CAR_Public/141113.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 226

                             Headlines

AETNA HEALTH: 5th Circuit Refuses to Revive ERISA Class Action
AFFYMAX INC: December 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AFNI INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Pa.
AIRBNB INC: Taps Munger, Tolles & Olson to Defend Class Action
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Santa Rita Jail Faces Sexual Harassment Suit

ALLERGAN INC: To Lodge Emergency Appeal in Takeover Dispute
ALLIANCE ONE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
AMERICAN REALTY: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Class Action
AMGEN INC: Asks Ninth Circuit Court to Remand ERISA Lawsuit
APPLE AMERICAN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.

AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: "Daniel" Class Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
AUSTIN COUNTY, TX: Deputy Sheriff Files FLSA Class Action
BIG 5 SPORTING: Hearing of Credit Card Users Suit Settlement Set
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Enters Into Class Action Settlement MoU
CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over School-Zone Tickets Issued During Summer

CHRISTENSEN FINANCIAL: Accused of Retaliation and Gender Bias
CHURCHILL DOWNS: HBPA, Fair Grounds Seek Dismissal in Purses Suit
CLECO CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Macquarie, Suit Claims
COMSCORE INC: Settlement of Customer Privacy Suit Approved
CON-WAY INC: Final Approval Hearing in Labor Suit Set for Jan. 9

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued for Violating FDCPA in Pennsylvania
D & D RESTAURANT: Faces "Cordova" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
DANIELS NORELLI: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DES MOINES, IA: Ratepayers Still Await Franchise Fee Refunds
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Claims Over Cavitron Appealed

DENSTPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Judgment in Periodontists' Lawsuit
DOYLE MASONRY: Removes "Chavez" Suit to Florida District Court
ELI LILLY: Still Faces 3 Product Liability Lawsuits in Canada
ELI LILLY: Still Faces "Saavedra" Lawsuit in California Court
EVERBANK DIRECT: 9th Cir. Revives Icelandic Conversion Rate Suit

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Provides Updates on MERS-Related Lawsuit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Paduano" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Missouri
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Final Approval of "Farley" Labor Suit Deal
FAMILY DOLLAR: N.J. Court Approves Settlement in "Hegab" Lawsuit
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Itterly" Labor Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal

FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Appeals Court Order in "Premo" Labor Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: N.C. Court Sets Schedule in Gender Pay Litigation
FAMILY DOLLAR: Del. Court Declines to Hear TRO Bid in Stock Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Removal of "Moore" to Federal Court Sought
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Clark" Suit Moved From Cal. to Missouri

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Halgerson" Suit Moved From Cal. to Missouri
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Venezia" Suit Moved From Cal. to Missouri
FIDELITY TAX: Judge Refuses to Toss Lien Bid-Rigging Class Action
GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over Inappropriate Marketing Tactics
GOLDMAN SACHS: December 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

HERBALIFE LTD: $15-Mil. Class Action Settlement Faces Challenge
HERTZ CORP: To Pay $53.4-Mil. in Class Damages in "Sobel" Suit
HYUNDAI: Consumer Watchdog Disputes Gas Mileage Settlement Terms
I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
INTEL CORP: Plaintiffs in Antitrust MDL Appeal Denial of Cert.

INTEL CORP: Appeals Disapproval of Employee Antitrust Suit Accord
INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment in McAfee Shareholder Suit Appealed
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Directors Sued Over Planned Merger
JAMES HARDIE: "Hernandez" Suit Consolidated in HardiePlank MDL
KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal of Suit v. El Paso Pipeline Appealed

KINDER MORGAN: Unitholder Files Motion to Enjoin Vote on Merger
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Lawsuits by Public Holders of KMEP Units
KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Lawsuit by KMEP Unitholder Stayed
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Stretches FCRA Limits
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Faces New Motion in Jail Crowding Class Action

MARITIME SANITATION: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
MCGRAW HILL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
METROPOLITAN HOUSING: Faces Class Action Over Evictions
MONARCH RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
MURPHY DISTRIBUTION: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Two Student Athletes Join "Jenkins" Suit
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEW YORK CITY, NY: 2nd Cir. Junks Suit Over Stop-and-Frisk Reform
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
NEW ZEALAND: Ross Investors File Suit v. Inland Revenue Dept

NISEN SUSHI: Faces "Liu" Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violations of FLSA
OMNICARE INC: US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Securities Suit
ORACLE CORP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
PANERA BREAD: Subsidiary Faces Labor Lawsuit in California Court
PANERA BREAD: Accused by GMs of Shorting Them on Buyout Payment

PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Group of Pharmacists From Lipitor MDL
PICKVEST: Investors File Class Action in North Gauteng High Court
POSITIVESINGLES.COM: Class Wins Nearly $16 Million in Damages
SAMSUNG TELECOMS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Smartphone Battery Suit
SANMEDICA INT'L: Court Dismissed Suit Over SeroVital Supplement

SECURE ENERGY: Faces Suit in Colorado Alleging Violations of FLSA
SENIOR HOME: Nurses Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
SINGING RIVER: Ex-Workers Mull Class Action Over Pension Changes
SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS: Class in "Langendorf" Suit Not Certified
SUPERVALU INC: Faces "Mertz" Suit in Minnesota District Court

SYNCHRONY BANK: Sued in E.D. Missouri Over Violations of TCPA
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Raiken" Suit Alleging Product Liability Claim
TAKATA CORP: May Face Criminal Charges Over Air Bag Defect
TD BANK: Class Counsel Awarded $1.2 Mil. in Attorney Fees
TELSTRA: Piper Alderman Expects to File Suit Before Christmas

UNITED STATES: Appeals Court to Weigh on NSA Data Collection Suit
UNITED STATES STEEL: $58MM Settlement of Antitrust Suit Approved
UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Plaintiffs Drop Fuel Charges Case
WELLPOINT INC: Expects Ruling in Demutualization Lawsuit by 2015

WELLPOINT INC: Cal. Court Directs Parties to Propose Schedules
WHOLE PERSON: Removes "Jones" Suit to Missouri District Court

* NLRB Invalidates Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Programs


                             *********


AETNA HEALTH: 5th Circuit Refuses to Revive ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that a Fifth Circuit
panel on Nov. 4 refused to revive a Chevron Phillips Chemical Co.
employee's putative Employee Retirement Income Security Act class
action against Aetna Health Inc. alleging the insurer had
improperly denied his medical claims, ruling Aetna properly put
his claims on hold while waiting for more information.

In an unpublished opinion, the panel upheld a lower court's
dismissal of Joe Hollingshead's ERISA suit.  Mr. Hollingshead
claimed Aetna immediately had denied his claims after his son was
seriously injured in a car accident, but Aetna argued it was
waiting for the plaintiff to turn over information about his son's
car insurance.

The court held that evidence showed Aetna hadn't denied the claims
outright but pended them until they received more information
about whether primary insurance would pay for some of the medical
bills.

"Hollingshead's conclusory allegation that Aetna improperly
'denied' his benefits is insufficient to survive a dismissal
because it is contradicted by the documents attached to his first
amended complaint," the panel wrote.

Mr. Hollingshead filed his claims with Aetna in October 2012 after
his son's accident, and Aetna responded with questions on whether
there was applicable no-fault insurance, which, under the plan,
was primary to the Aetna-administered insurance.  But instead of
sending that information, Hollingshead sued Aetna in January 2013,
according to the opinion, accusing the insurer of breaching its
fiduciary duty and failing to pay for covered medical expenses.

An amended complaint later claimed Aetna immediately denied his
claims instead of denying them when he failed to send the
requested information about personal injury protection.  A trial
court dismissed the suit in February, finding Aetna was required
to ask for information before it resolves a claim and that it
never "immediately denied" the claims.

The court cited a February 2013 letter, sent a month after the
lawsuit was filed, that "clearly indicates that the claims had not
yet been processed," according to the opinion. The Fifth Circuit
found there was no error in that judgment.

The appeals panel also upheld the lower court's dismissal of
Hollingshead's breach of fiduciary duty claim, ruling Hollingshead
could have found adequate relief by suing the plan directly.

"The Hollingshead family was entitled to enjoy their plan benefits
as written," Joshua P. Davis of Josh Davis Law Firm, representing
Hollingshead, said in a statement. "We disagreed with the way
Aetna interpreted the plan, but obviously, the Fifth Circuit
thought otherwise."

Circuit Judges Carolyn Dineen King, James L. Dennis and Edith
Brown Clement sat on the panel that reached the Nov. 4 decision.

Mr. Hollingshead is represented by Joshua P. Davis of Josh Davis
Law Firm.

Aetna is represented by John B. Shely -- jshely@andrewskurth.com
and M. Katherine Strahan -- kstrahan@andrewskurth.com -- of
Andrews Kurth LLP.

The case is Joe Hollingshead v. Aetna Health Inc. et al., case
number 14-20158, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.


