possibly up to
50,000 former investors as far back as 1998, or around AU$16.79
per AU$10,000 invested, for any misleading statements in Great
Southern's product disclosure statement.  In return, investors
admit loans and interest are valid and due within 30 days.

M+K argues for the settlement because, even if the judgment is in
their favor, Bendigo and Javelin will appeal and the case could
drag on for at least another four years with no guarantee of a
win.

Mr. Mews and chairman Peter Patrikeos resigned from the board of
Great Southern, which in its last five years put AU$1.8 billion of
investors' money into olives, vineyards, tree plantations and
cattle, in 2005 over what they saw as a cover up of poor yields
reported to the board.

Despite blowing the whistle well before Great Southern went bust
in May 2009, M+K called them as defendants to the class action in
late 2009.  It later dropped charges against them but, within a
week, Messrs. Lews and Patrikeos were pursued by the lawyers for
Messrs. Rhodes and Butlin and brought in again as defendants.

"My adversaries and their supporters have put me through the last
four years of hell," Mr. Mews said of Messrs. Rhodes, Butlin and
Young.

Investors are livid that the settlement will see more than AU$320
million in loans outstanding repayable in full to financiers, law
firm fees repaid and even the founder of Great Southern, John
Young, potentially profiting.

ASIC records show Mr. Young still controls a AU$2 shelf company
called JSJA Holdings, which is understood to hold a "fixed and
floating charge" over Javelin.  Javelin bought AU$23 million worth
of loans for AU$9 million just before Great Southern's collapse in
2009.  As for Bendigo, the settlement rules all loans it bought
fully enforceable.

Fairfax Media contacted Mr. Young, but he refused to answer
questions.

"It is such a pathetic settlement sum," said M+K client Kerry
O'Brien, who has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for
virtually no return in both Great Southern and another similar
scheme, Timbercorp.

Bharat Gupta, also an M+K client, agreed, arguing Bendigo and
former directors should share the pain.  His initial loan from
Great Southern Finance, later bought by Bendigo Bank, of about
AU$35,000 has doubled because M+K advised him to stop paying the
interest.  He argues Bendigo should take at least some share of
the responsibility for lax lending standards of Great Southern.

"Bendigo, when it bought the loans, should have done their due
diligence on Great Southern," he said.  "They should take some
responsibility, rather than blaming us as investors."

Rod Whitehouse, another M+K client, now owes Bendigo AU$147,000
after taking out an AU$80,000 loan in 2008 with Adelaide Bank
before it was bought by Bendigo.  He says he was pushed into the
investment by accountants paid a commission to recommend it and
believes the banks that approved the loans should take more of the
pain of the collapse.

"No deposit required, no questions asked, none of the usual checks
and balances required, in all it took about a week to stitch me up
to this deal," he said.  "Somebody or bodies have done a lot of
wrong with regards to Great Southern investors yet it appears that
once again justice for white-collar crime is out of reach for the
average person."


HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: 2nd Cir. Certifies Author Class
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cader, writing for Publishers Lunch, reports that the
author class has been certified by Second Circuit District Court
Judge William H. Pauley, III in the suit brought by three authors
against Harlequin for underpayment on ebooks licensed to Harlequin
subsidiaries.  In May, the Appeals Court overturned Judge Judge
Harold Baer's dismissal of the class action suit.


HERBALIFE LTD: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Herbalife says it has agreed to
settle a lawsuit that claimed the company's business structure and
marketing practices violated federal and state laws.  The weight
loss and nutritional supplements company did not elaborate in its
statement on Oct. 31 on the terms of the proposed settlement in
the class-action case.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2013 in a California federal court
by a former salesman.

Herbalife Ltd. maintains it hasn't done anything wrong and the
lawsuit is meritless. It says it's seeking to settle the case in
hopes of avoiding the potential cost and distraction of prolonged
litigation.  The company has also been defending itself against
activist investor Bill Ackman, who runs Pershing Square Capital
Management.  Mr. Ackman has bet heavily against the company's
stock, describing Herbalife as a pyramid scheme.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Petersen" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Petersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:14-cv-03477-RWS (N.D. Ga., October 29, 2014) alleges breach of
fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          P.O. Box 57007
          191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com


IBIO INC: Rosen Law Firms Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against iBio, Inc. on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's common stock between October 13, 2014 and October
23, 2014, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
iBio shareholders under the federal securities laws.

To join the iBio class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-409.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Jonathan Horne, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The lawsuit claims that iBio issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors by wrongfully suggesting that
iBio's Launch platform patents and related proprietary technology
would be licensed by the makers of the experimental Ebola drug,
ZMapp.  The lawsuit claims that when the true facts were revealed,
the price of iBio's stock dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 23, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-409.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ICM PARTNERS: Intern Class Action Mediation Set for December 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that two days after
NBCUniversal settled a potential class action lawsuit by former
Saturday Night Live interns for $6.4 million, ICM Partners has
moved one step closer to possibly resolving its own labor issue.
As expected, the agency and representatives for ex-interns
Kimberly Behzadi and Jason Rindenau have agreed to mediation, now
scheduled for December 15.

ICM Partners attorney Steven Herd said in a letter from both sides
sent to U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield on Oct. 23 that
the mediation will be before Dina Jansenson of the dispute-
resolution firm JAMS.  Judge Schofield said she wants to know the
result of the mediation by January 6.

Mr. Herd's letter also asked for ICM's motions of dismissal and
others to be stayed during the mediation process.  Additionally,
it requested the discovery process be stated as well.  Judge
Schofield said yes to the former and no to the latter.

Will we see a checkbook repeat of the NBCU situation? Well, the
beginning of mediation is long, long way from that -- though it
should be noted that the firm repping the ex-ICM interns is Outten
& Golden.  That's the same firm that repped ex-Saturday Night Live
intern Monet Eliastam and others against the Comcast-owned company
to a likely nearly $1.2 million payout for their efforts.

Outten & Golden also is working on the ongoing case of the
ex-Black Swan interns and their battle with Fox Searchlight.  That
suit really started the round of such actions that have hit the
media industry in the past two years.

Regardless if it ends up there or not, the gist of the case is
that Ms. Behzadi and Mr. Rindenau allege that while they
respectively were at the ICM offices in NYC and LA in early 2012
and mid-2011 they did the jobs and duties of paid employees.

Following a rash of intern lawsuits hitting the industry over the
past two years, Ms. Behzadi filed her case on June 17 with
Mr. Rindenau joining in an amended complaint on August 15.  Just
over a week later, the two applied to have the case reclassified
to a class action suit -- which could encompass hundreds of former
ICM interns.

The agency tried to have the initial complaint and the amended one
dismissed.  In the first case, they cited an arbitration clause
that Ms. Behzadi refuted as not applicable to claims out of the
internship.  In the case of the amended complaint, the agency in
its Sept. 5 motion to dismiss that action cited that because the
amended complaint was filed on Aug. 15, more than three years had
passed since Mr. Rindenau's May 23-Aug. 5, 2011 internship the
statute of limitations apply.  Needless to say the plaintiffs
disagreed and on Sept. 19 called the motion "premature" without
even the process of discovery having began.

Now just over a week later the two sides are trying to find a way
to talk.  If successful, this could be over before the end of the
year.  If not, expect around 21 days in court next year.

Rachel Bien, Justin Swartz and Sally Abrahamson of the labor-
issues firm Outten & Golden are representing the interns.  It
should be noted that Bien and the firm are involved in the Black
Swan suit and that Swartz also is handing legal duties on a class
action launched against NBCUniversal by a former MSNBC intern and
an ex-Saturday Night Live intern.  Elise Michelle Bloom and Steven
Hurd of Proskauer Rose's NYC office and Michelle Annese of the
firm's Newark office represent ICM Partners.


INBLOOM GROUP: "Holland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Holland, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Flavio Ullivarri, Hortensia Ullivarri, Pablo Egas, individually,
and Inbloom Group, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case
No. 1:14-cv-23967 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are farm direct distributors of pre-made bouquets,
consumer bunches and bulk fresh cut flowers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      E-mail: tstull@gwlawfirm.net
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


INTERNATIONAL AUTO: Sen. Durbin to Look Into Contract Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fitzgerald, writing for BND.com, reports that U.S. Sen.
Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced he will begin looking directly into
the problems plaguing International Auto Logistics LLC of
Brunswick, Ga., a federal contractor that received a nearly $1
billion contract from the U.S. Transportation Command, based at
Scott, to ship military members' privately owned vehicles.

Mr. Durbin said that he appreciated the hard work of Air Force
Gen. Paul Selva, the commander of Transcom, based at Scott Air
Force Base.  But Mr. Durbin remains "deeply concerned regarding
the performance of International Auto Logistics," according to a
statement he issued on Oct. 25.

"It shouldn't take six months of inquiries and complaints for IAL
to meet its obligation to our nation's servicemembers and the
basic requirements of its contract," Mr. Durbin said.

As chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
Durbin continued, "I have begun inquiries into the performance of
this contract, and I intend to get to the bottom of what went
wrong and how to make sure it does not happen again."

Almost as soon as IAL took over the private vehicle shipping
contract in early May, complaints from military families started
pouring into both Transcom and the Army Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command, also based at Scott, about missing cars,
late delivery dates and problems with customs paperwork.

Another major source of frustration was IAL's many failures to
communicate with bewildered and stressed-out troops looking for
their cars.

Both Transcom and IAL have blamed IAL's problems on a six-month
delay caused by protests and appeals filed by the previous
contractor, American Auto Logistics.

When IAL finally took over the contract, on May 1, it was in the
midst of the peak season for the shipment of servicemembers'
vehicles.

In early August, in response to a rising tide of customer
complaints, Mr. Selva ordered Transcom to set up a special 12-
person "fusion cell" team consisting to logistics and supply chain
experts.

The team's mission was to help IAL unravel the problems behind the
contractor's inability to track thousands of privately owned
vehicles being shipped to the United States from Europe and
Hawaii.

A few weeks later, Mr. Selva sent teams of inspectors to visit
ports in Germany, Hawaii and four sites in the continental United
States to look for the missing vehicles.

A month later, Transcom reported that the on-time delivery of
military members' privately owned cars had improved sharply.

Even so, plenty of complaints persisted, especially from military
members who had entrusted their cars to IAL before Aug. 1.

Sabrina Tunis, whose husband is an Army sergeant stationed at Fort
Campbell, Ky., started a Facebook page in July to air complaints
about IAL.  In recent weeks, IAL's performance has been "getting a
little bit better," said Tunis, whose Facebook page has more than
4,800 members.

But Ms. Tunis still wants Transcom to replace IAL with a new
contractor because of the many complaints against IAL concerning
missing and damaged vehicles, as well as the two class-action
lawsuits in Georgia filed on behalf of unhappy customers.  That's
in addition to a third lawsuit filed by subcontractor Liberty
Global Logistics against IAL for the non-payment nearly $20
million in fees.

"That should tell Transcom enough," Ms. Tunis said.

These complaints led to a recent meeting in Washington, D.C.,
between Selva and U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., to "discuss the
unacceptable burden thousands of service members returning from
duty overseas are experiencing" due to vehicles misplaced by IAL,
according to a statement Warner released.

Mr. Warner called the meeting with Mr. Selva after receiving calls
of complaint from 160 constituents who had asked for help,
according to Warner's statement.

Durbin's announcement on Oct. 25 follows by five weeks Mr. Selva's
published comments that he had "personally communicated to the
leadership" of IAL to tell them of his expectation that "they
improve their performance with the timely and reliable delivery of
vehicles and communication with customers."

Transcom declined to comment on Mr. Selva's meeting with Mr.
Warner, whose office also declined to comment.

Amanda Nunez, an IAL spokeswoman, declined to comment on Mr.
Warner's meeting with Mr. Selva.

Nor would Ms. Nunez comment on the lawsuit filed recently by
Liberty Global Logistics, the IAL subcontractor, which listed six
reasons for seeking to withdraw its contract with IAL.

Those reasons included IAL's alleged failure to merge its computer
tracking system with Liberty's, and IAL's tardiness in making more
than $20 million in required payments to Liberty.

"To respect the legal process, IAL will not comment on ongoing
litigation," Ms. Nunez wrote.

IAL's dispute with the subcontractor had threatened to freeze all
shipment of privately owned vehicles.


JOHN CRANE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Hays Mesothelioma Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
John Crane obtained a favorable ruling in a mesothelioma suit.

Details: William S. Hays, a career U.S. Navy boiler tender, worked
in the engine rooms of ships and at the Shore Intermediate
Maintenance Activity facility in Mayport until his retirement from
military service.  His work kept him in close proximity to
asbestos insulation and mechanical components that contained
asbestos.  He contracted mesothelioma and died in December 2009 at
68, defense attorney M. Stephen Smith said.

The case in West Palm Beach was transferred to the multidistrict
litigation court in Philadelphia a month after filing for joint
pretrial proceedings.  The Hays case was one of thousands filed by
former Navy servicemen and civilian shipbuilders because asbestos
exposure was common in several naval trades through the 1970s.

Cases that could not be settled or dismissed made their way back
to the plaintiff's home jurisdiction.  The Hays case returned to
Florida on April 18, 2013, with Mary Charlene Hays as
representative of her husband's estate.

Initially, there were many defendants.  The original defendant was
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., which announced a confidential
settlement June 5, 2013, according to court records.  Another
defendant, Honeywell Inc., filed a notice of settlement Nov. 27,
2013.  Other defendants were dismissed, and John Crane Inc. was
the lone defendant at trial.

The case was tried under maritime law, Mr. Smith said.

Plaintiffs case: John Crane products -- asbestos packing and
gaskets -- were alleged to have been defective and the legal cause
of Mr. Hays' cancer.

Expert witnesses included Arnold Brody, a pathology professor at
Tulane University Medical Center; Jerrold Abraham, an anatomic
pathologist from Syracuse; and James Millette, an industrial
hygienist from Atlanta.

"Our experts testified that all forms of asbestos cause cancer,
including the kind of asbestos in John Crane parts," plaintiffs
attorney Jonathan Ruckdeschel -- rucklawfirm@rucklawfirm.com --
said.  "They testified working with gaskets and packing can
release asbestos in amounts above that found in the general
environment.  In people diagnosed with mesothelioma, the cancer is
caused by the cumulative effect of exposures to asbestos."

They also testified all asbestos exposure increases the risk of
asbestos disease and there is no safe level of exposure to
asbestos, Mr. Ruckdeschel said.

The damages request was $180,000 for economic losses, $594,000 for
medical expenses, $4,679 for funeral expenses and $4 million for
pain and suffering.

Defense case: Two expert witnesses were called: Dr. James Crapo, a
pulmonologist from Denver, and Frederick Toca, an expert in
industrial hygiene, toxicology and occupational safety from
Atlanta.  Mr. Smith said Mr. Toca testified he tested fibers
released from John Crane gaskets and packing and found them at or
below Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.
Mr. Smith contended the greatest hazard to Hays came from the
ship's insulation.  Before the 1980s, mechanical rooms where
boiler tenders worked used large quantities of friable asbestos.
Burns was lead counsel on the case.

Outcome: After deliberating for 65 minutes, the jury said
John Crane's products were not defective or the cause of Mr. Hays'
cancer.  The verdict form included four Fabre defendants -- A.W.
Chesterton, Crane Co., Ford Motor Co. and Genuine Parts Co.  No
one was assigned fault.

Comments: "The EPA banned the stuff around 1970 it was so bad.
The Navy had a program to remove all of the asbestos.  Mr. Hays
was on board ship during some of that.  He was there during the
big tear-out of the insulation," Mr. Smith said.

Post-verdict: Marra entered a final judgment Oct. 9 for John
Crane.

Case: Mary Charlene Hays v. John Crane
Case no: 09-cv-81881
Description: Wrongful death
Filing Date: Nov. 3, 2009
Trial dates: Sept. 15-29, 2014

Judge: U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, West Palm Beach
Plaintiffs attorneys: Jonathan Ruckdeschel and Jacqueline Badders,
Ruckdeschel Law Firm, Ellicott City, Md.

Defense attorneys: M. Stephen Smith -- ssmith@rumberger.com -- and
Michael Holt -- mholt@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell,
Miami; Thomas Burns -- tjb@otmblaw.com -- and Benjamin Pucci --
bpucci@otmblaw.com -- O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Chicago
Verdict amount: For the defense


JPMORGAN CHASE: Chester County Sues Over Mortgage Recording Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaelle Bond, writing for Philly.com, reports that Chester
County is the latest government in the region to sue some of the
nation's largest banks to recover millions of dollars in recording
fees for mortgage assignments.

The Chester County Recorder of Deeds filed a lawsuit Oct. 10
against several banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo,
Citibank, and Bank of America, in County Court.  The county says
the banks used a members-only electronic registry system, created
by the banking industry, to track mortgage assignments among
themselves.  Using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, the
banks circumvented the Recorder of Deeds Office and avoided paying
recording fees, said the recorder, Richard T. Loughery.

"This practice violates the commonwealth's recording laws and has
caused gaps, omissions, and inaccuracies to appear in the county's
land records, which undermine the integrity of our public land-
recording system," Mr. Loughery said in a statement.

Residents use recorder of deeds records to verify property title,
trace ownership of land, and know who holds their mortgages.

Mr. Loughery said the banks owe Chester County as much as $10
million in fees.

Montgomery County filed a lawsuit on behalf of the entire state in
federal court Sept. 24 against several banks that used Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems.

"They were the largest banks that have ignored Pennsylvania
statutes," said Nancy J. Becker, Montgomery County's recorder of
deeds.

Montgomery County filed a class-action lawsuit against Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems and its parent company, Merscorp
Inc., in 2011 on behalf of the state's 67 recorders.

A federal judge in Philadelphia ruled in June that the company
violated Pennsylvania law.   Merscorp, which provides a
marketplace for buying and selling mortgages, is appealing the
judge's ruling.

Chester County expects its case to go to trial next October.


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Action Over Surgical Gowns
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Jablon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
$500 million lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corp. alleges the
company falsely claimed its surgical gowns protected against Ebola
and other infectious diseases.

The suit, filed on Oct. 29 in federal court, alleges that the
multinational company knew for at least a year that its Microcool
Breathable High Performance Surgical Gown had failed industry
tests of impermeability to blood and microbes, but it continued to
claim the product provided the highest level of protection against
diseases including Ebola.  Many of the gowns tested had
"catastrophic" failures, according to the lawsuit, which called
Kimberly-Clark's actions "utterly reprehensible."

"We are aware of individuals that have contracted various diseases
while wearing the gown, but we are not at liberty to disclose what
those are at the present time," said Michael Avenatti, the lead
attorney in the case.

Mr. Avenatti said the Texas hospital where two nurses contracted
Ebola once stocked the gowns but he didn't know whether those
workers or an infected nursing assistant in Spain had worn them.

"We are still investigating," he said.

Kimberly-Clark said in a statement that it does not comment
regarding ongoing litigation but the company stands behind the
safety and efficacy of its products.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges fraud, false
advertising, negligent misrepresentation and unfair business
practices.  It was filed by Hrayr Shahinian, a Los Angeles surgeon
specializing in skull base and brain tumor operations who said he
had used the gowns and thus was potentially exposed to harm.

Dallas-based Kimberly-Clark, which also makes consumer products
such as Kleenex and Huggies, has more than half the worldwide
market for surgical gowns that meet the highest level of
resistance to transfers of bodily fluids, according to the
lawsuit.

"We estimated that tens of millions of the gowns have been sold
worldwide," Mr. Avenatti said.

However, "up until now, individuals have had no reason to suspect
that these gowns were defective," he said.

Companies that manufacture protective suits and gowns have
increased production in the wake of the Ebola outbreak that has
killed thousands of people in Africa and Asia and one person in
the United States.

DuPont Co. has said it is tripling production of protective suits.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends
equipment for medical workers treating Ebola patients include
either a coverall or "fluid resistant or impermeable gown that
extends to at least mid-calf."


LEADER SERVICES: "Batres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Batres, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Leader Services, LLC and Angel L. Rosa, Case No. 1:14-cv-23973
(S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Leader Services, LLC provides landscaping, yard aeration, clean
up, pressure washing, interior and exterior painting and light
construction services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "James" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled James v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-
004573-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02858 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured by her physician's off-
label use of the Defendants' Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar
Tapered Fusion Device.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          E-mail: rtom@bakerdonelson.com


MICHAELS GENUINE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Duque, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Michaels Genuine Hospitality, LLC, a Florida for-
profit corporation, Michael Schwartz, an individual, and Charles
Bell, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv-23965 (S.D. Fla., October
24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Michael's Genuine Food and Drink
restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert William Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana J. Abraham, individually and as Class Representative for all
others similarly situated v. Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-03485-RWS-JFK (N.D. Ga., October 29, 2014) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David F. Addleton, Esq.
          ADDLETON LTD. CO.
          355 Cotton Avenue
          Macon, GA 31201
          Telephone: (404) 797-7166
          E-mail: dfaddleton@gmail.com

               - and -

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ, LLC
          345 West Hancock Avenue
          Athens, GA 30601
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 350-5900
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


NAVISTAR INC: Faces Fike Suit Over Faulty MaxxForce Advanced EGR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fike Logistics, Inc, a Kentucky corporation, on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00201-TBR
(W.D. Ky., October 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated entities, who purchased or leased a
vehicle with a 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 Navistar 11, 13 and 15
liter MaxxForce Advanced EGR diesel engine, or MaxxForce 7,
MaxxForce DT, MaxxForce 9 and MaxxForce 10 mid-range diesel
engines.

The MaxxForce Engine contains exhaust emission controls to reduce
diesel engine exhaust emissions in compliance with the EPA's Final
Rule for "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Control Requirements."  Navistar calls the emission system used in
the MaxxForce Engines, the "MaxxForce Advanced EGR."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's Advanced EGR emission
control system did not reduce exhaust emissions to the EPA
Standard and was defective, causing the MaxxForce Engines to not
function as required, and as represented, on a consistent and
reliable basis, even after repeated warranty repairs and
replacements.

Fike Logistics, Inc. is a Kentucky corporation with its principal
place of business located in Murray, Kentucky.  Fike purchased or
leased, from establishments in the states of North Carolina,
Tennessee and Texas, at least one vehicle containing a MaxxForce
Engine utilizing the Advanced EGR system to reduce diesel exhaust
emissions.

Navistar International Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located in Lisle, Illinois.
Navistar designed, manufactured, distributed, delivered, supplied,
inspected, marketed, leased and sold for profit, and warranted the
MaxxForce Engine and in particular the exhaust emission control,
the Advanced EGR, to be free of defects in material and
workmanship.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          19 North Main St.
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
          E-mail: john@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Steven Calamusa, Esq.
          GORDON & DONER, P.A.
          4114 Northlake Boulevard
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com


NIAGARA COUNTY, NY: To Settle Welfare Recipients' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Prohaska, writing for News Niagara Reporter, reports that
the Niagara County Legislature was expected to vote on Oct. 28 to
settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of welfare
recipients, but the welfare clients won't see a penny.

The entire payment of $108,827 will go to the lawyers that filed
the suit against the county in U.S. District Court last year, said
Thomas W. Scirto, attorney for the county Social Services
Department.

The payment will go to the National Center for Law and Economic
Justice in New York City, court papers said.  It covers their
legal fees and costs through Aug. 1.

The lawsuit charged that the county did not process applications
for welfare benefits within the time limits required in federal
and state law, and sought damages for all county residents who
applied for welfare or food stamps since July 9, 2010.  Darrell
McCoy of Niagara Falls was the official plaintiff.  He applied in
March 2013 and by the time the lawsuit was filed July 9, 2013, he
hadn't received any benefits despite filing all the necessary
documentation.

The law requires food stamps to be delivered to eligible
applicants within 30 days of their application, and New York has
an expedited food stamp program with a five-day time limit.  The
deadline for cash assistance is 30 days, except for Safety Net,
which has a 45-day limit.

The lawsuit charged that the county was late in acting on an
average of 229 food stamp applications a month and 180 cash
applications a month between August 2012 and January 2013.

Because of the sharply increasing volume of applications in recent
years, combined with several vacant jobs in Social Services'
intake unit, the accusations were largely true, Social Services
Commissioner Anthony J. Restaino said.

"In order to mitigate what the financial penalties would be, we
thought it was in our best interest to settle," Mr. Restaino said
last week, after the Legislature's Community Services and
Administration committees approved the payoff.

Mr. Scirto said, "The federal statute this (lawsuit) was based on
is a strict action statute that supposes 100 percent compliance,
which is impossible."

As part of the settlement, the county pledged to implement
procedures to ensure timely processing of applications.
Mr. Restaino said he restructured the intake unit, moving people
from job to job and converting clerical workers into intake
caseworkers.

The county has more than 15,000 open food stamp cases, a figure
that has doubled since 2008, Mr. Restaino said.  There are nearly
3,100 open cash assistance cases, including the federally mandated
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the state-mandated
Safety Net.

The state created the latter after the federal welfare reform act
signed by President Bill Clinton placed a five-year limit on the
length of time a person can receive federally funded welfare.
There is no time limit in New York's Safety Net program.

The Oct. 28 Legislature agenda also includes a resolution asking
the State Senate and Assembly to pass a bill allowing counties to
opt out of Safety Net.

The caseload for that program in Niagara County has risen 51
percent since 2006, and the cost has gone up 167 percent during
that period, according to the resolution.  The county has to bear
71 percent of the cost of Safety Net -- the county's bill was $7.8
million in 2013 -- and it accounts for about 10 percent of the
county's property tax levy.

The state used to split Safety Net costs 50-50 with the counties,
but changed that in 2011.  The county has spent $26 million on
Safety Net since then. Another resolution on Tuesday's agenda asks
the state to take over 100 percent of Safety Net costs.