AFFYMAX INC: December 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED AFFYMAX, INC., COMMON
STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 8, 2012 THROUGH FEBRUARY 22,
2013, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
OF AFFYMAX, AND THEIR FAMILIES AND AFFILIATES.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will
be held on December 10, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable
William H. Orrick, United States District Judge, Courtroom 2, 17th
Floor, at the courthouse for the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, for the
purpose of determining, among other things, whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants
for $6,500,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; (3) the application by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved; (4) the Lead Plaintiff's application for reimbursement
of costs and expenses should be granted; and (5) the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in
the Settlement Stipulation filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Affymax common stock
between August 8, 2012 and February 22, 2013, inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), both dates inclusive, your rights may
be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.  If you
have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of
Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses, And
Settlement Final Approval Hearing and Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims
Administrator, by mail at: Bartelt v. Affymax Energy Inc., PO Box
43270, Providence, RI 02940-3270; by telephone at 1-866-247-7259;
or by visiting the website at: affymaxshareholdersettlement.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
December 27, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no
later than November 26, 2014.  Any objections to the Settlement,
Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed
with the Court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, no later than November 26, 2014.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class: Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, 10
South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, Telephone:
312-377-1181

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY ORDER OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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.


AFNI INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Funderburk, Jr., an individual; on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. AFNI, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No.
2:14-cv-06361-PD (E.D. Pa., November 5, 2014) seeks relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          Amy L. Bennecoff, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC
          30 E. Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com
                  abennecoff@lemonlaw.com


AIRBNB INC: Taps Munger, Tolles & Olson to Defend Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Airbnb Inc.
has brought in Munger, Tolles & Olson to fight a would-be class
action alleging that the company's business model violates San
Francisco's housing ordinances.

Los Angeles partner John Spiegel -- John.Spiegel@mto.com --
entered an appearance on behalf of Airbnb in the suit filed this
September in San Francisco Superior Court.

Gamache v. Airbnb, 14-541477, accuses the company of participating
in, facilitating and enabling the illegal short-term rental of
rooms in the city.  It focuses on the Sheldon Hotel in downtown
San Francisco, a residential hotel where one of the named
plaintiffs has been living for 16 years.  Airbnb guests are
transforming the residential building into a tourist hotel,
raising rents and jeopardizing security, according to plaintiffs
lawyers Mark Hooshmand and Tyson Redenbarger of Hooshmand Law
Group in San Francisco.  The lawyers are asking for damages for
violations of city housing ordinances and state unfair competition
law.

"We're looking at every person who has violated the law in terms
of these short-term rentals," Mr. Hooshmand said, "because they've
contributed to this situation which has affected so many people's
rights."

Airbnb declined to comment on the litigation, but a spokesman
defended the company's business model in an email.

"Anyone who follows our company knows how deeply we care about
making San Francisco a more livable, more affordable city," Nick
Papas wrote.

Plaintiffs allege Airbnb has driven up rates at the Sheldon Hotel
from around $500 a month to $1,800.  That gap gives the owner an
incentive to get rid of long-term residents and replace them with
higher-paying tourists, said Mr. Hooshmand, a former Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati associate who formed his own firm in
2002.  Airbnb has become a popular target of late, with critics
including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein blaming the company for
contributing to San Francisco's housing crisis.  On Nov. 3, rival
rental site HomeAway Inc. sued San Francisco over a recently
enacted ordinance it says favors the hometown company.

In April, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed two
lawsuits against property owners accused of abusing home-sharing
sites, including Airbnb.

Taking on Airbnb directly is much different than suing individual
property owners who use the website, said Duane Morris partner
Richard Seabolt -- RLSeabolt@duanemorris.com

"When you go against a company whose business model is being
challenged by the lawsuit, it's reasonable to expect that that's
going to be hard fought," he said.

The new San Francisco ordinance regulating short-term rentals of
private residences could also pose a challenge to plaintiffs
lawyers.

"If legislative and executive branches of government enact either
regulations or ordinances or statutes that give some degree of
blessing to the way things are done, that usually does have an
impact on litigation," Mr. Seabolt said.

Mr. Hooshmand contends the ordinance, signed into law by Mayor Ed
Lee in October, can't be applied retroactively. Additionally,
residential hotels fall under different regulations than private
homes or apartments.  Ultimately Mr. Hooshmand said he wants to do
away with the ordinance altogether.

"If the lawsuit doesn't do it," he said, "we're going to find a
way to file a petition for a writ of mandate or otherwise
challenge the law to prevent it from taking effect."


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Santa Rita Jail Faces Sexual Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Kay, writing for East Bay, reports that on Oct. 27, 2014,
Anne Weills, noted civil rights activists, long time lawyer and
resident of Oakland, and 3 other civil rights activists, Tova Fry,
Alyssa Eisenberg and Mollie Costello and filed a class action
lawsuit against Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern, alleging
that Sheriff Ahern deprived plaintiff and other women who were
incarcerated in Santa Rita jail "with the minimal civilized
measure of life's necessities, and have violated their basic human
dignity and their right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution."

On February 13, 2014, members of the Justice 4 Alan Blueford
Coalition were protesting at the State Building in Oakland. Anne
Weills was there as a legal observer from the National Lawyers'
Guild.  The protesters and Attorney Weills were arrested, driven
to Santa Rita and placed in the custody of the Sheriff.

The sheriffs' deputies demanded that the women take off their
shirts in front of male deputies and other male prisoners.  When
Attorney Weills refused, considering the request to be sexual
harassment, she was thrown into a solitary closet, denied access
to a toilet.  She and the other plaintiffs were then placed in
severely overcrowded cells, which were filthy with feces, blood,
urine, garbage and rotting food on the floors and walls.  Women
who were bleeding were denied feminine hygiene supplies.

Yolanda Huang, their attorney, and two of the plaintiffs spoke in
the public comment section of the Alameda Board of Supervisors
meeting on 10/28/14 to demand that the Board end sexual harassment
and improve conditions at Santa Rita Jail.  They had previously
addressed the Supervisors last May, along with supporters of Nubia
Bowe, at which time the Supervisors stated they would.


ALLERGAN INC: To Lodge Emergency Appeal in Takeover Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Allergan Inc. and its lawyers at Latham & Watkins aren't done
fighting in the clash for control of the pharmaceutical company.
In an attempt to derail a takeover attempt by Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc., which has teamed with activist
hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management, Latham on Nov. 5
filed notice that it intends to lodge an emergency appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The appeal came a day after U.S. District Judge David Carter in
Santa Ana, Calif., refused to enjoin Pershing Square from voting
the 9.7 percent of Allergan stock that it owns in a Dec. 18
election of directors.  Although Judge Carter found that "serious
issues" had been raised as to whether Pershing Square and Valeant
engaged in insider trading, he ordered only that the defendants
make "corrective disclosures" to Allergan's shareholders. Those
disclosures must include the fact that a serious issue about
insider trading has been raised in the litigation.

Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine called this corrective disclosure
a "pretty silly punishment" and said Allergan had only achieved a
moral victory.  But in an interview with the Litigation Daily on
Nov. 5, Allergan's lawyers at Latham didn't sound defeated.
"The disclosure he ordered is serious and significant," said
Latham partner Peter Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com

"It should give people pause."  His partner, Michele Johnson --
michele.johnson@lw.com -- pointed out that Judge Carter took
seriously their allegations that Pershing Square and Valeant
violated the Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 14e-3.  In
very general terms, that rule prohibits third parties who have
nonpublic knowledge of a planned corporate takeover attempt from
trading in the target's stock.

"They have been saying that it was absurd to suggest that they
engaged in insider trading, and the judge rejected that argument,"
said Ms. Johnson.  "It is very significant that the judge found
that they were cognizant of their potential liability under 14e-3
and went ahead anyway without disclosing that risk. That finding
is remarkable."

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz is also advising Allergan on its
takeover defense, but Latham has taken the lead in the California
litigation.

Canadian company Valeant is represented by Sullivan & Cromwell's
Brian Frawley -- frawleyb@sullcrom.com

Pershing Square, which is run by activist investor Bill Ackman, is
represented by Mark Holscher -- mark.holscher@kirkland.com -- at
Kirkland & Ellis.  S&C's Frawley declined to comment.
Mr. Holscher wasn't immediately available.

A spokesperson for Pershing Square said the company would revise
its proxy statement to comply with the court's ruling and looks
forward to the election.  "We are pleased that the court has
affirmed Pershing Square's right to vote its shares at the
upcoming special meeting of Allergan shareholders," said the
spokesperson.  "Pershing Square hopes that the court's decision
puts an end to the expensive and distracting litigation brought by
Allergan."

Valeant called the ruling "a victory for all Allergan
shareholders, as it puts the choice of Allergan's future in the
hands of its owners."

Latham will also be appealing Carter's ruling on Nov. 4 that
Allergan doesn't have standing to assert an insider trading claim.
Instead, the judge held that the claim could be pursued by a
shareholder who is a coplaintiff with Allergan.

The corporate world is closely watching the case, which appears to
be the first time that a hostile bidder has teamed with an
activist hedge fund.  "This case is unprecedented in terms of the
alliance here and the business context," said Mr. Wald.  "The
legal issues implicated are largely issues of first impression."
Whatever happens with the planned appeal, Mr. Wald predicted that
Judge Carter's ruling won't be the last move in this corporate
chess match.  "We respectfully disagree with the judge's finding,
[but] there are other places along the road where we can
intervene," he said.