NII HOLDINGS: Wants Court to Extend Automatic Stay of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that NII Holdings Inc.
on Oct. 23 asked a New York bankruptcy court to extend the
automatic stay of litigation to cover its executives, who are
facing an investor class action over allegedly false statements
about the Nextel-brand wireless service provider's performance,
saying the litigation could harm restructuring efforts.

Virginia-based NII said that if the suit is allowed to proceed
against its officers, it will significantly distract and burden
its senior management and key employees who are directly involved
in NII's efforts to reorganize.

The class action, which accuses the company of making false
statements about NII's troubled transition to a third-generation
or 3G network in Latin America, has already been stayed against
NII, but it also names Director and CEO Steven M. Shindler, Chief
Operating Officer Gokul Hemmady, who is also the president of a
Brazilian subsidiary, and former Director and CEO Steven P.
Dussek.

If allowed to proceed against the executives, the litigation
"could impose considerable direct and indirect costs on the
debtors' estates and have a substantial detrimental effect on the
debtors' ability to reorganize," NII said in a motion.

NII said the anticipated protracted nature of the discovery
process of the class action could be very expensive, and courts
have extended the automatic stay to non-debtor defendants to avoid
irreparable harm caused by tying up a debtor, its executives, and
its employees in a costly and time-consuming discovery fight.

NII filed for Chapter 11 in September after a year of
unprecedented losses in its two key markets, Brazil and Mexico,
where it has struggled to replace its dated wireless
infrastructures with 3G networks that support the latest
smartphones.

Its bankruptcy was virtually assured once it skipped a $119
million interest payment on its bonds in September, triggering a
30-day grace period and leading to market speculation that it
would restructure through a prepackaged Chapter 11 plan.  Talks
with two bondholder groups, one led by Aurelius Capital Management
LP, failed to produce a consensual restructuring before the window
closed.

Eight related companies joined the NII parent in Chapter 11,
including its NII Capital Corp. and NII International Telecom SCA
subsidiaries.  Those units have $4.35 billion in unsecured bonds
outstanding that make up the bulk of NII's indebtedness.

The restructuring talks have pitted the Aurelius-led group, which
holds a minority position in NII Capital's subordinated debt,
against a larger group that holds half the outstanding notes
across both subsidiaries.

The Aurelius-led group advanced a plan to equitize all of the
outstanding bonds, which was rejected by certain bondholders of
NII International Telecom, better known as LuxCo.

Any plan will have to address fraudulent-transfer claims that
Aurelius has asserted over certain 2009 intercompany transactions
that allegedly swung value away from NII Capital and its creditors
and toward LuxCo.

Aurelius first raised the claims months ago but hasn't sued,
suggesting it is using the threat of litigation as a bargaining
chip.  Its plan calls for postponing any intercreditor disputes
until after NII leaves bankruptcy and conducting a rights offering
to give the reorganized entity fresh equity.

Most of NII's debt comes from NII Capital, which issued $800
million in 10 percent notes due in 2016, $500 million in 8.875
percent notes due in 2019 and $1.45 billion in 7.625 percent notes
due in 2021.  LuxCo has $900 million in 11.375 percent notes and
$700 million in 7.875 percent notes outstanding, both due in 2019.

Trading on the LuxCo notes have tumbled since August, taking
prices from between 87 and 85 cents on the dollar to the low 60s.

NII is represented by Scott J. Greenberg --
sgreenberg@jonesday.com -- David G. Heiman --
dgheiman@jonesday.com -- and Carl E. Black -- ceblack@jonesday.com
-- of Jones Day.

The case is In re: NII Holdings Inc., case number 1:14-bk-12611,
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Rapaport, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06401
(E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2014) is brought for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


OWENS & MINOR: Recovered $5.3MM From Anti-Trust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens & Minor, Inc. reported financial results for the third
quarter ended September 30, 2014. The Company said that for the
nine months ended September 30, 2014, consolidated revenues were
$6.95 billion, increased approximately $195.4 million, or 2.9%,
when compared to consolidated revenues for the same period of
2013. Net income for the period was $52.5 million, or $0.84 per
diluted share. Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) was $79.2 million,
or $1.26 per diluted share, excluding after-tax charges of: $6.6
million for acquisition-related activities, $11.0 million for exit
and realignment activities, and the $9.1 million loss on early
retirement of debt. Year-to-date results include the first quarter
recovery of $5.3 million from the settlement of a direct purchaser
anti-trust class action lawsuit, which was included in other
operating income.

Owens & Minor, Inc. (NYSE: OMI) provides logistics services across
the spectrum of medical products from disposable medical supplies
to devices and implants.


PACIFIC GATEWAY: Sued Over Unsafe Policies Against Identity Theft
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Hochstetler and Cirena Torres, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC,
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-04748 (N.D.
Cal., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
intended to safeguard against identity theft and credit and debit
card fraud.

Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC owns, manages, maintains and or
operates retail stores offering various goods and services for
sale to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1010 N. Central Ave.
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
      E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Capacitors-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brooks and Royce Parking Control Systems, Inc. d/b/a Royce
Integrated Solutions, Inc., Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:14-cv-04742 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants and other co-conspirators agreed, combined and
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices, and to
allocate market shares for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors.

Panasonic Corporation manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum
and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through
its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Guido Saveri, Esq.
      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Lisa Saveri, Esq.
      Melissa Shapiro, Esq.
      Travis L. Manfredi, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: guido@saveri.com
              rick@saveri.com
              lisa@saveri.com
              melissa@saveri.com
              travis@saveri.com

         - and -

      Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
      Joel C. Meredith, Esq.
      MEREDITH & NARINE
      100 S. Broad St., Suite 905
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 564-5182
      Facsimile: (267) 687-1628
      E-mail: knarine@m-npartners.com
              jmeredith@m-npartners.com

         - and -

      Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
      SHARP MCQUEEN P.A.
      Financial Plaza, 6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
      Overland Park KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 661-9931 x102
      Facsimile: (913) 661-9935
      E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com


PANDORA MEDIA: Oral Argument Not Set in Video Rental Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No date has been set for oral argument in the appeal in a class
action lawsuit against Pandora Media, Inc., the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed in September 2011
against Pandora in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that the Company violated
Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection
statute by allowing the listeners' listening history to be visible
to the public.  The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was
granted on September 28, 2012, judgment was entered on November
14, 2012. The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing of the appeal was
completed on August 2, 2013. No date has been set for oral
argument.

Pandora Media provides an internet radio service offering a
personalized experience for each listener wherever and whenever
they want to listen to radio on a wide range of smartphones,
tablets, traditional computers and car audio systems, as well as a
range of other internet-connected devices.


PANERA BREAD: Faces "Boswell" Class Action Suit in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Boswell and David Lutton, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Panera Bread Company, a Delaware
Corporation, and Panera LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 4:14-cv-01833-AGF (E.D. Mo., October 29, 2014) asserts
claims for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Coffield, Esq.
          COFFIELD PLC
          5374 Gordonsville Road
          Keswick, VA 22947
          Telephone: (434) 218-3133
          E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com


PAYPAL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shahriar Noorparvar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Paypal, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08280 (C.D.
Cal., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and intentionally contacting the  Plaintiff on the
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Jason Ibey, Esq.
      Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com


PEARSON EDUCATION: Sued by Textbook Authors on Improper Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Gitman and Michael D. Joehnk, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Pearson Education, Inc.,
Pearson PLC, and Pearson, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08626 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 29, 2014) is brought on behalf of authors of textbooks to
seek redress for Pearson's alleged practice of systematically
short-changing textbook authors on the royalties they are owed.

The Plaintiffs are emeritus university professors, who have
authored several widely used finance textbooks and entered into
publishing agreements with various predecessors in interest to
Pearson Education.

Pearson, PLC is a United Kingdom corporation with its principal
offices located in London, England and New York.  Pearson PLC
operates in the United States through its wholly owners
subsidiaries Pearson, Inc., headquartered in New York City, and
Pearson Educational, Inc., headquartered in Saddle River, New
Jersey.

One of Pearson PLC's businesses is educational publishing, and it
is presently one of the largest publishers of educational
textbooks in the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Leigh Smith, Esq.
          MILBERGLLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  lsmith@milberg.com

               - and -

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          380 Lexington A venue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150
          Facsimile: (212) 818-1266
          E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Sobelsohn, Esq.
          THE SOBELSOHN LAW FIRM
          1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (31 0) 775-0504
          Facsimile: (31 0) 861-5205
          E-mail: dsobelsohn@sobelsohnlaw.com


PG&E CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014, that the Court of Appeals has affirmed the
court's ruling to dismiss a class action complaint.

In August 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility (and other
unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek certification of a
class consisting of all California residents who were customers of
the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the Utility collected more than $100
million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose
of various safety measures and operations projects but instead
used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive
compensation and bonuses.  The plaintiffs alleged that PG&E
Corporation and the Utility engaged in unfair business practices
in violation of California state law.  The plaintiffs sought
restitution and disgorgement, as well as compensatory and punitive
damages.  In May 2013, the court granted PG&E Corporation's and
the Utility's request to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
the CPUC has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues
raised by the plaintiffs' allegations.  In October 2014, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the court's ruling to dismiss the complaint.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe it is remote that any
material losses will be incurred in connection with this
complaint.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Evaluating How to Proceed With Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company is evaluating how to proceed
with respect to the class actions following an Oregon Supreme
Court decision on October 2, 2014, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion
County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek
damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the
Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return
on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings until the Public Utility
Commission of Oregon or OPUC responded to a 2002 Order denying all
of the challenges of the Utility Reform Project (URP).  The Oregon
Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to
determine what, if any, remedy can be offered to PGE customers,
through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on
the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

On October 2, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous
decision, affirmed the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals
decision that upheld the OPUC's 2008 Order.  The 2008 Order
required PGE to provide refunds, including interest from September
30, 2000, to customers who received service from the Company
during the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The
URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions separately appealed
the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The October 2, 2014 Oregon Supreme Court decision expressly noted
that the plaintiffs in the class action must address any request
to lift the abatement with the Marion County Circuit Court. PGE is
evaluating how to proceed with respect to the class actions.

Because the class actions remain pending, management believes that
it is reasonably possible that a loss to the Company in excess of
the amounts previously recorded and discussed could result. As
these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad
range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently
not available to determine PGE's potential liability, if any, or
to estimate a range of potential loss.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Federal Securities Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court granted
on October 20, 2014, the motion dismissing the Federal Securities
Class Action with prejudice.

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the
defendants against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company.
After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The
amended complaint generally alleges that statements made to the
Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition
and projected future performance were false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual
defendants are liable for such statements because they are
controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys'
fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014,
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.


RADARIS LLC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Huebner and Irmin Langton, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Radaris, LLC, a Massachusetts limited
liability company, Radaris America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
and Edgar Lopin, an individual, Case No. 3:14-cv-04735 (N.D. Cal.,
October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of owning, operating,
administering, and promoting information-sharing websites and e-
commerce websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
      Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
      COUNSELONE, P.C. 9301
      Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 277-9945
      Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
      E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
              justin@counselonegroup.com


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Suits Against Company and D&Os Now Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Properties of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
certain shareholders of the Company filed putative class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  On June 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court in the
Northern District of Illinois (the Court) dismissed four of the
five lawsuits with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the
Company and its officers and directors. The Court dismissed the
fifth lawsuit without prejudice and granted the plaintiff in that
case permission to file an amended complaint. The amended
complaint did not name the Company or its officers and directors
as defendants. On August 6, 2014, in the fifth lawsuit, the Court
entered judgment in favor of the Company and its officers and
directors. The plaintiffs did not file a timely appeal from the
June 10, 2014 dismissal order and judgments, and the time to
appeal has now expired in all five lawsuits. Consequently, the
lawsuits against the Company and its officers and directors are
now closed.

Retail Properties of America, Inc. is a REIT and is one of the
largest owners and operators of high quality, strategically
located shopping centers in the United States.


SANCTUARY GOLF: Florida Class Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeneen Mensche, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. The Sanctuary Golf Club, Inc., a Florida non-profit
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00631-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., October
29, 2014) seeks to collect unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


SAPPHIRE GENTLEMEN'S: Strip Club Dancers Entitled to Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ritter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that in a
legal decision with wide implications for strip clubs in Sin City,
the Nevada Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 30 that dancers at one Las
Vegas club are employees, not independent contractors, and are
entitled to be paid minimum wage.

The unanimous ruling on Oct. 30 in a 2009 class-action lawsuit
filed on behalf of six dancers at Sapphire Gentlemen's Club could
change the landscape statewide in a business where dancers have
for decades depended on tips and even paid "house fees" to
establishments that allowed them to work.

"Given that Sapphire bills itself as the 'World's Largest Strip
Club,' and not, say, a sports bar or nightclub," the high court
said, "we are confident that the women strip-dancing there are
useful and indeed necessary to its operation."

Mick Rusing, the Tucson, Arizona, attorney who represented
plaintiff Zuri-Kinshasa Maria Terry and five other dancers in the
initial case, said the ruling might directly effect more than
6,500 current and former members of the affected class, dating to
about 2006.