ALLIANCE ONE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Ubaldi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:14-cv-06898-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., November 4,
2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN REALTY: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody on Nov. 3 filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of common stock and/or call options of
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. between February 27, 2014
through October 28, 2014, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In addition, if you purchased ARCP shares in any public offering
of ARCP during the Class Period or earlier you may also be
eligible to participate in this lawsuit.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may, no
later than December 29, 2014, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you so choose.  You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody,
or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.  In order to serve as lead plaintiff you must meet certain
legal requirements.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and
is represented by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody, which has
significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions
on behalf of investors and shareholders.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial results, including ARCP's adjusted funds from
operations ("AFFO"), resulting in overstatement of AFFO in ARCP's
financial statements.  Plaintiff alleges that as a result of
defendants' materially false and misleading statements ARCP
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that a class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated
many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal
courts over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of
substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull &
Brody has offices in New York and Beverly Hills.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Jason D'Agnenica or Howard Longman
at 1-800-337-4983 or via e-mail at arcp@ssbny.com

You can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com


AMGEN INC: Asks Ninth Circuit Court to Remand ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. has submitted a letter brief arguing that the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act case against it should now be
remanded back to the district court, according to the company's
Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded this Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action case to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Ninth Circuit
Court) for reconsideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.  In Fifth
Third, the U.S. Supreme Court held that no presumption of prudence
exists for employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries regardless of
plan language and the Court provided general guidance as to what
factors courts should consider when assessing whether plan
fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence owed to plan
participants. On July 8, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court ordered the
parties to submit letter briefs addressing the impact of Fifth
Third. Amgen has submitted a letter brief arguing that the case
should now be remanded back to the district court in order that
the district court may apply the new pleading standards set forth
in Fifth Third. The plaintiffs' brief asks the Ninth Circuit Court
to reaffirm its earlier opinion in the case and sustain the
existing complaint.


APPLE AMERICAN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apple American Group, LLC, d/b/a Applebee's
Neighborhood Grill and Bar, Case No. 2:14-cv-01505-CRE (W.D. Pa.,
November 4, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: "Daniel" Class Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lewis Daniel v. Audio Visual
Services Group, Inc., Case No. 1468443, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Barbara to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-08592-FMO-PLA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Christine Marie Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS LAW
          510 State Street Suite 265
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 845-9630
          Facsimile: (805) 845-9634
          E-mail: christine@adamsemploymentlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William L. Buus, Esq.
          Eric M. Schiffer, Esq.
          SCHIFFER AND BUUS APC
          3070 Bristol Street, Suite 530
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 825-6140
          Facsimile: (949) 825-6141
          E-mail: wbuus@schifferbuus.com
                  eschiffer@schifferbuus.com


AUSTIN COUNTY, TX: Deputy Sheriff Files FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a deputy
sheriff filed a class action lawsuit in Houston federal court
against Austin County and Sheriff Jack W. Brandes, claiming they
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Austin County allegedly violated the FLSA by employing Cox and
other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek
longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for
[their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . .  at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they
are or were] employed."

Ernest Cox claims Austin County employed him as a deputy sheriff
from October 2012, where he continues to remain, according to a
complaint filed Oct. 31 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  Mr. Cox claims Austin County pays him
on an hourly basis, and, in addition to his base hourly rate, he
received additional remuneration for seniority, longevity,
training, professional certifications and education, among other
things.

"During Cox's employment with Austin County, he regularly worked
in excess of forty hours per week," the complaint states. "Austin
County knew or reasonably should have known that Cox worked in
excess of forty hours per week."

Austin County did not pay Cox overtime "at a rate not less than
one and one-half times the regular rate at which he [was]
employed," according to the suit.

Mr. Cox claims Austin County paid him at his straight time rate,
or nothing at all, for some of the hours he worked over 40.

"Additionally, Austin County failed to count some of the hours
worked by Cox towards its obligation to pay overtime," the
complaint states. "Lastly, Austin County failed to include the
additional remuneration that Cox received for seniority,
longevity, training, professional certifications, education, etc.
in his regular, which ultimately resulted in an artificially low
overtime rate."

Austin County knew or reasonably should have known that Mr. Cox
was not exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the suit.

Mr. Cox claims Austin County failed to maintain accurate time and
pay records for Mr. Cox and other similarly situated nonexempt
employees as required by the FLSA.

"Austin County knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its
pay practices violated the FLSA," the complaint states.

The class includes deputy sheriffs employed by Austin County who
have similar job duties; regularly work in excess of 40 hours per
week; are not paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of
40 per week; and are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs from
Austin County, according to the suit.

Mr. Cox claims the defendants failed to maintain accurate records
and failed to pay overtime pay.

Mr. Cox is seeking class certification and compensatory damages
with pre- and post-judgment interest.  He is being represented by
Melissa Moore and Curt Hesse of Moore & Associates.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas case
number: 4:14-cv-03122


BIG 5 SPORTING: Hearing of Credit Card Users Suit Settlement Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court scheduled a hearing for November 10, 2014, to consider
granting final approval of the settlement reached in a suit over
disclosure of personal information by credit card users of Big 5
Sporting Goods Corporation, according to the company's Oct. 29,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March
30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in
the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK;
and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena
Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs
collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging
violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of
privacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the
Company's stores in California were improperly requested to
provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following:
statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; expenses; restitution of
property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences
conducted by the court on February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013,
April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and
also engaged in mediation conducted by a third party mediator on
July 15, 2013. As a result of the foregoing, the parties agreed to
settle the lawsuit. On March 23, 2014, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has scheduled a
hearing for November 10, 2014, to consider granting final approval
of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed that class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms will receive
either a $25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10
merchandise voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally, the
Company agreed to pay plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs
awarded by the court, enhancement payments to the class
representatives and claims administrator's fees. Under the
settlement, if the total amount paid by the Company for the class
payout, class representative enhancement payments and claims
administrator's fees is less than $1.0 million, then the Company
will issue merchandise vouchers to a charity for the balance of
the deficiency in the manner provided in the settlement agreement.

The Company's estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is
reflected in a legal settlement accrual recorded in the third
quarter of fiscal 2013. The Company admitted no liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
Once final approval is granted, the settlement will constitute a
full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to
the lawsuit. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the
Company currently believes that settlement of this litigation will
not have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition. However, if the settlement is
not finally approved by the court, the Company intends to defend
this litigation vigorously. If the settlement is not finally
approved by the court and this litigation is settled or resolved
unfavorably to the Company, this litigation and the costs of
defending it could have a material negative impact on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Enters Into Class Action Settlement MoU
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., a biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing and commercializing innovative
therapies for people with rare debilitating diseases, on Nov. 4
disclosed that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding
("MOU") to settle its pending class action securities lawsuit.

The Company and one of its executive officers are defendants in a
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The amended complaint purports to
state a claim for alleged misrepresentations regarding the
development of Firdapse(TM) on behalf of a class of those who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between August 27,
2013 and October 18, 2013.

Catalyst Pharmaceuticals has entered into a MOU with the lead
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit under which the parties
have agreed, subject to execution of a formal stipulation of
settlement and approval of the Court, to settle the lawsuit.
Under the MOU, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals has agreed, subject to
court approval, to pay $3.5 million in return for a dismissal and
release of all claims against the defendants.  Because the
settlement payment is expected to be paid in full by Catalyst
Pharmaceuticals' insurance carrier, it is not expected that the
settlement will have any material impact on Catalyst
Pharmaceutical's financial position or results of operations.  The
stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court will include
an acknowledgement that the defendants do not admit any liability
by entering into such stipulation of settlement, and the
defendants continue to deny all of the allegations against them
and to maintain that the suit has no merit.

Patrick J. McEnany, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals' Chairman and CEO,
stated: "We believe that we would have prevailed if the litigation
had proceeded.  However, in light of the potential costs of
continued litigation, as well as the potential burden and
disruption to the Company and its management, Catalyst, together
with its insurance carrier, believed that it made sense to settle
the case for the amount set forth in the settlement agreement."

If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to
class members will be sent with information regarding the
allocation and distribution of the settlement funds and with
instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the
settlement fund.

                 About Catalyst Pharmaceuticals

Catalyst Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing and commercializing innovative therapies for people
with rare debilitating diseases, including Lambert-Eaton
Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS), infantile spasms, and Tourette
Syndrome.  Catalyst's lead candidate, Firdapse(TM) for the
treatment of LEMS, recently completed testing in a global, multi-
center, pivotal Phase 3 trial and announced positive top-line
data.  Firdapse(TM) for the treatment of LEMS, has received
Breakthrough Therapy and Orphan Drug Designations from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Firdapse(TM) is the first and
only European approved drug for symptomatic treatment in adults
with LEMS.

Catalyst is also developing a potentially safer and more potent
vigabatrin analog (designated CPP-115) to treat infantile spasms,
and epilepsy, as well as other neurological conditions associated
with reduced GABAergic signaling, like post-traumatic stress
disorder and Tourette Syndrome.  CPP-115 has been granted U.S.
orphan drug designation for the treatment of infantile spasms by
the FDA and has been granted E.U. orphan medicinal product
designation for the treatment of West Syndrome by the European
Commission.