Mr. Rusing said they could be entitled to a combined $40 million
in back wages, plus the return of house fees.

"And it keeps going up every month," Mr. Rusing said.  "As
employees, you get a lot of rights.  The girls are entitled to be
paid.  At very least, minimum wage."

Sapphire officials and the attorneys who represented the company
before the Supreme Court didn't immediately respond to messages.

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Kristina Pickering,
declared clubs are not exempt from provisions of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.  That includes worker compensation and sexual
harassment rules, Rusing said.

"Sapphire argues that the performers had no 'contract of hire' and
alternatively that the performers were not 'in the service of'
Sapphire," the ruling said.

It declares signed entertainment agreements detailing terms under
which Sapphire permitted performers to dance "an express contract
of hire," and dismisses Sapphire's assertions that the performers
"never intended to be employees."

The high court sent the case back to Clark County District Court
for hearings to determine how much the plaintiffs are owed.  The
Nevada state minimum wage is $8.25 per hour, although some service
employees are paid less if they also receive tips.

Ryan Anderson, a Las Vegas attorney who once was involved in the
lawsuit, said the ruling will change forever the relationship
between companies that enlist dancers to entice customers into
their clubs and dancers whose income has been paid by patrons.
Anderson in recent years has been recruiting dancers as potential
clients for independent cases to recover back wages and benefits
at other clubs.

Mr. Anderson guessed there are about two dozen topless, strip and
nude clubs in Las Vegas, and he noted the ruling covers the entire
state.  He said he didn't think the ruling would cripple the
clubs.

Mr. Rusing noted that other courts in other states have issued
similar rulings, and that strip clubs have adopted rules to
comply.

"They're going to have to do business differently," Mr. Anderson
said.  "They're going to have to sit down with an employment
attorney and determine what they're going to have to have when
they hire a dancer."


SCOTT COUNTY, MS: ACLU Class Action Over Indigent Defense Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Jones, writing for The Guilfordian, reports that Oct. 18
marked 11 months of waiting for Octavious Burks.

Mr. Burks spent that time inside the Scott County Detention Center
in Forest, Mississippi, waiting for a grand jury indictment and a
public defender.

On Sept. 23, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class
action lawsuit against Scott County on behalf of Mr. Burks and
Joshua Bassett, another inmate who spent nine months in the same
jail.  The lawsuit alleges that the county violated the inmates'
constitutional rights to counsel, a speedy trial and a fair bail
hearing.

"The ACLU is upset that these people have languished in jail for
eight to 10 months without ever being represented by a lawyer,"
said Jerry Joplin, professor of justice & policy studies.  "That
sounds legitimate to me.  Somebody should not lose their liberty
just because they've been accused of a crime."

Both Messrs. Burks and Basset made initial appearances before
Justice Court Judge Bill Freeman on the days of their respective
arrests, Nov. 18, 2013 and Jan. 3, 2014.  In these initial
appearances, the judge combined several business items into one
shorter session.  But in most other places, judges handle those
tasks in as many as four separate hearings.

"These guys were taken to court with only the arresting officer,
one judge and no lawyer present, and they did the initial
appearance, the preliminary hearing and the bail hearing all at
one time," said Mr. Joplin.

In the suit, the ACLU alleges that this practice violated the
plaintiffs' rights to a fair bail hearing.  The group charges that
Messrs. Burks and Bassett should have had access to a lawyer and
that the judge did not appropriately take their financial status
into account when setting their bail.

"The 14th Amendment provides against unreasonably high bails,"
said Early College senior Porter Jones in an email interview.
"Otherwise, judges could essentially hold every poor individual in
jail without even giving them a (fair) chance at bail."

Neither Messrs. Burks nor Bassett could make their respective
$30,000 and $100,000 bail set at their hearings.

"I only draw a little over $600 a month," said Mr. Bassett's
mother Brenda in an interview with The New York Times.  "I would
give everything I have to get my son out of this mess.  But, I
don't have anything."

After the hearing, both Messrs. Burks and Bassett filed requests
for a public defender from the senior circuit judge, Marcus
Gordon, as allowed by Mississippi law.  Although he approved their
requests, Mr. Gordon refused to appoint an attorney until a grand
jury indicted them.

"The reason (for this) is the public defender would go out and
spend his time and money and cost the county money in
investigating the matter," said Mr. Gordon in a brief interview
with The New York Times.  "And then, sometimes, the defendant is
not indicted by the grand jury."

But Mississippi is one of several states including North Carolina
that do not have limits on how long a defendant can be held
without an indictment.  This allows long delays between the time a
defendant is arrested and the time he receives a lawyer.
"That means no one is advocating for their interests, including
filing and arguing motions for a bond reduction, or investigating
potential defenses," said Danielle Carman, assistant director of
the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services, in an
email interview.

Across Mississippi, similar incidents have occurred.  The state
government does not provide funds for public defenders, putting
already cash-strapped counties in a tight spot when it comes to
providing lawyers.

The problem also extends beyond Mississippi.  The New York Civil
Liberties' Union filed suit against the State of New York for not
providing a statewide public defender system.  The suit, recently
endorsed by the Justice Department, alleges that the lack of a
system strains budgets and leads to shortages of public defenders.

"The right to counsel is one of the core guarantees of the Bill of
Rights, and yet, as countless cases and studies show, indigent
defense systems across the country are facing significant
challenges in meeting their Sixth Amendment obligations," said
Acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General Molly Moran in a statement
released Sept. 25.

Back in Mississippi, the ACLU's fight continues.  The group says
that the county continues to hold dozens of inmates without
indictments.  The suit asks the court to place a permanent
injunction on the county requiring it to release unindicted
inmates after 21 days and individuals who remain without counsel a
week after their arrest.

Additionally, the suit's class-action status will allow other
detainees who believe that the county violated their rights to
join the suit.

But, Messrs. Burks and Bassett will not have to wait for a ruling
to get out of the jail.  As of Oct. 19, Mr. Burks' record listed
him as transferred out of the jail.  Scott County released
Mr. Bassett only two days after the ACLU filed the lawsuit.


SECURITY CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konakova" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Konakova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Security Credit Systems, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-06073 (E.D. Pa., October 24, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for using inappropriate tactics to
collect debt.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of debt collection
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SIRIUS XM: To Appeal Decisions in Pre-1972 Sound Recording Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
intends to appeal decisions by the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles related to
the Pre-1972 Sound Recording Matters.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in three class action suits
and one additional suit, which were commenced in August and
September 2013 and challenge our use and public performance via
satellite radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior
to February 15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida
law. The plaintiffs in each of these suits purport to seek in
excess of $100,000,000 in compensatory damages along with
unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief. We believe we
have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these actions,
and we intend to defend them vigorously. In our opinion, we do not
believe the result of these matters will likely have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations."

"In September 2014, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California ruled that the grant of "exclusive
ownership" to the owner of a sound recording under California's
copyright statute included the exclusive right to control public
performances of the sound recording. The court further found that
the unauthorized public performance of sound recordings violated
California laws on unfair competition, misappropriation and
conversion.

"In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles adopted the Central District Court's
interpretation of "exclusive ownership" under California's
copyright statute.  That Court did not find that the unauthorized
public performance of sound recordings violated California laws on
unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion.

"We intend to appeal both of these decisions."

These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et
al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.),
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-
5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County).


STATE FARM: Colludes to Lowball Repair Shops, Antitrust Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that State Farm and virtually
every other major insurer collude to lowball body-repair shops,
six shops claim in a federal antitrust class action filed in
Phoenix.


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Houser" Suit Over Viptera Corn
----------------------------------------------------
John D. Houser III and Beth Houser, d/b/a Houser Farms,
individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04163 (D.S.C., October
24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain
exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of
planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using
Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William E. Hopkins Jr., Esq.
      HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
      12019 Ocean Highway
      Post Office Box 1885
      Pawleys Island, SC 29585
      Telephone: (843) 314-4202
      Facsimile: (843) 314-9365
      E-mail: bill@hopkinslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Roman A. Shaul, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      Post Office Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: Roman.Shaul@BeasleyAllen.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rail Transfer Suit Over Viptera Corn
---------------------------------------------------------
Rail Transfer, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and, Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-04477 (D. Minn., October 24, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an
adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and
the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing,
harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the
time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com
         - and -

      David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      E-mail: David.Cialkowski@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Caleb LH Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Schram" Suit Over Viptera Corn
----------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Schram, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Seeds Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., Case No. 5:14-cv-04093 (N.D. Iowa,
October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain
exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of
planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using
Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Gray, Esq.
      HEIDMAN LAW FIRM, L.L.P
      1128 Historic Fourth Street
      Sioux City, IA 51101
      Telephone: (712) 255-8838
      Facsimile: (712) 258-6714
      E-mail: john.gray@heidmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher F. Burger, Esq.
      Matthew H. Hoy, Esq.
      STEVENS & BRAND, L.L.P.
      900 Massachusetts Street, Suite 500
      Lawrence, KS 66044
      Telephone: (785) 843-0811
      Facsimile: (785) 843-0341
      E-mail: cburger@stevensbrand.com
              mhoy@stevensbrand.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (205) 238-6757
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 550-4511
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces Suits in Cal. and Fla. Over Air Bag Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal class actions in Los Angeles and Miami accuse air-bag
manufacturer Takata and major automakers of fraudulently
concealing potentially fatal defects in air bag inflators,
Courthouse News Service reports.

Plaintiffs in both cases claim that Takata airbags can violently
explode and expel lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on October 28,
2014, said it had "received notification from BMW, Chrysler, Ford,
Honda, Mazda, Nissan and Toyota that they are conducting limited
regional recalls to address a possible safety defect involving
Takata brand air bag inflators."

The NHTSA said it had received "six reports of air bag inflator
ruptures, all of which occurred in Florida and Puerto Rico."

"Based on the limited data available at this time, NHTSA supports
efforts by automakers to address the immediate risk in areas that
have consistently hot, humid conditions over extended periods of
time," the NHTSA said.

In Los Angeles, lead plaintiff David Takeda et al. seek
certification of a nationwide class, and damages for violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraudulent concealment, false
advertising, unfair competition, breach of implied warranty, and
negligent failure to recall.  They also want the defendants
ordered to repair the affected vehicles as quickly as possible.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          BARON AND BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA  91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2320
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com

The Miami Plaintiff is also represented by:

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, LLP
          City National Bank Building
          25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com


TESCO PLC: Texas Pension Fund Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas pension
fund on Oct. 23 filed a securities class action in New York
federal court against Tesco PLC over the beleaguered U.K.
retailer's omission that it has overstated its profits by œ263
million ($421.4 million), a revelation that sent the company's
stock tumbling.

The lawsuit was brought by the Irving Firemen's Relief and
Retirement Fund which is seeking to represent a class that bought
Tesco shares from Feb. 2 through Sept. 22 -- the day the company
revealed the problem.  Tesco made false and misleading statements
to investors about the company's financial situation, the
retirement fund claims.

Former Tesco CEO Philip Clarke, who has since been replaced by
David Lewis, and former chief financial officer Laurie McIlwee,
who resigned in April, months before the accounting irregularities
were revealed, are also named in the lawsuit as individual
defendants.

IFRRF is a pension fund for retired firefighters that is funded
through its participants' contributions, the City of Irving,
Texas, and investment earnings, according to the pension's
investment guidelines.  According to the complaint, IFRRF
purchased what are known as American Depository Shares.

Tesco shares fell 15 percent after the problem was revealed,
dropping from $11.29 on Sept. 19 to as low as $9.61 on Sept. 22
when the news broke.  The lawsuit says Tesco stock plummeted 43
percent from a high of $16.97 percent at the beginning of the
class period

"Defendants' wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, directly and
proximately caused the economic loss suffered by plaintiff and the
class," the lawsuit said.

Messages sent on Oct. 24 to the chair of the pension fund, Heidle
Baskin, and an attorney were not immediately returned. Tesco could
not immediately be reached for comment.

The complaint was filed the same day Tesco announced the results
of an independent investigation by accounting firm Deloitte
showing that the size of the overstatement was greater than the
company originally projected.  In Tesco's original announcement,
the retailer projected the overstatement at œ250 million.

Tesco said the Deloitte report will be passed along to the
appropriate regulators, including the U.K.'s Financial Conduct
Authority which announced earlier in October that it would
investigate that matter.  Tesco Chairman Richard Broadbent also
announced at that time that he intends to leave the company.

Tesco is one of the largest grocers in the world, with more than
3,300 stores in the U.K. alone.  The company also has operations
in several other countries, including India, China, Thailand and
South Korea.

Even before the substantial accounting problem was revealed, Tesco
was facing competition in the U.K. and abroad.  In an interview
posted on Tesco's website, new CEO Lewis said the company needs to
refocus on its core U.K. business and rebuild trust with
customers.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Guglielrno, Donald A.
Broggi, Tom Laughlin and David Scott of Scott + Scott, Attorneys
At Law, LLP.

The case is Irving Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund v. Tesco
PLC, et al., case number 14-cv-8495, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


TRANSCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreement Reached in Continuum Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transcept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on October
3, 2014, Continuum Capital filed a purported shareholder class
action on behalf of themselves and the other stockholders of the
company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Contra Costa, against the Company, its current directors, and
Paratek. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in
connection with the proposed merger and acted on the basis of
alleged conflicts of interests, and that the Company's
registration statement dated September 29, 2014 contains material
misstatements and omissions. The lawsuit also alleges that Paratek
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty. The complaint
seeks, among other things, a declaration that the Company and its
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, injunctive
relief including enjoining the merger of Paratek into Merger Sub.
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and the issuance of shares
of the Company to the Paratek stockholders pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, and an award of compensatory damages and attorney's
fees.

On October 20, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement-in-
principle providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the
action on the terms and conditions set forth in a stipulation of
settlement that will be filed with the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Contra Costa. Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement, the Company made certain disclosures in a current
report filing on Form 8-K, which was filed with the SEC on October
20, 2014, and which amended and supplemented the Definitive Proxy
Statement filed by the Company on October 2, 2014 in connection
with the proposed merger. Under the settlement, the parties also
agreed to an award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of
expenses in the amount of $550,000. The settlement and award of
fees and expenses remains subject to the approval of the court in
the action. This settlement is included in general and
administration expenses for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2014.

Transcept Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of proprietary
products that address important therapeutic needs in the field of
neuroscience.


TRANSFORM YACHT: "Molina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ada Molina, and other similarly situated individuals v. Transform
Yacht Modification Corporation, a Florida profit corporation and
Steven Tran, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23956 (S.D. Fla.,
October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Yacht Modification Corporation is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, building and repairing sailing yacht.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Oregon Plaintiffs Drop Injunction Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Oregon class actions against Triquint
Semiconductor, Inc. won't pursue their request for a preliminary
injunction, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014.

Since the public announcement of the proposed business combination
with RF Micro Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five
putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with
the proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the
Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts
vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-02441,
filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al.,
Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014.

The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et
al., Case No. 9415-VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v.
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on
March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et
al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014.

Each of these lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of
the Company's stockholders against the Company, the individual
members of the Company's board of directors, RFMD, Qorvo, Inc.
(formerly Rocky Holding, Inc.), and/or the subsidiaries of Qorvo,
Inc. that will be used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in
each of these lawsuits generally seek, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the
mergers, rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an
accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees
and costs, and other relief.

On April 29, 2014, the Oregon trial court orally granted the
plaintiff's motions to consolidate the Roberts and Lam actions.
TriQuint moved to dismiss the Oregon actions, which the trial
court denied on August 14, 2014. The Company filed a petition for
writ of mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court on October 3, 2014,
asking that court to take immediate review of the trial court's
decision and is waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling
about whether it will immediately review the trial court decision.
As of August 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Oregon actions
informed the trial court that they would not pursue their request
for a preliminary injunction.


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: No Further Activity in Del. Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
There has been no further activity in the Delaware class actions
against Triquint Semiconductor, Inc. since the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2014.

Since the public announcement of the proposed business combination
with RF Micro Devices, Inc. ("RFMD") on February 24, 2014, five
putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company, its directors, RFMD, and others in connection with
the proposed mergers. Two of the five actions were filed in the
Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon: (1) Roberts
vs. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 1402-02441,
filed on February 28, 2014; and (2) Lam v. Steven J. Sharp et al.,
Case No. 1403-02757, filed on March 6, 2014.

The other three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware: (1) Philemon v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et
al., Case No. 9415-VCN, filed on March 5, 2014; (2) Schmitz v.
TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et al., Case No. 9427-VCN, filed on
March 7, 2014; and (3) Wallace v. TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. et
al., Case No. 9429-VCN, filed on March 10, 2014.

Each of these lawsuits was filed on behalf of a putative class of
the Company's stockholders against the Company, the individual
members of the Company's board of directors, RFMD, Qorvo, Inc.
(formerly Rocky Holding, Inc.), and/or the subsidiaries of Qorvo,
Inc. that will be used to effect the mergers. The plaintiffs in
each of these lawsuits generally seek, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the
mergers, rescission of the mergers if they are completed, an
accounting by defendants, rescissionary damages, attorney's fees
and costs, and other relief.

On April 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
actions filed in Delaware under the caption In re TriQuint
Semiconductor, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9415-VCN. On
May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint in the consolidated action and on May 12, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants
from taking any action to complete the proposed mergers. The
Company opposed the motion for expedited proceedings, and the
court denied the motion for expedited proceedings on June 13,
2014. There has been no further activity in the Delaware lawsuits
since the court denied plaintiffs' motion for expedited
proceedings.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Car Buyers' Suits Settled for Immaterial Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that the
Company has settled, for an amount that is immaterial to the
Company, certain purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf
of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers, alleging that the
Company and certain of its competitors conspired to fix and raise
prices for Occupant Safety Systems products. These lawsuits were
filed on various dates from June 2012 through July 2013 and were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan. Once the court approves the settlements,
those cases will be dismissed.

The Company has also settled, for an amount that is immaterial to
the Company, similar cases filed in various courts in Canada on
behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors, dealers and direct
purchasers.

Class action lawsuits filed against the Company on various dates
from June 2012 through May 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of direct
purchasers remain pending, which the Company intends to vigorously
defend. Management believes that the ultimate resolution of those
cases will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

TRW is among the world's largest and most diversified suppliers of
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and related
aftermarkets.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Actions Over Merger Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. on September 15, 2014, entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with ZF Friedrichshafen AG, a
stock corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany ("ZF"), and MSNA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Merger Sub") and a wholly owned subsidiary of ZF
held directly by ZF North America, Inc. ("ZNA"), pursuant to which
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "ZF
Merger") with the Company surviving the ZF Merger as an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of ZF. The Board of Directors of the
Company unanimously approved the Merger Agreement and resolved to
recommend that the Company's stockholders vote to adopt the Merger
Agreement.

TRW said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 26, 2014, that following the announcement of the
execution of the Merger Agreement on September 15, 2014, seven
purported stockholders of the Company initiated legal actions
challenging the merger.

On September 19, 2014, purported stockholder New Jersey Laborers
Pension Fund filed a putative class action complaint in the
Oakland County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan against the
Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub, and the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Company Board"), in an action styled New
Jersey Laborers Pension Fund vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et
al., No. 2014-143032-CB.

On September 26, 2014, purported stockholder Joseph Bidwell filed
a putative class action complaint in the Wayne County Circuit
Court in the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA,
Merger Sub, and the members of the Company Board, in an action
styled Bidwell vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 14-
012463-CB.

On October 3, 2014, purported stockholder Daniel Fumia filed a
putative class action complaint in Wayne County Circuit Court in
the State of Michigan against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub,
and the members of the Company Board, in an action styled Daniel
Fumia v. James F. Albaugh, Francois J. Castaing, Robert L.
Friedman, Michael R. Gambrell, J. Michael Losh, David W. Meline,
Jody G. Miller, MSNA, Inc., John C. Plant, Neil P. Simpkins, David
S. Taylor, TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., ZF Friedrichshafen AG,
ZF North America, Inc., No. 14-012818-CB.

On October 6, 2014, purported stockholder Alan Abramson filed a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Company, the members of the Company
Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in an action styled Abramson vs. TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10203-VCL.

On October 15, 2014, purported stockholder Zhao Nie filed a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Company, ZF, ZNA, Merger Sub and the
Company Board in an action styled Nie vs. TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp., et al., No. 10236-VCL.

On October 21, 2014, purported stockholder Luther Berry and
purported stockholder I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund
each filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members
of the Company Board, ZF and Merger Sub, in actions styled Berry
vs. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10264-VCL and
I.U.O.E. Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund vs. TRW Automotive
Holdings Corp., et al., No. 10265-VCL, respectively.

The complaints include claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the individual directors, alleging that the directors violated the
duties of loyalty, good faith and due care owed to the Company's
stockholders. The complaints also include claims for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek, among
other forms of relief, an order enjoining the transaction,
rescinding the Merger Agreement to the extent it has already been
implemented, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of these
litigation matters with certainty, the Company and the Company
Board believe that the claims raised in these complaints are
without merit and intend to defend their position in these matters
vigorously. The lawsuits are in their early stages. Management
believes that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing legal
actions will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.

TRW is among the world's largest and most diversified suppliers of
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs, and related
aftermarkets.


UNITED BUILDING: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Soto and Oscar Chavez, on behalf themselves and other
similarly situated persons v. United Building Maintenance, Inc.
d/b/a UBM Facility Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08378 (N.D.
Ill., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
unlawful deductions, liquidated damages and other penalties, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

United Building Maintenance, Inc. operates a janitorial and
building maintenance company that contracts with private and
public entities, including Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago
White Sox, Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
      Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC.
      332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1020
      Chicago, Illinois 60604
      Telephone: (312) 957-9005
      Facsimile: (773) 890-7780
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com
              pgonzalez@law-rb.com


UNITED STATES: EFF 4th Amendment Fight vs. NSA's Spying Continues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Agency illegally searches and seizes
Americans' Internet communications, class plaintiffs continue to
argue in California Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar at
Courthouse News Service.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the high-profile
domestic spying case Jewel v. NSA in 2008, submitted a brief
October 24 responding to the government's opposition to a motion
for partial summary judgment in September.  The privacy advocacy
group also filed a motion the same day to strike a secret brief
filed by the government.

In its new brief, the EFF strikes back against what it calls on
its website "the government's various attempts at constitutional
circumvention."

The EFF has argued that the government, by tapping fiber-optic
cables of telecommunications companies and copying the data stream
without a warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.

The government claims it cannot disclose how its data collection
program -- known as "Upstream" -- works, on national security
grounds.

It's partially on those grounds that the government sought
dismissal of the EFF's claims.

The Jewel case stems from a 2006 revelation by a former AT&T
technician that the company was routing copies of emails, Web
browsing data and other Internet information to a secret NSA-
controlled location in San Francisco.

The EFF claims in its new brief that tapping into fiber-optic
cables is a seizure, even if the government does not physically
take something, such as a hard drive.

It also claims that using a computer program to scan for data is a
constitutional breach, because Americans have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in online communication.

In filing its motion to strike the government's secret brief, the
EFF claims that allowing the government to make a secret legal
argument without letting plaintiffs respond would be "an
extraordinary violation of due process," the EFF said on its
website.

The case is due for oral arguments on Dec. 19 in Oakland before
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cindy Cohn, Esq.
          Lee Tien, Esq.
          Kurt Opsahl, Esq.
          James S. Tyre, Esq.
          Mark Rumold, Esq.
          Andrew Crocker, Esq.
          David Greene, Esq.
          ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
          815 Eddy Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 436-9333
          Facsimile: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org
                  tien@eff.org
                  andrew@eff.org
                  davidg@eff.org

               - and -

          Richard R. Wiebe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Rachael E. Meny, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Berkowitz, Esq.
          Michael S. Kwun, Esq.
          Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Esq.
          Justina K. Sessions, Esq.
          Philip J. Tassin, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rmeny@kvn.com
                  bberkowitz@kvn.com
                  mkwun@kvn.com
                  ahadlock@kvn.com
                  jsessions@kvn.com
                  ptassin@kvn.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Moore III, Esq.
          ROYSE LAW FIRM, PC
          1717 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 813-9700
          Facsimile: (650) 813-9777
          E-mail: tmoore@rroyselaw.com

               - and -

          Aram Antaramian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARAM ANTARAMIAN
          1714 Blake Street
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Telephone: (510) 289-1626
          E-mail: aram@eff.org

The case is Carolyn Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency, et
al., Case No. 4:08-cv-4373-JSW, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Heads to Trial Over Hepatitis C Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
there's no question that UnitedHealth Group Inc. wishes its HMO
subsidiaries had steered clear of Dr. Dipak Desai, a Nevada clinic
owner who sparked a massive hepatitis C outbreak by reusing vials
of the sedative propofol.  But should UHG have to pay the price
for including the criminally negligent doctor in its HMO provider
networks?

That's the billion-dollar question facing UHG in a trial now
gearing up in state court in Las Vegas, as well as in an ongoing
appeal of a previous blockbuster verdict.  In hopes of persuading
jurors to answer in the negative, the company tapped the
powerhouse litigation boutique Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott to lead its defense in the upcoming trial.  And it recently
roped in Hogan Lovells appellate whiz Neal Katyal --
neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- to help overturn the earlier
verdict, said to be the largest in Nevada state court history.

Jury selection is now underway in the latest trial, which is
expected to begin in earnest in early November.  The case is one
of about a dozen targeting UHG and its subsidiaries that are now
wending their way through Nevada's courts, all brought on behalf
of patients who contracted Hepatitis C between 2004 and 2008.
They say the disease was transmitted during endoscopies at
Dr. Desai's Las Vegas clinic, where staff allegedly infected
patients by improperly double-dipping from single-use vials of
propofol and ignoring other safety protocols.

Dr. Desai was tried and convicted on multiple charges related to
the Hep C outbreak in July 2013.  He received a life sentence on
counts that included second-degree murder.