CHICAGO, IL: Sued Over School-Zone Tickets Issued During Summer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Lisa Klein reports that
school-zone speeding tickets issued in the summer are "part of a
fraudulent scheme to increase revenue" in Chicago, a class claims
in court.

Kenneth Maschek, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in
circuit court October 31, says he was issued a $100 fine for
speeding near Lane Tech College Prep High School on June 26, 2014.
A speed camera, or Automated Speed Enforcement system, captured
alleged violation, but the school year ended on June 10, Maschek
claims.  His was one of more than 34,000 violations that Chicago
issued over summer break this year, from July 1 to September 1,
according to the lawsuit.

Maschek says the law is meant to keep the areas around schools,
statutorily defined as one-eighth of a mile, safe for the children
attending them.  Issuing violations outside of school hours,
however, conflicts with the Illinois Vehicle Code, which says
violations can only be given on school days, according to the
complaint.

Chicago's violation has allowed it to collect "millions of dollars
. . . to which it is not entitled," Maschek says.

The city's Web site states that school safety zones are in effect
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on school days, reducing speed to 20 mph
until 4 p.m. and 30 mph after that.

Maschek who cites the page and related press releases in his
lawsuit, notes that signs posted near the zones also say the speed
reduction applies "on school days when children are present."
Residents of Chicago "routinely drive through school safety zones
on an ongoing basis," leaving them constantly vulnerable to
speeding tickets when the reduced speed should not be in effect,
the complaint states.  Maschek seeks punitive damages and a
finding that the city's practice is unconstitutional.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacie Zolna, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES
          30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100
          E-mail: jzolna@cherry-law.com


CHRISTENSEN FINANCIAL: Accused of Retaliation and Gender Bias
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy L. Jestings, Individually and Jestings Financial Group, PLLC
v. Scott G. Christensen, Individually and as Manager of
Christensen Financial Group, LLC, The Northwestern Mutual Life
Insurance Company, d/b/a Northwestern Mutual Financial Network,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00238-gwc (D. Vt., November 5, 2014) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged wrongful failure to pay wages, breach
of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
tortious interference with employment, libel/defamation per
se/slander, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation and
gender discrimination.

Scott G. Christensen is a resident of Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire.  Christensen Financial Group, LLC is a duly organized
limited liability company having a usual and customary place of
business in Manchester, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.

The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, doing business as
Northwestern Mutual Financial Network, is a duly organized
corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Messina, Esq.
          BERGERON, PARADIS & FITZPATRICK, LLP
          34 Pearl Street
          Essex Junction, VT 05452
          Telephone: (802) 879-6304
          E-mail: jmessina@bpflegal.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Ervin, Esq.
          GALLANT & ERVIN, LLC
          1 Olde North Road, Suite 103
          Chelmsford, MA 01824
          Telephone: (978) 256-6041
          Facsimile: (978) 256-7977


CHURCHILL DOWNS: HBPA, Fair Grounds Seek Dismissal in Purses Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. and
Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C. filed
exceptions to a suit related to purses won at the "Fair Grounds
Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, seeking
dismissal on various grounds, according to Churchill Downs
Incorporated's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages - Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the
Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.  The petition defines the
"alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and
jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course &
Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first
effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008.
The petition alleges that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing,
L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C.
("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw
poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements
and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to
thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse
meets while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those
supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen
during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets.  The petition
requests that the Court declare that Fair Grounds violated La.
R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering
Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff
class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class
such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the
sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed their First Amended Petition for Declaratory
Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages-Class Action naming
the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc.
("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also
liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds.  On October 9,
2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the suit seeking
dismissal on various grounds.


CLECO CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Macquarie, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Cleco
Corp. (electric utility) too cheaply through an unfair process to
Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets and British Columbia
Investment Management Corp., for $55.37 a share or $4.7 billion,
shareholders claim in Rapides Parish Court.


COMSCORE INC: Settlement of Customer Privacy Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted final approval to a settlement
reached in a suit over customer privacy, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 23, 2011, the company received notice that Mike Harris
and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against comScore
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other things,
violations by comScore of the Stored Communications Act, the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act as
well as unjust enrichment. The complaint sought unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs. In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which, among other things, removed the claim relating to
alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act. On April 2, 2013, the District Court issued an
order certifying a class for only three of the four claims,
refusing to certify a class for unjust enrichment.  On May 30,
2014, the company and the plaintiffs proposed a tentative
settlement subject to approval by the District Court, and on
October 1, 2014, the Court issued its final approval of those
terms.  comScore is required to establish a $14 million settlement
fund from which class member claims, attorneys' fees and incentive
awards, costs, and administrative expenses will be paid. The
company and the company's insurers contributed to the fund.  The
settlement also requires the company to alter certain portions of
the company's privacy policy and implement certain additional
protocols to ensure that the company's privacy practices remain
consistent with its disclosures to consumers. During the nine
months ended September 30, 2014, the Company recorded a loss of
$3.5 million related to the tentative settlement.


CON-WAY INC: Final Approval Hearing in Labor Suit Set for Jan. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is set for January 9, 2015 for the
settlement of a lawsuit alleging Con-way Inc. failed to pay
certain drivers for all compensable time, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Con-way is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for
all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not
provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees. The two primary cases are Jorge R. Quezada v.
Con-way Inc., dba Con-way Freight, (the "Quezada" case), and Jose
Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the
"Pina" case). The Quezada case was initially filed in February
2009 in San Mateo County Superior Court, and was removed to the
U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. The Pina
case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County
Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court of
California, Northern District. By agreement of the parties, in
March 2010, the Pina case and the Quezada case were deemed related
and transferred to the same judge. On April 12, 2012, the Court
granted plaintiff's request for class certification in the Pina
case as to a limited number of issues. On October 15, 2012, the
Court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification in the
Quezada case and granted summary judgment as to certain issues.
The class certification rulings do not address whether Con-way
will ultimately be held liable.

Con-way challenged the certification of the class in both cases,
and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
federal law and not substantiated by the facts. Con-way has denied
any liability with respect to these claims and intends to
vigorously defend itself in these cases. There are multiple
factors that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate the
amount of potential loss, if any, in excess of its accrued
liability that may result from this matter, including: (1) Con-way
is vigorously defending itself and believes that it has a number
of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) at this stage in the cases,
there are unresolved questions of fact that could be important to
the resolution of these matters. Trial was scheduled in the
Quezada case for late August, however that date has been
adjourned. As a result of facilitated discussions regarding a
negotiated resolution in the Quezada matter, the parties have
reached terms of a settlement and on October 3, 2014, the Court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class action
settlement. Notice of the settlement will be provided to class
members and a final approval hearing is set for January 9, 2015.
Con-way believes it has adequately accrued for this matter.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Sued for Violating FDCPA in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teri L. Whalen, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., a Washington
Corporation; Galaxy Asset Purchasing, LLC, a Nevada Limited
Liability Company; and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01519-CB (W.D. Pa., November 5, 2014) arises from
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig T. Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN P.C.
          30 East Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          Facsimile: (215) 540-8817
          E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com


D & D RESTAURANT: Faces "Cordova" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hermel A. Cordova, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. D & D Restaurant, Inc., Doyler & Dunneys, Inc. d/b/a D
& D's Restaurant & Pub, Thomas J. Schunke and Roy O'Donovan, Case
No. 7:14-cv-08789-CS (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


DANIELS NORELLI: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Zvi Werzberger, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Daniels Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case
No. 1:14-cv-06535-JG-VMS (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating 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


DES MOINES, IA: Ratepayers Still Await Franchise Fee Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Meinch, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that the
wait drags on for Des Moines ratepayers, one year after courts
awarded a $40 million refund for an illegal city franchise fee
imposed on utility users.

The city has satisfied the ruling by issuing a $40 million
payment, but the money has yet to reach Des Moines ratepayers, who
appear to have lost their legal voice of advocacy in the fight.

Judges appointed a new legal team earlier this year to defend an
appeal from the attorneys who won the favorable judgment for the
class but are asking for more than one-third of the judgment for
legal fees.  The new attorneys, Elisabeth Reynoldson and James
Brown, were appointed to address the dispute over attorney fees,
which will be paid out of the $40 million refund.

Des Moines attorney Brad Schroeder and his team who represented
Des Moines ratepayers for a decade say they deserve more than the
court-designated $7 million, about 18 percent of the judgment.
They filed an appeal with the Iowa Supreme Court in December,
requesting 37 percent of the $40 million judgment awarded, or
about $15 million.

"Standard attorney fees in civil litigation cases are one third
and that's essentially what we're asking for," Mr. Schroeder said.

Ms. Reynoldson and Mr. Brown, of Osceola, have countered
Schroeder's appeal with one of their own, arguing the attorney
fees should be less than $7 million.  Mr. Reynoldson declined to
share details about their position.  She emphasized her firm is
only addressing the attorney fee dispute rather than getting
involved in the overarching class action lawsuit.