After the outbreak, Robert Eglet of Las Vegas plaintiffs firm
Eglet Wall Christiansen and Rick Friedman of Bremerton, Wash.-
based Friedman Rubin filed about two dozen lawsuits against UHG
subsidiary Health Plan of Nevada and another smaller HMO.  In each
case, they argue that the HMO was negligent for including
Dr. Desai and his clinic in its preferred health care provider
network.  They allege that the HMO kept Desai in its network even
after learning of sloppy and potentially dangerous practices at
the clinic.

Mr. Eglet tried the first case in early 2013 on behalf of two
clinic patients who contracted the disease, winning a $524 million
verdict that was later reduced to $366 million. Friedman tried the
second case early this year -- opposite new defense counsel and
before a different judge -- and walked away with a relatively
paltry $1.25 million verdict.  Before the trial, in which the
plaintiffs sought $2.5 billion, UnitedHealth brought in Bartlit
Beck to try the case along with the company's lawyers at Las
Vegas-based Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial. Philip Beck
led UHG's trial team in the case, which has since been resolved as
part of a confidential global settlement of Friedman's other
cases.

In the current trial, Mr. Eglet and his cocounsel, Will Kemp of
Kemp Jones & Coulthard, will square off against a trial team by
Bartlit Beck's Donald Scott -- donald.scott@bartlit-beck.com
UGH, which is also represented by Weinberg Wheeler and by Holland
& Hart's Constance Akridge, faces potential damages that could top
$1 billion.  Trial in the case, Paul v. Health Plan of Nevada, is
expected to last 12 weeks.
Meanwhile, UHG is battling to overturn the first trial verdict at
the Supreme Court of Nevada.  It's also fighting to fend off
efforts by the plaintiffs to derail the appeal entirely -- and
perhaps force a retrial that could result in an even bigger
verdict.

Mr. Eglet asked the state's high court to toss the appeal in
August, on the grounds that UHG and its lawyers withheld key
evidence in the case that tainted the trial.  Thanks to belated
discovery in another case, Mr. Eglet claims, the plaintiffs
uncovered documents showing that top HMO executives learned of a
whistleblower's malpractice allegations in 1997.  Mr. Eglet claims
that UHG and its lawyers knew of the revelations but committed
"fraud on the court" by keeping them under wraps before and during
the original 2013 trial.

UnitedHealth has responded that the newly surfaced documents
aren't evidence that witnesses made false statements at trial.  On
Oct. 10, the appeals court ruled that the issue should be lodged
before the trial court judge for now.

Hogan Lovells' Katyal formally joined UHG's appellate team last
month, joining a lineup that includes Dan Poulsenberg --
DPolsenberg@LRRLaw.com -- and Joel Henriod -- JHenriod@LRRLaw.com
-- of Las Vegas-based Lewis Roca Rothgerber.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Posts $27.6MM After-Tax Charge Related to Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE: UHS) said in its filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
that an after-tax charge of $27.6 million ($44.0 million pre-tax),
or $.27 per diluted share, incurred in connection with a $65
million settlement of Garden City Employees' Retirement System v.
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI"), Joey A. Jacobs, Brent Turner
and Jack E. Polson. This matter was a shareholder class action
lawsuit filed in 2009 against PSI and certain of its former
officers alleging their violations of federal securities laws and
UHS assumed the defense and liability of this matter as a result
of its acquisition of PSI in 2010. The charge incurred during the
third quarter of 2014 is net of approximately $16 million of
commercial insurance recoveries that UHS was entitled to and a
previously recorded estimated reserve.

Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS") -- http://www.uhsinc.com
-- is one of the nation's largest hospital companies operating
through its subsidiaries acute care hospitals, behavioral health
facilities and ambulatory centers located throughout the United
States, the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. It acts as the advisor to Universal Health Realty Income
Trust, a real estate investment trust (NYSE:UHT).


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Sued for Violating ADA, FMLA and FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Young v. U.P.M.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-01467-CB (W.D. Pa.,
October 29, 2014) is brought pursuant to The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Laura Young is a former employee of the Defendant and a resident
of Gibsonia, Pennsylvania.

UPMC is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with a place
of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik M. Yurkovich, Esq.
          207 Pine Creek Road
          Building 1, Suite 201
          Wexford, PA 15090
          Telephone: (724) 933-9199
          E-mail: Erik.Yurkovich@gmail.com


VERISK ANALYTICS: Final Approval of Interthinx Litigation in 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. anticipates preliminary and final approval
of a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release resolving the
Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl matters to occur in 2014 and 2015,
respectively, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics,
Inc. and Jeffrey Moyer. The plaintiff is a current employee of the
Company's former subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado,
who filed the class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection
employees who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years
nationwide and who were classified as exempt employees. The class
complaint claims that the fraud detection employees were
misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied
certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they
were properly classified as non-exempt employees. It pleads three
causes of action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid
commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Shabnam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and
Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former
subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action
on behalf of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as
auditors, mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors
nationwide at any time (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of
this action until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class and (ii) within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial
complaint until trial for the California collective action. The
class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting time
penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the
plaintiffs as required by federal and California law. It pleads
seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and IWC
Wage Order No. 4; (3) Failure to pay waiting time penalties in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to
provide itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226 and IWC Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or
authorize meal and rest periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
section 226.7 and IWC Order No. 4; (6) Violation of California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement
claim, Cal. Lab. Code section 2699 (California class). The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, equitable and injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 14, 2013, the Company received notice of a claim titled
Dejan Nagl v. Interthinx Services, Inc. filed in the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The claimant, Dejan Nagl,
a former mortgage auditor at the Company's former subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the claim on behalf of
himself and all current and former individuals employed in
California as auditors by Interthinx, Inc. for violations of the
California Labor Code and Wage Order. The claimant alleges on
behalf of himself and other auditors the following causes of
action: (1) Failure to provide rest breaks and meal periods in
violation of Lab. Code sections 226.7, 514 and 1198; (2) Failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of Lab. Code sections 510 and
1194; (3) Failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation
of Lab. Code section 226; (4) Failure to timely pay wages in
violation of Lab. Code section 204; and (5) Failures to timely pay
wages for violations of Lab. Code sections 201- 203. The claim
seeks compensatory damages and penalties that are associated with
the various statutes, costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2014, the Company sold 100 percent of the stock of
Interthinx.  Pursuant to the terms of the sale agreement, the
Company is responsible for the resolution of these matters.

In October 2014, the parties agreed to a Joint Stipulation of
Settlement and Release resolving the Shaw, Dehdashtian and Nagl
matters. The Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release provides
for a payment of $6,000,000, the majority of which is to be paid
by insurance, but is subject to Preliminary and Final Approval by
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
which the Company anticipates to occur in 2014 and 2015,
respectively.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data
that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision
support solutions. The Company is one of the largest aggregators
and providers of data pertaining to property and casualty ("P&C")
insurance risks in the United States of America ("U.S."). The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. P&C
insurance, financial and healthcare industries and sophisticated
methods to predict and quantify loss in diverse contexts ranging
from natural catastrophes to supply chain to health insurance. The
Company provides solutions, including data, statistical models or
tailored analytics, all designed to allow clients to make more
logical decisions.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Plaintiffs File Appeal in ISO Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed their Notice of Appeal in the Insurance
Services Office, Inc. Litigation, Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In October 2013, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in an action titled Laurence J.
Skelly and Ellen Burke v. Insurance Services Office, Inc. and the
Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations. The plaintiffs, former
employees of our subsidiary Insurance Services Office, Inc., or
ISO, bring the action on their own behalf as participants in the
Pension Plan for Insurance Organizations and on the behalf of
similarly situated participants of the pension plan and ask the
court to declare that a certain amendment to the pension plan as
of December 31, 2001, which terminated their right to calculate
and define the value of their retirement benefit under the pension
plan based on their compensation levels as of immediately prior to
their "retirement" (the "Unlawful Amendment"), violated the anti-
cutback provisions and equitable principles of ERISA.

The First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
alleges that (1) the Unlawful Amendment of the pension plan
violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA as well as the anti-cutback
rules of ERISA Section 204(g) and Section 411(d)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code; (2) ISO's failure to provide an ERISA
204(h) notice in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average pension plan participant was a violation of Sections
204(h) and 102(a) of ERISA; and (3) the Living Pension Right was a
contract right under ERISA common law and that by terminating that
right through the Unlawful Amendment ISO violated plaintiffs'
common law contract rights under ERISA. The Amended Complaint
seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief enjoining the
enforcement of the Unlawful Amendment and ordering the pension
plan and ISO retroactive to the date of the Unlawful Amendment to
recalculate the accrued benefits of all class members,
indemnification from ISO to the pension plan for costs and
contribution requirements related to voiding the Unlawful
Amendment, bonuses to the class representatives, costs and
attorney's fees.

On September 12, 2014, the District Court granted ISO's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint finding that ISO provided ample,
clear and sufficient notice of the 2002 Amendment to the Plan and
that plaintiffs' claims were time barred. Plaintiffs filed their
Notice of Appeal on October 14, 2014.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to, this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data
that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision
support solutions. The Company is one of the largest aggregators
and providers of data pertaining to property and casualty ("P&C")
insurance risks in the United States of America ("U.S."). The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. P&C
insurance, financial and healthcare industries and sophisticated
methods to predict and quantify loss in diverse contexts ranging
from natural catastrophes to supply chain to health insurance. The
Company provides solutions, including data, statistical models or
tailored analytics, all designed to allow clients to make more
logical decisions.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Snyder" Plaintiffs File 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et
al., filed their Second Amended Complaint, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

On August 1, 2014 the Company was served with an Amended Complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado titled Snyder, et. al. v. ACORD Corp., et al. The action
is brought by nineteen individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class, against more than 120
defendants, including the Company and its subsidiary, Insurance
Services Office, Inc. or ISO. Except for the Company, ISO and the
defendant Acord Corporation, which provides standard forms to
assist in insurance transactions, most of the other defendants are
property and casualty insurance companies that plaintiffs claim
conspired to underpay property damage claims. Plaintiffs claim
that the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law.

On September 8, 2014, the Court entered an Order striking the
Amended Complaint and granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a
new complaint.

On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint that continues to allege that the defendants conspired
to underpay property damage claims, but does not specifically
allege what role the Company or ISO played in the alleged
conspiracy. The Second Amended Complaint similarly alleges that
the Company and ISO, along with all of the other defendants,
violated state and federal antitrust and racketeering laws as well
as state common law, and seeks all available relief including,
injunctive, statutory, actual and punitive damages as well as
attorneys' fees.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this matter.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides its customers proprietary data
that, combined with analytic methods, create embedded decision
support solutions. The Company is one of the largest aggregators
and providers of data pertaining to property and casualty ("P&C")
insurance risks in the United States of America ("U.S."). The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. P&C
insurance, financial and healthcare industries and sophisticated
methods to predict and quantify loss in diverse contexts ranging
from natural catastrophes to supply chain to health insurance. The
Company provides solutions, including data, statistical models or
tailored analytics, all designed to allow clients to make more
logical decisions.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Faces 5 Antitrust Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that since July
18, 2014, the Company has been named as a defendant in purported
antitrust class action complaints filed by:

1) Yana Bashmadin, Louis-Alexandre Leclair and Archie Martin, each
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of
Montreal;

2) Chip-Tech, Ltd., David A. Bennett, Dependable Component Supply
Corp., Everett Ellis, et al., Quathimatine Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Schuten Electronics, Inc., Home Tech Solutions Corp., and Steve
Wong, each in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California;

3) Cygnus Electronic Corporation in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice;

4) eIQ Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey; and

5) Sara Ramsay in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The case filed by eIQ Energy has since been transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaints allege restraints of trade in aluminum and tantalum
electrolytic capacitors, and in some cases, film capacitors, by
the Company and other manufacturers, and seek injunctive relief
and unspecified joint and several treble damages.  The Company
intends to defend vigorously against the complaints.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Contaminated Baby Wipes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal class action claims Wal-Mart and a manufacturer posed
"extreme dangers to infant children," citing a warning that the
manufacturer's baby wipes may be contaminated with bacteria.

Lead plaintiff Sam Lopez sued Wal-Mart, Nutek Disposables and
First Quality Enterprises on Oct. 20 in San Francisco.

A similar federal class action was filed Oct. 27 in New York.

According to Lopez's complaint, Sam's Club, which is owned by Wal-
Mart, issued a warning on Oct. 10 that some of Nutek's Simply
Right baby wipes, sold from June 30, could be contaminated with B.
cepacia bacteria.

Sam's Club said the bacteria poses little medical risk to healthy
people, but could affect people with weakened immune systems or
chronic lung disease, particularly cystic fibrosis.

The company pulled the product from its shelves and asked
customers to discontinue use, according to the complaint.

Lopez claims that defendants "did not adequately monitor the
manufacture and design of the products, and allowed the hazardous
products to be sold in the United States."