"We're only handling the appeal of the attorney fee award,"
Ms. Reynoldson said.

Mr. Schroeder questions why the court would reduce the attorney
fee in a major lawsuit against a city.

"It seems wrong that a public wrongdoer like the city of Des
Moines is treated differently in this analysis than a private
wrongdoer would be," Mr. Schroeder said.

He added that his team invested countless hours with numerous
staff and other contracted experts. He said they made the effort
and fronted the costs with the expectation of earning a third of
the final lawsuit award.

"It was money we had to advance based on the fact that we were
right," Mr. Schroeder said.  "(Otherwise) how is any citizen going
to get accountability and transparency from their government?"

Des Moines attorney Roxanne Conlin said one-third is a standard
attorney fee for civil cases.  The former U.S. attorney for
southern Iowa also said she was unaware of any precedent for a
municipality to be treated differently than a private party in
this sort of class action suit.

The Iowa Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on the attorney
fee dispute Dec. 3.  But a final court decision at that time is
unlikely, putting a hold on the refund for an undetermined amount
of time, according to attorneys.

"We the people are screwed, and we're never going to get this
money," Des Moines resident Dante Vignarole said.  "This is
taxation without representation."

Mr. Vignarole says every penny of the illegal fee should be
returned to ratepayers with interest added, an argument he
outlined in letters sent to state and federal elected officials,
including President Barack Obama.

Des Moines city officials said they have received some calls from
frustrated residents and have directed them to the attorneys who
are now handling the case.

"We have turned over the funds to the court system," City Manager
Scott Sanders said.  "So it really is out of the hands of the city
at this point."

The city paid their $40 million obligation in January, according
to Mr. Sanders.  But that money will remain in limbo until all
legal disputes are resolved.  A Minneapolis-based firm, Rust
Consulting, will handle and distribute refunds.

Rust officials said they have not yet gotten involved but are on
deck for when court proceedings are resolved.

In recent years, other class action lawsuits over illegal
franchise fees have been filed in Cedar Rapids, Davenport,
Dubuque, Sioux City and Waterloo.  Like in Des Moines, the cases
in Sioux City and Dubuque both involve utility users, according to
Des Moines attorney Ivan Webber, who has offered legal counsel to
both communities.  He said the outcomes of the Sioux City and
Dubuque disputes are still pending court hearings.

"These cases have all been pending for several years," Mr. Webber
said.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Dismissal of Claims Over Cavitron Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against DENTSPLY International Inc. over
Cavitron ultrasonic scalers are appealing a ruling by the San
Francisco Superior Court that rejected all their claims, according
to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the
performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which
Cavitrons were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated"
Cavitron use for "periodontal debridement for all types of
periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013,
and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued
its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company
intends to defend against this appeal.


DENSTPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Judgment in Periodontists' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the breach of express warranty claim by the "Center City
Periodontists," according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.

Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The
plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to
which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court has
not yet ruled on class certification. The Court subsequently
granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs'
New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving
only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the
Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.


DOYLE MASONRY: Removes "Chavez" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Chavez v. Doyle, et al., Case
No. 2014 CA 002072, was removed from the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit of Florida to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-14443-DMM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit for Wage and Hour Federal
Statutory Violations, specifically under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, to recover overtime compensation, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jsr@rgpattorneys.com
                  bshulman@grpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Coke, Esq.
          RICHESON & COKE
          P.O. Box 4048
          317 South 2nd St.
          Fort Pierce, FL 34948
          Telephone: (772) 465-5111
          Facsimile: (772) 466-0378
          E-mail: rc@richesonpa.com


ELI LILLY: Still Faces 3 Product Liability Lawsuits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd. as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, according to
Eli Lilly's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 30,
2014.

The case includes one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte
et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda
Canada et al.). The company promoted Actos in Canada until 2009.


ELI LILLY: Still Faces "Saavedra" Lawsuit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly and Company over Cymbalta
continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to Eli Lilly's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended August 30, 2014.

In October 2012, the company was named as a defendant in a
purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly and
Company) involving Cymbalta. The plaintiffs assert claims under
the consumer protection statutes of four states and seek
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged
injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with Cymbalta. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons within the
U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta.

The company believes these claims are without merit and are
prepared to defend against them vigorously. Additionally, the
company has been named in approximately 30 individual lawsuits
filed in various federal courts by claimants alleging injuries
arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta. Counsel
for plaintiffs have filed a petition seeking to have those cases
and an unspecified number of future cases coordinated into a
multi-district litigation in the Central District of California.


EVERBANK DIRECT: 9th Cir. Revives Icelandic Conversion Rate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit resurrected a class action challenging the
handling of certificates of deposit denominated in Icelandic krona
after that country's banking crisis, reports Tim Hull, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

California resident Ek Vathana filed a class action for breach of
contract against Florida-based EverBank after it closed his
"WorldCurrency" CD, over his protests, in response to the 2008
collapse of Iceland's banking system.  Vathana said he lost about
$30,000 when EverBank liquidated his two CDs using a wholesale
conversion rate for U.S. dollars far less than the rates in which
he had bought in just a few months before.

The exchange rate had been 78.65 ISK and 88.05 ISK per U.S. dollar
when Vathana opened the accounts in the summer of 2008.  EverBank
shut the CDs down later that year at 253 ISK and 217 ISK per U.S.
dollar.

In the interim, Iceland's banking system, and most of the world's
economies, had nearly collapsed.  In October 2008 the prime
minister said that Iceland's banks had liabilities that dwarfed
its gross national product, and the government moved to take over
the banks and stop the exchange of ISK into foreign currency.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Jose granted EverBank
summary judgment on all of Vathana's claims, finding, among other
things, that EverBank had the discretion to close the CDs because
it would have been on the hook for some $12 million in losses had
the currency not recovered.

Noting that EverBank had liquidated the class members' CDs "when
they were least valuable," a three-judge appellate panel partly
reversed on October 31, reviving one of the claims and remanding
the case back to San Jose.

"In hindsight, the CDs would have regained value if EverBank had
remained in the ISK market until Iceland's economy improved,"
Judge Mary Murguia wrote for the unanimous panel.  "But paragraph
1.17 gave EverBank discretion to close the WorldCurrency CDs
immediately to limit its or its customers' losses -discretion that
was limited only by EverBank's obligation under Florida law to act
in good faith.  Vathana has not pointed to any facts demonstrating
that no reasonable person would have made the same discretionary
decision that EverBank made under the circumstances."

That said, "EverBank may have breached its agreement with the
class members by returning the value of their WorldCurrency CDs
using a currency conversion rate within 1 percent of the wholesale
spot price," according to he ruling.

Summary judgment on this claim was improper because the financial
product's terms and conditions are unclear as to which currency
conversion rate applies when a CD is closed, the panel said.

"A reasonable jury could find that the terms and conditions are
silent with respect to the currency conversion rate that applied
when the WorldCurrency CDs were closed and the proceeds from the
CDs returned to the class members," Murguia wrote.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Michael Millen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL MILLEN
          119 Calle Marguerita #100
          Los Gatos, CA 95032
          Telephone: (408) 871-0777
          Facsimile: (408) 516-9861
          E-mail: mikemillen@aol.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Exchange Place
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Bader, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 677-9041
          E-mail: rbader@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          William M. Jay, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: wjay@goodwinprocter.com

The appellate case is Vathana v. Everbank, et al., Case No.
12-15587, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The District Court case is Vathana v. Everbank, et al.,
Case No. 5:09-cv-02338-RS, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Provides Updates on MERS-Related Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, EverHome Mortgage
Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held
mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and
class action lawsuits, according to EverBank Financial Corp.'s
Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some
instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state
recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce,
Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP,
Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed
in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County,
Ohio, and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded
to state court; (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J.
Raymond, Plymouth County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March
2012 in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, later removed
to federal court and now on appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip
Hedrick, County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v.
MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc.,
et al. filed in April 2012 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky and now on appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; (4) St. Clair
County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois;  (5) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an
Oregon state court,  later removed to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon and subsequently remanded back to the state
court; (6) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP,
Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al.,
filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
County, Pennsylvania, and later removed to federal court and
subsequently remanded back to state court; and (7) County of
Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP Holdings,
Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second Judicial
District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court,
District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  In these material and class
action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case generally seek
judgment from the courts compelling the defendants to record all
assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and
appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: "Paduano" Suit Transferred From N.Y. to Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Paduano, et al. v. Express
Scripts, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05376, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
(St. Louis).  The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:14-cv-01858-JAR to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants, which are prescription
benefit managers, have engaged in a concerted and coordinated
effort to deprive patients of life-enhancing medications supplied
by compounding pharmacies, of which Plaintiff HM Compounding
Services, LLC is one, by providing false and misleading
information to patients about their prescribed medications, using
threatening and coercive tactics to discourage physicians from
prescribing compounded medications needed by their patients.  The
complaint adds that the Defendants imposed inconsistent,
burdensome and illegal restrictions on compounding pharmacies in
an anticompetitive effort to restrict those pharmacies from
providing medication lawfully prescribed by physicians for the
health and well-being of their patients -- all in an effort to put
the independent pharmacies out of business and corner the market
for compounded drugs in violation of New York law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica M. Baquet, Esq.
          Shannon E. Boettjer, Esq.
          Stanley A. Camhi, Esq.
          Steven R. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Daniel E. Shapiro, Esq.
          JASPAN SCHLESINGER LLP
          300 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 393-8292
          Facsimile: (516) 393-8282
          E-mail: jbaquet@jaspanllp.com
                  sboettjer@jaspanllp.com
                  scamhi@jaspanllp.com
                  sschlesinger@jshllp.com
                  dshapiro@jaspanllp.com