Nutek has initiated a nationwide product recall of baby wipes,
according to an Oct. 25 company statement distributed by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

It says it has received "numerous" complaints, including of rash,
irritation, infections, fever, gastro-intestinal issues and
respiratory issues.

Affected brand names include Cuties, Diapers.com, Femtex, Fred's,
Kidgets, Member's Mark, Simply Right, Sunny Smiles, Tender Touch
and Well Beginnings.

Lopez seeks class certification, restitution and damages for
breach of implied warranty and business code violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: "Maryland" Suit Moved to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant MV Transportation Inc. removed the class action lawsuit
titled Maryland, et al. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, et al., Case No. CAL 14-24334, from the Circuit Court
for Prince George's County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-03397-TDC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants willfully and unlawfully
maintain employment policies that violate the Transportation Code.

Defendant MV Transportation Inc. is represented by:

          John Steven Bolesta, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          1909 K St NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-0255
          Facsimile: (202) 887-0866
          E-mail: john.bolesta@ogletreedeakins.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Class Action Over Landfill Odor
---------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Barkhurst, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that the
operator of a Coconut Creek landfill and a group of nearby
residents who say they suffer from its smell have reached a
settlement in a class action lawsuit.

The settlement would require Waste Management to do more to
contain the smell at the Monarch Hill Landfill, sometimes called
"Mount Trashmore" by locals.

It would also award $500 to those living within a two-mile radius
who complained to Broward County about the odor between mid-2009
and mid-2014.

A judge will decide Jan. 9 whether the settlement is fair, and if
so, those who qualify would have to fill out a form to get their
money, said attorney Spencer Aronfeld, who filed the lawsuit in
June 2013.

"Is it enough?" Mr. Aronfeld said.  "It's never enough, when
you're doing these kinds of lawsuits.  It's not enough if it's
$500, $5,000, $50,000 . . . But when we take these cases on, the
main goal is to get the problem corrected."

Waste Management would have to install a small arsenal of new odor
control equipment that will make the landfill's gas collection
system "more efficient" and better able to immediately mitigate
smells when they arise, the settlement says.

The settlement would also mean no one else can sue Waste
Management for smells the landfill emitted from mid-2009 to mid-
2014, the time period the lawsuit encompasses.

As part of the settlement, Waste Management does not admit the
company has any "liability or wrongdoing" connected with landfill
smells.

Waste Management "does a very good job of being a good neighbor,"
said spokeswoman Dawn McCormick.  The landfill spends
"considerable dollars" every year on odor control.

"We go above and beyond what's required by environmental law to
reduce odors and not have issues," she said.

Monarch Hill has had odor problems in the past.  It paid $1.6
million in improvements and fines to Broward County last January
as part of a settlement over repeated citations for odor
violations between May and October of 2012.

The current suit covers the period from July 1, 2009, to June 30,
2014, because that was the negotiated time period, Mr. Aronfeld
said. Waste Management wanted it shorter, attorneys for the
residents wanted it longer.

This settlement might come at a time when Monarch Hill really is
less smelly than it used to be.

Last summer, the landfill stopped accepting food and other
materials that decay.  That was part of an agreement Waste
Management and the city of Coconut Creek hammered out in 2010,
when the city threatened to sue over the smell.

The change was expected to reduce odors, Coconut Creek
commissioners said at the time.

Odor complaints for Monarch Hill have slowed over the last year,
said Sermin Turegun, Broward County environmental licensing
manager.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Niemeyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Weatherford International, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-03068
(S.D. Tex., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours in excess of 40 per
work week.

Weatherford International, LLC is one of the largest oilfield
services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


WESTFALL MASONRY: Faces "Arredondo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Ramirez Arredondo and Mario Gustavo Ramirez Arredondo, and
all others similarly situated v. Westfall Masonry, Inc. and Andrew
Westfall, Case No. 1:14-cv-02370 (N.D. Ohio, October 24, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

Westfall Masonry, Inc. is a masonry company, providing services
such as building cement walls in Ohio and in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan I. Voudris
      Brad Levine, Esq.
      VOUDRIS Law LLC
      Ste. 8, 8401 Chagrin Road
      Bainbridge Township, OH 44023
      Telephone: (440) 543-0670
      Facsimile: (440) 543-0721
      E-mail: svoudris@me.com
              blevine@voudrislaw.com


WORD SMART: Called People on "Do Not Call Registry," FTC Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Marks, writing for The Albuquerque Journal, reports that
parents can be vulnerable when it comes to a product or service
that promises to boost their children's IQ or grade-point average
or SAT score or math and reading abilities or college-essay
writing skills and so on and so on.

Some marketers even offer a money-back guarantee.  That was the
case with a company called WordSmart Corp., which recently agreed
to settle charges filed by the Federal Trade Commission.  It
promised that using Word Smart for 20 hours would guarantee
students could improve letter grades by at least one GPA point and
SAT scores by at least 200 points, for example.

The FTC accused the company of having no substantiation for its
claims.  The agency also alleged that "WordSmart called people on
the Do Not Call Registry, contacted people who had specifically
asked the company not to call them, and failed to connect calls to
a sales representative within two seconds of the completed
greeting, as required by law."

WordSmart sold its programs on its website and through
telemarketing, charging between $15 and $300 for each program,
according to the FTC.

Many companies that market educational improvement are legitimate
businesses, but there's at least one good lesson from the FTC's
settlement with WordSmart.

If a telemarketer claims to be calling because your child has
expressed interest in the company's products, double-check.

And if the firm says it is affiliated with local schools or
national standardized testing companies, double-check that as
well.


WORLD WRESTLING: Sued by Wrestler for Hiding Brain Injury Dangers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment deceived its wrestlers for years of
the dangers of traumatic brain injuries, a former wrestler claims
in a federal class action, reports Courthouse News Service.

World Wrestling thus joins the NFL, NHL, professional soccer and
the NCAA as a defendant in class actions accusing them of
concealing and denying medical research that shows the
debilitating effects of multiple concussions and the traumatic
brain injuries from it.

Lead plaintiff William Albert Haynes III, who wrestled under the
name of Billy Jack Haynes, sued WWE on Oct. 23.

His lawsuit tracks the claims made by hundreds or thousands of
other athletes in other sports.  Claiming that "WWE is in the
business of selling violence," Haynes accuses WWE of "egregious
mistreatment of its wrestlers for its own benefit, as well as its
concealment and denial of medical research and evidence concerning
traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE wrestlers.  Under the
guise of providing 'entertainment,' WWE has, for decades,
subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that it
knew, or should have known, caused long-term irreversible bodily
damage, including brain damage.  For most of its history, WWE has
engaged in a campaign of misinformation and deception to prevent
its wrestlers from understanding the true nature and consequences
of the injuries they have sustained.  WWE's representations,
actions, and inactions have caused its wrestlers to suffer from
death, long-term debilitating injuries, lost profits, premature
retirement, medical expenses, and other losses."

Haynes seeks class certification and punitive damages for
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
and liability for abnormally dangerous activities.

He also seeks medical monitoring for the class, to be paid for
through a trust fund, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Larson, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com

                           *     *     *

Kevin Harden, writing for Portland Tribune, reports that
Billy Jack Haynes wants to give World Wrestling Entertainment
Inc.'s head-smacking, money-making "soap opera" a federal court
body slam because of what he says is the international sports
giant's disregard for wrestlers' safety.

Billy Jack -- 61-year-old Gaston resident William Albert Haynes
III -- is suing WWE in federal court for "egregious mistreatment
of its wrestlers for its own benefit, as well as its concealment
and denial of medical research and evidence concerning traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE wrestlers," according to the 42-
page lawsuit filed Thursday, Oct. 23, in Portland's U.S. District
Court.

Mr. Haynes is also asking the court to grant class-action status
for what his lawyers say could be 500 people who suffered injuries
while wrestling or performing in the WWE ring.

"Under the guise of providing 'entertainment,' WWE has, for
decades, subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality
that it knew, or should have known, caused long-term irreversible
bodily damage, including brain damage," according to the lawsuit
filed by Portland attorneys Steve D. Larson and Joshua L. Ross of
the firm Stoll Stoll Bernie Lokting & Schlachter.  "For most of
its history, WWE has engaged in a campaign of misinformation and
deception to prevent its wrestlers from understanding the true
nature and consequences of the injuries they have sustained.
WWE's representations, actions, and inactions have caused its
wrestlers to suffer from death, long-term debilitating injuries,
lost profits, premature retirement, medical expenses, and other
losses as alleged herein."

WWE officials said on Oct. 25 that Mr. Haynes' lawsuit did not
take into account that the company has been "well ahead of sports
organizations in implementing concussion management procedures and
policies as a precautionary measure as the science and research on
this issue emerged."

Here is the WWE statement on Mr. Haynes' lawsuit:

"Billy Jack Haynes performed for WWE from 1986-1988.  His filed
lawsuit alleges that WWE concealed medical information and
evidence on concussions during that time, which is impossible
since the condition now called chronic traumatic encephalopathy
(CTE) had not even been discovered.  WWE was well ahead of sports
organizations in implementing concussion management procedures and
policies as a precautionary measure as the science and research on
this issue emerged. Current WWE procedures include ImPACT testing
for brain function, annual educational seminars and the strict
prohibition of deliberate and direct shots to the head.
Additionally, WWE has committed significant funding for concussion
research conducted by the Sports Legacy Institute (SLI), leaders
in concussion research, and WWE Executive Vice President Paul
Levesque sits on SLI's board."

No court date has been set for the case.

'Cobra Clutch Slam'

WWE of Stamford, Conn., is a publicly traded company that delivers
wrestling action year-round through television programming, pay-
per-view, digital media and publishing platforms.  WWE programming
reaches more than 650 million homes worldwide in 35 languages.

The company's stock closed on Oct. 24 at $13.27 a share on the New
York Stock Exchange.

According to Mr. Haynes' lawsuit, the company is "tightly
controlled by a small group of related executives who manage both
polices and the conduct of wrestlers during matches.
Vince McMahon has been chairman of WWE since the retirement of his
father, Vince McMahon Sr., in 1980."

Mr. Haynes' lawsuit alleges that the entertainment giant "claims
that its wrestlers are independent contractors.  Thus, WWE does
not provide its wrestlers, past or current, with health insurance,
disability insurance, or unemployment insurance.  When wrestlers
retire, they are effectively on their own."

The lawsuit says "WWE calls itself an 'action soap opera.'  Its
matches are scripted, with preordained winners and losers, and it
has a carefully written, ongoing plot.  WWE predetermines much of
the dialogue between the wrestlers and the winners of the matches,
as well as many of the violent acts perpetrated by the wrestlers
on each other."

Mr. Haynes' lawyers listed several dangerous moves used by
wrestlers:

   *  "Brain Buster" - a front facelock combined with a vertical
suplex in which the victim lands headfirst;

   *  "Bulldog" - a wrestler grabs his opponent's head and leaps
forward, so that the victim's face is driven into the ground;

   *  "Cobra Clutch Slam" - a wrestler places the opponent in a
hold called the cobra clutch, lifts his opponent, and then jumps
into the air, landing his opponent on the ground;

   *  "Facebreaker" - a knee to the face, including many variants
involving throwing an opponent down onto one's propped up knee,
headfirst;

   *  "Jawbreaker" - a move in which the opponent's jaw is slammed
into the wrestler's body, usually the knee or elbow; and,

   *  "Powerslam" - a move in which the performer falls face-first
into his opponent.

Medical trust fund

Mr. Haynes wrestled professionally for more than a dozen years
beginning in 1982.  From 1986 to 1988, he wrestled with the World
Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.).
During that time, Mr. Haynes claimed he wrestled for several days
at a time, with little time off and no off-season.  He had at
least 15 concussions, and numerous other injuries, using drugs to
handle the pain.  He also contracted Hepatitis C from blows to the
head from chairs, chains and other weapons, Mr. Haynes said.

"As a result of the head trauma he sustained while wrestling in
WWE, Haynes suffers from depression and exhibits symptoms of
dementia," according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Haynes was hospitalized in March 2013 suffering from an aortic
aneurysm, and liver and kidney issues.

Mr. Haynes' lawsuit asked the court to force WWE to establish "a
trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to pay for the medical
monitoring of all wrestlers subjected to checks and hits, as
frequently as determined to be medically necessary, as well as to
pay to develop and research other methods by which the risk of
those affected can be reduced."


* Bill to Eliminate Counsel Fees for Minor Consumer Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the New Jersey Legislature is moving toward eliminating the award
of counsel fees and costs for violations of the state's Consumer
Fraud Act that are technical in nature and did not result in any
ascertainable loss for the victim.

The Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee recommended passage of the
bill, A207, in a 4-0-1 vote.  The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman
Reed Gusciora, D-Mercer.

New Jersey has one of the toughest consumer fraud statutes in the
country.  In addition to allowing for fee-shifting and costs, the
act lets judges set treble damages for victims.

But Mr. Gusciora, in testimony before the committee, said it was
not the intent of the legislature to force defendants to pay
counsel fees and costs if they are found to have made only minor,
technical violations.