Defendant Express Scripts, Inc. is represented by:

          Amanda Lynn Nelson, Esq.
          Menachem J. Kastner, Esq.
          Ally Hack, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 509-0400
          Facsimile: (212) 509-9492
          E-mail: anelson@cozen.com
                  mkastner@cozen.com
                  ahack@cozen.com

               - and -

          Christopher Smith, Esq.
          Jason Husgen, Esq.
          Sarah Hellmann, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com
                  jason.husgen@huschblackwell.com
                  sarah.hellmann@huschblackwell.com

Defendant CVS Caremark Corp. is represented by:

          Yonaton Aronoff, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-7474
          Facsimile: (212) 687-2329
          E-mail: yaronoff@foley.com

               - and -

          Connor A. Sabatino, Esq.
          Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          150 East Gilman Street, Suite 5000
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 257-5035
          Facsimile: (608) 258-4258
          E-mail: csabatino@foley.com
                  mleffel@foley.com

               - and -

          Robert Griffith, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 832-4500
          Facsimile: (312) 832-4700
          E-mail: rgriffith@foley.com

Defendant OptumRx, Inc. is represented by:

          Richard H. Silberberg, Esq.
          Christopher George Karagheuzoff, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY, L.L.P
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 415-9231
          Facsimile: (212) 953-7201
          E-mail: silberberg.richard@dorsey.com
                  karagheuzoff.christopher@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Dai Wai Chin Feman, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          51 West 52 Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 415-9345
          Facsimile: (646) 607-5913
          E-mail: chinfeman.daiwai@dorsey.com

Defendant Prime Therapeutics LLC is represented by:

          Jill M. Wheaton, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 S State St., Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7629
          Facsimile: (734) 214-7696
          E-mail: jwheaton@dykema.com

               - and -

          Peter Joseph Fazio, Esq.
          AARONSON, RAPPAPORT, FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 593-6700
          Facsimile: (212) 593-6970
          E-mail: pjfazio@arfdlaw.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Final Approval of "Farley" Labor Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
Colorado, Inc. are awaiting whether the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado will finally approve a
settlement reached in the suit, according to Family Dollar Stores,
Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 30, 2014.

Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on February 7, 2012, seeking unpaid overtime compensation
for a class of current and former Colorado Store Managers. On
March 21, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Class notice was issued in June 2013 and class
discovery concluded in January 2014. In May 2014, the parties
preliminarily agreed to resolve the litigation for an amount not
material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. On July 21,
2014, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
The Court held the final approval hearing on October 24, 2014, and
the parties currently await the Court's decision.


FAMILY DOLLAR: N.J. Court Approves Settlement in "Hegab" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
preliminarily approved a settlement reached in the lawsuit Hegab
v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., according to Family Dollar Stores,
Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 30, 2014.

Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3,
2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and
allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers
under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed
without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been
certified. On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed
to resolve the litigation on a claims-made basis for an amount not
material to the Consolidated Financial Statements. On June 6,
2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved
the settlement on October 3, 2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Itterly" Labor Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of
Pennsylvania, Inc. filed a Notice of Appeal against the dismissal
of the case with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, according to
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
August 30, 2014.

Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was
formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania
Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly
classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.
Discovery closed in June 2012. In August 2013, the Company filed
summary judgment requesting the Court rule that Itterly was
properly classified as exempt from overtime. The District Court
granted the Company's motion on January 30, 2014, and the case is
now dismissed. On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 26,
2014, Plaintiff filed his appellant brief. The Company filed its
appellee brief on October 14, 2014.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Appeals Court Order in "Premo" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet
to rule on an interlocutory petition for appellate relief from a
remand decision filed by Family Dollar Stores, Inc. in the suit
Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., according to
the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 30,
2014.

Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in
Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for
alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26,
2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs
claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under
Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal
district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs
challenged the removal to federal court. On March 28, 2014, the
court remanded the claim back to state court. On April 7, 2014,
the Company filed an interlocutory petition for appellate relief
from the remand decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the 1st Circuit and awaits the appellate court's ruling. In the
interim, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit on May 13,
2014. The Company currently awaits the Court's ruling on its
motion.


FAMILY DOLLAR: N.C. Court Sets Schedule in Gender Pay Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina entered a new Pretrial Order and Scheduling Plan in the
lawsuit Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
August 30, 2014.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in
part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal
of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit. On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals partially reversed the trial court's ruling. While the
Fourth Circuit agreed the original Complaint should not proceed as
a class action, it remanded the case and instructed the trial
court to allow the amendment of the complaint, and then consider,
based upon the amended complaint, whether the case should proceed
as a class action. On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied
further en banc review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the
Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court. On June 30, 2014 the United States Supreme
Court denied further review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The
case is now back with the district court. On September 8, 2014,
the district court entered a new Pretrial Order and Scheduling
Plan and the parties will proceed with limited discovery pursuant
to those Orders.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will
participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal
fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve
is appropriate due to the status of the case.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Del. Court Declines to Hear TRO Bid in Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery concluded that the temporary
restraining order application in a consolidated securities lawsuit
against Family Dollar Stores, Inc. did not merit scheduling a
hearing to consider such relief, and declined to do so, according
to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended August 30,
2014.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and merger sub in the
Delaware Court of Chancery: Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9985, filed on July 31, 2014,
Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and Stuart Friedman v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10080, filed on September 3,
2014. On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all
three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB.

Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges generally
that the members of the Family Dollar board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other
things, carrying out a process that the plaintiff alleges did not
ensure adequate and fair consideration to Family Dollar's
stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege that Family Dollar and
Dollar Tree aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief to
enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary
injunction enjoining the acquisition. On September 3, 2014, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate
its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar board to deem
the terms of Dollar General's proposal sufficient to warrant
entering into negotiations with Dollar General under the terms of
the Dollar Tree merger agreement. At a hearing on September 10,
2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery concluded that the temporary
restraining order application did not merit scheduling a hearing
to consider such relief, and declined to do so. At the same
hearing, the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to then schedule
a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction,
directed the parties to commence document discovery and denied the
plaintiffs' request to commence the taking of depositions.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Removal of "Moore" to Federal Court Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
A Notice of Removal was filed to transfer the case in the suit
Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. from the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended August 30, 2014.

On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly
situated, received SMS text message advertisements from the
Company, without providing express written consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has
requested that the court enter an order certifying the action as a
class action, and appointing him as representative of the class.
Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in favor of himself, and the
proposed class, for all damages available under the TCPA,
including statutory damages of $500 per violation, or $1,500 per
violation if the Company willfully violated the TCPA.

A Notice of Removal was filed on September 9, 2014, along with a
Disclosure of Corporate Interest to remove the case from the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Clark" Suit Moved From Cal. to Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clark, et al. v. Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01775, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City).  The Missouri District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00969-GAF to the proceeding.

The action arises out of an alleged conspiracy to fix fill levels
of exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing propane gas
commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks."  The Plaintiffs
allege that the conspirators are the two leading distributers of
such tanks: Ferrellgas Partners, L.P and Ferrellgas, L.P. (doing
business as Blue Rhino) and UGI Corporation and AmeriGas Partners,
L.P. (doing business as AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com

               - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com

               - and -

          Theodore R. Bell, Esq.
          Carl V. Malstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
          E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
                  malmstrom@whafh.com

Defendants Ferrellgas Partners L.P. and Ferrellgas, L.P. are
represented by:

          Niall Edmund Lynch, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: Niall.Lynch@lw.com

Defendants Amerigas Partners, L.P., and UGI Corporation are
represented by:

          Tammy Hsieh Boggs, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 847-6700
          Facsimile: (858) 792-6773
          E-mail: tboggs@foley.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Halgerson" Suit Moved From Cal. to Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Halgerson v. Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01913, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City).  The Missouri District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00970-GAF to the proceeding.

The antitrust lawsuit arises out of an alleged conspiracy to fix
fill levels of exchangeable portable cylinder tanks containing
propane gas commonly referred to as "propane exchange tanks."  The
Plaintiff alleges that the conspirators are the two leading
distributers of those tanks: Ferrellgas Partners, L.P and
Ferrellgas, L.P. (doing business as Blue Rhino) and UGI
Corporation and AmeriGas Partners, L.P. (doing business as
AmeriGas Cylinder Exchange).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com

               - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com

               - and -

          Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
                  tbell@whafh.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Venezia" Suit Moved From Cal. to Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Venezia, et al. v. Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03141, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri (Kansas City).  The Missouri District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00968-GAF to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have restrained price
competition that led to higher prices for propane sold in propane
exchange tanks in the United States.  As a result of Defendants'
conduct, purchasers of propane exchange tanks in the United
States, including the Plaintiffs, paid a higher price per pound
for propane sold in propane exchange tanks than they otherwise
would have paid but for the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy and
concerted conduct, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brooks Elliott Harlow, Esq.
          LUKAS, NACE, GUTIERREZ & SACHS, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1200
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 584-8680
          E-mail: bharlow@fcclaw.com

Defendants Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas, L.P. are
represented by:

          Niall Edmund Lynch, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: Niall.Lynch@lw.com

Defendants Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, L.P., and
AmeriGas Propane, Inc. are represented by:

          Tammy Hsieh Boggs, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 847-6700
          Facsimile: (858) 792-6773
          E-mail: tboggs@foley.com


FIDELITY TAX: Judge Refuses to Toss Lien Bid-Rigging Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Alston, Aaron Vehling, Alex Lawson and Beth Winegarner,
writing for Law360, report that a New Jersey federal judge on
Oct. 31 declined to fully toss a consolidated class action
accusing several tax companies of bid-rigging in municipal tax
lien auctions, booting two claims but ruling the plaintiffs'
amended complaint reinforced their antitrust claims enough to
withstand a dismissal motion.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp in October 2013 dismissed an
earlier complaint, in which a group of tax companies including
Fidelity Tax LLC and Crestar Capital LLC were accused of violating
federal and state antitrust and tax laws by rigging the auctions
on delinquent tax obligations to keep the interest rates on the
liens artificially high. But after addressing deficient claims in
an amended complaint, the plaintiffs adequately stated their
antitrust claims, Judge Shipp said.

According to the decision, the amended complaint drilled down into
the specifics of the alleged conspiracy in the way the initial
consolidated complaint did not, adding weight to allegations that
the tax companies violated the Sherman Act and the New Jersey
Antitrust Act.

"Where the consolidated complaint merely provided 'exemplars' of
auctions in which there was collusion between vaguely identified
defendants . . . the [amended complaint] provides the date and
location of each alleged instance of collusion, as well as the
identities of the conspirators," the opinion said. "Plaintiffs
have alleged collusion on the part of defendants in connection
with nearly fifty municipal auctions and, for each, have alleged
sufficient facts regarding each party's conduct in advancing the
conspiracy."

Judge Shipp ruled on a joint motion to dismiss filed by Fidelity
and Crestar along with Mooring Tax Asset Group, BBX Capital Corp.,
Heartwood 55 LLC, PAM Investors, CCTS Capital LLC and several
individuals associated with the companies. The defendants
challenged all of the suit's claims, which also included violation
of the New Jersey Tax Sale Law and an unjust enrichment claim.

The judge booted the NJTSL and unjust enrichment claims with
prejudice, ruling the defendants did not charge in excess of
permitted amounts of tax sale certificates under the tax law, and
because the moving defendants didn't purchase any of the
plaintiffs' liens, the latter claim also collapsed.

In addition to the joint motion to dismiss, Crestar and PAM filed
separate motions to dismiss the suit. Crestar argued it began
operations only four months before the end of the period during
which the alleged conspiracy took place, narrowing its
participation in the matter. PAM argued a seven-year hiatus
between its alleged activity renders the claims against it
implausible.

Judge Shipp denied both, ruling the plaintiffs plausibly connected
the Crestar defendants to the conspiracy, despite the short time
frame, and that PAM's claims of an inactive period do not
counteract allegations based on prior and subsequent activity.

The judge also denied a motion to stay the action filed by
individual defendant Michael Mastellone, who in September 2013
pled guilty to a count of conspiracy to rig bids in an auction.
Mr. Mastellone, whose criminal sentencing is pending, argued his
Fifth Amendment rights to avert self-incrimination would be
infringed if he's called to testify in the class action.  But
Judge Shipp said Mr. Mastellone could still invoke the privilege
if he so chooses, and the issues affecting his sentence have
little bearing on the class action's most relevant issues.

According to court filings, New Jersey law allows the auctioning
of tax liens that remain unpaid after a waiting period. The law
requires that investors bid on the interest rate that delinquent
property owners will pay upon redemption, staring with an 18
percent rate that is reducible to zero through a competitive
bidding process.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants began conspiring in 1998 to
allocate the liens among themselves and not bid against each other
in order to make sure the interest rates didn't drop below the
legal maximum of 18 percent.

The plaintiffs say the conspiracy harmed thousands of New Jersey
real property owners by forcing them to pay higher interest rates
on their tax sale certificates than they would have without the
collusion, according to the amended complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by The Wolf Law Firm LLC, Lite
DePalma Greenberg LLC, Williams Cuker & Berezofsky, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
LLP, Mattleman Weinroth & Miller PC, Bailey & Glasser LLP, Smith &
Schwartzstein LLC, Paris Ackerman & Schmierer, Poulos Lopiccolo PC
and Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, among others.

The tax companies are represented by Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein
Brody & Agnello PC, Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP,  Dilworth
Paxson LLP, Bellin & Associates LLC and Steven M. Janove, among
others.

Mr. Mastellone is represented by Gary L. Cutler.

The case is In re: New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust
Litigation, case number 3:12-cv-01893, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

A copy of the decision is available at http://is.gd/kMoiXsfrom
Leagle.com.


GAP INC: Faces Class Action Over Inappropriate Marketing Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Wood Hensley, Esq. and D. Christopher Robinson, Esq. of
Frost Brown Todd LLC, in an article for Lexology, report that
class representatives recently filed suit against national
retailers The Gap Inc., Banana Republic LLC, and Saks Fifth Avenue
LLC, alleging that the defendants inappropriately mark certain
items in a manner that is unfair and unlawful.  In Malik v. Saks
Fifth Avenue LLC and Rubenstein v. The Gap Inc., both venued in
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, the
claimants allege that the defendants deceptively mark the price of
certain items in a manner that manipulates the consumer into
purchasing the item.  The claimants assert that Saks Fifth Avenue
marks items at outlet retail locations with two different prices.
One price is the "Market Price," which represents what the
consumer would pay at a traditional retail location, while the
second "Retail Price" represents the outlet price.  Consequently,
according to the claimants, the consumer believes that he or she
is obtaining a significant discount.  The claimants assert,
however, that Saks Fifth Avenue manufactures the items for sale
specifically at the outlet location, and the items are never on
sale at the "Market Price" in a typical retail location.

Additionally, the claimants assert that the Gap places signs near
racks of clothing indicating that the items on the rack are for
sale.  Only certain items on the rack are in fact at sale prices,
but by the time the consumer reaches the counter to pay for the
purchase, the consumer has already committed mentally to
purchasing the item.  Finally, claimants assert that Banana
Republic displays misleading sale signs in the front window of
stores, but only certain items in the store are actually
discounted.

The Malik and Rubenstein suits come on the heels of a recent class
settlement in another deceptive marketing case.  In September, a
federal judge in Ohio preliminarily approved a class settlement in
a suit against Glaceau Vitaminwater, which is a subsidiary of Coca
Cola Company.  According to the claimants, the company marketed
its products as health drinks, containing important vitamins and
minerals, when in fact the products were merely sugar water.  The
claimants asserted that the marketing plan was deceptive in that
it manipulated the consumer into believing the drink would provide
beneficial health effects.  Although denying legal liability,
Vitaminwater agreed to change the labeling on the product
containers to accurately state the caloric content of the product.
Additionally, Vitaminwater agreed to remove certain statements
from the labels to avoid allegedly misleading the consumer.
Ms. Volz v. The Coca-Cola Company, 1:10-cv-00879 (S.D. Ohio 2010).

These fashion class actions and the recent Vitaminwater class
settlement demonstrate the fine line between frequently occurring
sales tactics and deceptive manipulation.  To the extent the
claimants in Malik and Rubenstein are successful in establishing
the requirements to obtain class certification, these cases could
send a ripple effect throughout the retail industry.  Such effect
is especially likely for retailers that operate stores in both
traditional retail locations and outlet locations.


GOLDMAN SACHS: December 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on Nov. 7 issued a statement regarding
Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al.