The act's fee-shifting provision, Mr. Gusciora said, was meant to
apply only to "substantial" claims.

The committee asked Mr. Gusciora if he could provide an example of
when counsel fees were not warranted for a violation of the CFA.

Mr. Gusciora, who has a solo practice in Princeton, N.J., said he
knew of a contractor hired by a homeowner to install new windows.
It was to be a one-day job and the contractor, whom he did not
identify, failed to include a start and end date in the contract,
which is a CFA violation.

The homeowner decided she did not like the windows and filed a CFA
claim against the contractor.  The contractor ultimately was found
to not have substantively violated the CFA, but was forced to
fight a demand for $35,000 in counsel fees and costs because of
the technical violation.

"I don't think anyone ever envisioned awarding attorney fees for
technical violations," he said.

Assemblyman Brian Rumpf, R-Ocean, expressed some misgivings about
the bill.  The act is meant to ensure that victims of consumer
fraud have greater access to legal representation by allowing for
fee-shifting, said Mr. Rumpf, of Rumpf, Reid & Dolcy in Toms
River, N.J. Under Gusciora's bill, he said, "they're not going to
have the benefit of competent counsel."

Mr. Rumpf, who agreed to abstain after Mr. Gusciora agreed to
amend the bill, said the legislation "goes too far."

Mr. Gusciora said the bill merely codified a ruling by the state
Supreme Court in Perez v. Professionally Green.  There, the court
ruled that counsel fees and costs should not be awarded unless the
victim has sustained an ascertainable loss.

The legislation is being opposed by the New Jersey Association for
Justice and Legal Services of New Jersey, among other groups.

NJAJ's first vice president, Michael Donahue, said the legislation
runs afoul of the act's intention to encourage attorneys to take
consumer fraud cases.

"This will make it more difficult for consumers to obtain
competent counsel," said Mr. Donahue, of Stark & Stark in
Lawrenceville, N.J.  "All violations of the act start with
technical violations."

The bill, Mr. Donahue said, provides a "safe harbor for violators"
of the CFA.  "Why should there be free-pass violations?" he asked.

David McMillan, an attorney for Legal Services, said the bill goes
beyond the court's ruling in Perez.  "You already have to show
proximate cause" for counsel fees to be awarded, he said.
The New Jersey State Bar Association also opposes the bill.

"The association opposes this legislation because it appears
unnecessary given existing safeguards in current law to prevent
awards in frivolous or 'nuisance' cases brought under the CFA,"
the bar said in a statement.  "The bill, instead, has the
potential of creating uncertainty about what conduct and practices
are truly prohibited under the CFA."

The bill is being supported by the New Jersey Business and
Industry Association and a tort reform group, the New Jersey Civil
Justice Institute.
Christine Stearns, the NJBIA's vice president for health and legal
affairs, called Gusciora's bill a "reasonable update" to the CFA.

Alida Kass, CJI's chief counsel, said the bill is "an important
first step."

The act's fee-shifting provisions, she said, should be used in
only the most egregious cases.  "It can be a fairly blunt
instrument," she said.

Ms. Kass said the legislature should eventually move toward
eliminating the award of counsel fees and costs for all but the
most serious violations of the act.

The committee agreed to move the bill after Mr. Gusciora agreed to
amend the bill to read that a technical violation does not include
any unconscionable business practice, deception, fraud, false
promise, misrepresentation, knowing concealment or omission of
material fact.

The bill also does not bar the state Division of Consumer Affairs
or county or municipal consumer affairs agencies from seeking
counsel fees in any CFA case.

The bill is now set to be considered by the full Assembly.  There
is no comparable Senate version.


* Bogus Health-Care Schemes Emerge Amid Ebola Global Threat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Marks, writing for The Albuquerque Journal, reports that
bogus health-care schemes abound, but you should be aware of
several new ones that are trying to take cruel advantage of global
concern about the Ebola virus.

There are reports of marketers claiming you can protect or cure
yourself with "products containing everything from silver to
herbal oils and snake venom," the Federal Trade Commission says.

Here are the facts: The Food and Drug Administration has not
approved any vaccines or drugs to prevent or treat Ebola.  There
are some experimental vaccines and treatments, but they're "in the
early stages of product development, have not yet been fully
tested for safety or effectiveness, and the supply is very
limited," the FTC says.

"There are no approved vaccines, drugs, or products specifically
for Ebola available for purchase online or in stores.  No dietary
supplements can claim to prevent or cure Ebola," the agency says.

In this country, the virus is not water- or food-borne and is not
transmitted through the air, according to the official position of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  It is spread
through direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person
or with objects such as needles that have been contaminated with
the virus.

Whenever you get a pitch for a health-related product, ask the
caller for more information about it.  Then consult a
knowledgeable doctor, pharmacist or other health-care
professional.

"Promoters of legitimate health-care products don't object to your
seeking additional information -- in fact, most welcome it,"
according to a news release.


* Bogus Scheme to Collect Class Suit Damages Reported in N.M.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Marks, writing for The Albuquerque Journal, reports that
several residents have contacted the Attorney General's Office in
New Mexico reporting phone calls asking if the person has had "a
surgery that involves a bladder sling or a bladder mesh."

The caller asks if you're aware of a class-action lawsuit
involving these products -- used for urinary incontinence -- and
claims to be from the law firm handling the legal action.

You will be told that you're entitled to $8,645 in damages.  But
there is a catch: You must wire $260 by 4 p.m. that day to cover
processing fees.  Or you can provide your bank-account number.

The way it really works is that if you are part of a class-action
lawsuit, notice to you will be made through the mail.

"Remember to never give a bank account number to anyone you do not
know personally," says a scam alert from the AG's Consumer
Protection Division.


* Cal. State & Federal Courts Split on Arbitration of PAGA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Dow, Esq. and John Lewis, Esq. of Baker Hostetler, in an
article for Law.com, report that one of the last barriers to full
enforcement of arbitration agreements with class action waivers
sustained another blow.  A California federal district court
disagreed with the California Supreme Court in holding that an
employment arbitration agreement can waive an employee's right to
pursue a representative claim under the state's Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA"). Langston v. 20/20 Companies, Case No. EDCV
14-1360 JGB (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014).

It is well known by now that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a
favorable view of arbitration agreements that waive a litigant's
ability to pursue class or representative action claims, either in
court or arbitration.  Since 2009, the Court has chiseled away at
the obstacles and procedural rules preventing enforcement of such
arbitration agreements based upon the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA").  Indeed, in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct.
1740 (2011), the Court held that the FAA's policy of enforcing
arbitration agreements pre-empted a California rule requiring the
availability of class-wide arbitration.

But California courts remain undaunted.  This summer, the
California Supreme Court held that Concepcion did not require
individual arbitration of a claim brought under PAGA where the
individual litigant represents a class on behalf of the government
-- even though the individual remains in control of the
litigation.  That case, Iskanian v. CLS Transp., L.A., LLC, 327
P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014), currently is pending on certiorari before
the United States Supreme Court.  The petition in CLS Transp.,
L.A. LLC v. Iskanian, No. 14-341, raises the question addressed by
the district court: "Is an employee's waiver in an arbitration
agreement of a collective or 'representative action' under [PAGA]
so distinguishable from a 'class action' waiver that it is immune
from the otherwise preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration
Act as held by this court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion?"
(citation omitted).

Now, for the third time, a federal district court has refused to
follow the Iskanian court's lead.  In Langston, the Central
District of California held that Concepcion does require
enforcement of an employment arbitration agreement, even if that
means compelling individual arbitration of PAGA claims.  The judge
in Langston explained that Concepcion instructed that an
arbitration agreement cannot be invalidated by impermissible
application of a policy "in a fashion that disfavors arbitration."
Nevertheless, the Iskanian court held PAGA waivers in arbitration
agreements to be unconscionable, even though it acknowledged that
an employee could choose on his or her own to waive the
government's right to bring a PAGA claim.  The district judge
seized on this apparent illogic that he interpreted to be in
conflict with Concepcion: "That inconsistency illuminates the fact
that, it is not the individual's ability to waive the government's
right that drives the [Iskanian] court's rule, but rather the
court's general disfavor for pre-existing agreements to arbitrate
such claims individually."  Thus, Langston joined two previous
California federal district courts (See Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01619 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014), and
Fardig v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. SACV 14-00561 JVS (C.D.
Cal. Aug. 11, 2014)) in upholding the enforceability of an
agreement to individually arbitrate, despite the presence of PAGA
representative claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court may soon decide whether this latest
conflict between the California state and federal courts warrants
clarity following in the footsteps of Concepcion.  Until then, the
scope of the full enforcement of an employment arbitration
agreement depends on which court is considering it.

As a result, a third federal court has now disagreed with the
California Supreme Court's Iskanian result, widening the divide
between enforcement of arbitration agreements in federal and state
courts.  In California state court, an arbitration agreement
cannot waive an individual's ability to pursue PAGA representative
claims on behalf of the government.  At least in some federal
courts, the Concepcion rule continues to require enforcement of
arbitration agreements, even if that requires individual
arbitration of a PAGA claim.

The Bottom Line: A split is growing between California state and
federal courts over whether a defendant can compel the arbitration
of PAGA claims.


* Oceania Calls for Enforcement of Shrimp Product Labeling Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cain Burdeau, writing for The Associated Press, reports that from
New York to New Orleans to Oregon, consumers are being misled
about the shrimp they're buying, according to a survey by the
advocacy group Oceana.

Cheap, imported farm-raised shrimp is being sold as prized wild-
caught Gulf shrimp while common, more plentiful shrimp is being
sold as premium.  And shrimp of all kinds is sold with no
indication whatsoever about where it came from, the group said.

Shrimp caught in the open oceans is considered superior in taste,
texture and healthiness compared with farm-raised shrimp that tend
to be more rubbery and without the distinct salty taste of the
sea.  Imports of farm-raised shrimp have skyrocketed in recent
years, coinciding with shrimp's ascent as the nation's most
popular seafood.

Oceana said it found about 30 percent of 143 shrimp products
bought from 111 vendors were not what the label said.  Bad
labeling was discovered on shrimp sold at national and regional
supermarkets and smaller grocery stores alike.  Restaurants, from
national chains to high-dollar eateries, were also selling poorly
labeled shrimp, the group said.

The survey looked at shrimp sold in Washington, D.C.; Portland,
Oregon; and various spots around the Gulf of Mexico as well as New
York City, which it deemed the worst offender.

The group acknowledged that the survey was a small sample, but
said it used a technique involving DNA to trace the shrimp's
roots.

"It was a first good look at shrimp," said Kimberly Warner, a
marine scientist with Oceana.  She went out and obtained many of
the samples.

The group did a similar survey last year for fish and made similar
findings.  In that report, Oceana said consumers routinely are
misled into believing they're buying tuna and red snapper when in
reality they're getting less expensive fish.

Oceana is urging Congress and regulators to enforce proper
labeling.

Oceana declined to provide the names of the vendors it obtained
the samples from.  Dustin Cranor, an Oceana spokesman, said the
company did not want to identify them because "fraud can happen at
any point in the supply chain."

Misleading and illegal labeling of food is considered a major
problem among food purists because it cheats consumers and puts
them at risk of tainted foods.  It also hurts honest vendors and
tarnishes an industry's product.

The group's report came as no surprise to fishermen and others
involved in the shrimp industry.

"I've been shouting this for ages from the rooftop," said Kimberly
Chauvin, who runs a family shrimp business with fishing boats and
docks in Chauvin, Louisiana.

She said shrimp mislabeling will get worse unless regulators
"start handing out big fines" to companies that break the Food and
Drug Administration's labeling laws.

Jerald Horst, a Louisiana seafood writer and former state
fisheries specialist, said mislabeling runs rampant in the seafood
industry.  He said many of the big vendors want to keep the status
quo -- in other words, lackluster enforcement of labeling.

"There's a lot of pressure from the major institutions for them
not to do it," Mr. Horst said.  "They want the freedom to do
'creative marketing.'"

Lauren Sucher, an FDA spokeswoman, said mislabeling is illegal and
pointed out that the agency inspects and enforces labeling laws,
handing out warnings and fines.


* Stephen Tillery Against Reinstatement of Justice Karmeier
-----------------------------------------------------------
BND.com reports that some attorneys wish they didn't have Illinois
Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier as a thorn in their side, and
now they're apparently willing to spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to try to get the voters to boot him off the bench.

Justice Karmeier is running for retention after 10 years of
service on the high court.  With the Nov. 4 election just around
the corner, an anti-Karmeier group has formed and so far has
bought $561,700 in advertising urging people not to retain him.
More is expected.

St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery wants to get a $10 billion
judgment reinstated in the Philip Morris class-action lawsuit that
originated in Madison County.  Two attorneys from his firm have
contributed a combined $500,000 to the anti-Karmeier effort.

Justice Karmeier previously voted to overturn the judgment, so
it's easy to understand why Mr. Tillery doesn't want him on the
high court when the case comes back before the court.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys stand to collect $1.77 billion in legal fees
if that $10 billion judgment is upheld.


                             *********

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  * * *