LEGAL NOTICE

ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF HUDSON MEZZANINE FUNDING 2006-1 NOTES
AND/OR HUDSON MEZZANINE FUNDING 2006-2 NOTES FROM THEIR INITIAL
OFFERING THROUGH APRIL 27, 2010

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To:  All persons and entities who, from their Initial Offering
through April 27, 2010 (the "Class Period"), purchased or
otherwise acquired any of the following notes (the "Hudson CDO
Notes") issued or co-issued by Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1,
Ltd. or Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp. (the "Hudson 1
CDO") or Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Ltd. or Hudson Mezzanine
Funding 2006-2, Corp. (the "Hudson 2 CDO") in the United States
and were damaged thereby (the "Class"):

Hudson 1 CDO

Security      CUSIP

Class S       443860AA9
              G46464AA4

Class A-f     443860AB7
              G46464AB2

Class A-b     443860AC5
              G46464AC0

Class B       443860AD3
              G46464AD8

Class C       443860AE1
              G46464AE6

Class D       443860AF8
              G46464AF3

Class E       443860AG6
              G46464AG1

Income Notes  44386PAA4
              G46429AA7
              44386PAB2

Hudson 2 CDO

Security         CUSIP

Class S          44386QAA2
                 G46539AA3

Class A-1        44386QAB0
                 G46539AB1

Class A-2        44386QAC8
                 G46539AC9

Class B          44386QAD6
                 G46539AD7

Class C          44386QAE4
                 G46539AE5

Class D          44386QAF1
                 G46539AF2

Class E          44386NAC5
                 G46539AB5

Income Notes     44386NAA9
                 G46539AA7
                 44386NAB7

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN PENDING
LITIGATION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

If you are a member of the Class identified above, your rights may
be affected by the lawsuit.  The lawsuit, Dodona I, LLC v.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 7497 (VM)(DCF), is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court").  The plaintiff and
representative of the Class appointed by the Court, Dodona I, LLC
("Plaintiff"), alleges that Goldman, Sachs & Co., The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc. and former Goldman employees Peter L. Ostrem and
Darryl J. Herrick (collectively, the "Defendants") violated the
United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and New York state
law in marketing and selling the Hudson CDO Notes.  The Court
determined that this case may proceed as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  You may be a
member of the Class.

This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court with
respect to the merits of the claims or the defenses asserted in
this Action.  This Notice is merely to advise you of the pendency
of this Class action case and of your rights.

If you have not yet received the "Notice of Pendency of Class
Action" which describes this Class action case and your related
rights in detail, you may obtain a copy by calling 1-800-424-6690
or writing to Dodona v. Goldman Sachs, c/o:

     Heffler Claims Group
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1700
     Philadelphia, PA 19102

If you fall within the definition of the Class set forth above,
you are a member of the Class.  If You Wish To Remain A Member Of
The Class, You Do Not Need To Do Anything At This Time.

If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must mail a letter
or other written direction requesting to be excluded from the
Class to Dodona v. Goldman Sachs, c/o Heffler Claims Group, 1515
Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19102, postmarked no
later than December 19, 2014.  There are specific requirements for
being excluded that are set forth in the detailed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action.  You may also remain a member of the
Class but appear through your own separate counsel, at your own
expense.  If you choose to be represented by your own counsel, you
will need to separately retain such other counsel.

Inquiries regarding this litigation may be addressed to:  Merrill
G. Davidoff or Lawrence J. Lederer, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, Telephone: (215)
875-3000, Fax: (215) 875-4604, mdavidoff@bm.net or llederer@bm.net

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated:  November 7, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


HERBALIFE LTD: $15-Mil. Class Action Settlement Faces Challenge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Celarier, writing for New York Post, reports that Wall
Street's favorite battleground stock, Herbalife, is in the
spotlight again.  The controversial maker of diet products, which
was set to report results on Nov. 3 after the close of trading,
missed earnings expectations last quarter for the first time since
2008.  The stock has fallen more than 20 percent since then and
has been on a roller coaster ride.  On Oct. 31, the shares rose
3.7 percent to close at $52.46.  Part of the volatility is due to
the short interest in the stock, which is near a 52-week high.
Investors have shorted more than 28 million shares -- almost half
of the float.

Herbalife, which sells protein shakes and other products through a
network of sellers, is being probed by the Federal Trade
Commission over pyramid scheme allegations.

Activist investor Bill Ackman has bet $2 billion the company is a
fraud -- an allegation it has repeatedly denied. Still, investors
seem more concerned about the company's slowing growth in the US.

"It's rare for a company to miss just one quarter, with management
instead often maintaining residual hope and optimism," one
investor said.

Some believe the company has been hurt by the spotlight on its
practices and business changes it has made to keep regulators at
bay.  Herbalife has said it expects to be "exonerated."

The FTC is still interviewing former and current distributors as
part of its investigation and hasn't entered into any negotiations
with Herbalife to end the probe, said sources close to the agency.

Separately, some critics, including Hispanic activists, hope to
stop the $15 million settlement reached on Oct. 31 in a class-
action lawsuit by several distributors.

"We plan to object to the settlement because it won't begin to pay
for the true damages that Herbalife has caused this class," said
Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin
American Citizens.


HERTZ CORP: To Pay $53.4-Mil. in Class Damages in "Sobel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz must pay $53.4 million in class damages for deceptively
advertising its fees at Nevada airports, reports Mike Heuer at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on
October 30.

U.S. District Judge Larry R. Hicks ordered Hertz to pay $42.3
million in restitution and $11.1 million in interest for
concealing costs it passed on to customers who rented vehicles
primarily at airports in Reno and Las Vegas.

Car rental companies at Reno and Las Vegas must pay a percentage
of their gross revenue to the airports as concession fees.

"These companies, including Hertz, pass along the fees to their
customers as surcharges labeled 'airport concession recovery
fees,'" Hicks wrote.

But "Hertz 'unbundled' the surcharges from the base rental rate,
such that the rental rate quoted to customers did not include the
additional 'airport concession recovery fee,' which was itemized
separately in the rental agreement," Hicks ruled.

However, Nevada law requires that car rental and leasing companies
must advertise a rate "'that includes the entire amount except the
taxes, any fees paid to airports and any charges for mileage that
a short-term lessee must pay to lease the car for the period to
which the rate applies,'" according to the original complaint,
which cites the Nevada statute.

Hicks denied Hertz's motion seeking a refund of any unclaimed
awards.

"Unclaimed funds revert to the defendant if 'the defendant had
followed the letter of the law and could not have anticipated its
liability,'" Hicks wrote.  "The court finds that cy pres may be
appropriate in this case and grants leave to the parties to move
the court to establish a cy pres fund once the amount of unclaimed
awards becomes more definite."

Lead plaintiff Janet Sobel filed the lawsuit in October 2006.  The
amended complaint defines the class as anyone who rented a car
from Hertz at a Nevada airport between Oct. 13, 2003, and Sept.
20, 2009.

Sobel said the Reno and Las Vegas airports had to pay 10 percent
of their gross revenues to the airports as concession fees.

But to advertise lower rates, Hertz agencies at most airports
across the country would "pass through airport concession fees to
their customers as surcharges," Sobel claimed.

"(H)owever, concession fees are imposed on the rental car firms by
the airport authorities; concession recovery fees are a different
charge that was created by the rental car firms, which those firms
impose on renters in order to maximize their revenues while
maintaining artificially low base rates," Sobel said.

The class accused Hertz of deceptive trade practices and unjust
enrichment. The court in March 2013 partly granted the class's
motion for summary judgment.

The Class is represented by:

          G. David Robertson, Esq.
          ROBERTSON & BENEVENTO
          50 W Liberty St., Suite 600
          Reno, NV 89501

               - and -


          David B. Zlotnick, Esq.
          BUREAU OF MEDI-CAL FRAUD
          1455 Frazee Rd., Suite 315
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 688-6434
          E-mail: david.zlotnick@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Susan F. Thomas, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-5711
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sthomas@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anna McLean, Esq.
          Dan C. Bowen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: amclean@sheppardmullin.com
                  kbowen@sheppardmullin.com

The case is Janet Sobel, et al. v. The Hertz Corporation, Case No.
3:06-CV-00545-LRH-RAM, in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada.


HYUNDAI: Consumer Watchdog Disputes Gas Mileage Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who purchased Hyundai and Kia cars based on the
companies' misrepresentations about the fuel economy of several of
their 2011, 2012 and 2013 model year vehicles will not receive any
money from the government consent decree with the auto makers
announced on Nov. 3, said advocates at Consumer Watchdog, the non-
profit advocacy group that first requested the EPA investigate
mileage complaints in November, 2011.  That will have to come from
the settlement of class action lawsuits now pending before a
federal court in Los Angeles.  Consumer Watchdog attorneys have
disputed several terms of the proposed settlement.

"Whether the government's settlement with Hyundai and Kia
addresses the impact of their misrepresentation on the
environment, it does not provide compensation to consumers who
bought Hyundai and Kia vehicles thinking they would get the
advertised gas mileage but didn't," said Harvey Rosenfield,
founder of Consumer Watchdog and one of its lawyers representing
consumers in a class action lawsuit against the companies.
"Consumers will need to rely on the controversial class action
settlement now pending to get paid back the money they lost."

Consumer Watchdog attorneys, representing 13 consumers in the
class action, opposed the initial terms of the settlement and
pushed for improvements to the deal, including challenging the
requirement that consumers file a claim form in order to get
compensation.   The judge overseeing the litigation agreed with
Consumer Watchdog attorneys on many points and ordered
improvements to the terms of the settlement.  However, as
presently constructed, motorists will still have to file a claim
to get their compensation.  The federal court is monitoring the
claims process closely.

"Because the class action settlement is the main avenue through
which consumers will get paid, it is crucial that affected
consumers are properly apprised of their rights under the
settlement, said Laura Antonini, staff attorney for Consumer
Watchdog.  "Consumer Watchdog attorneys will continue to closely
scrutinize the terms and outcome of the settlement to ensure as
many people as possible get the money to which they are entitled."

The settlement between the auto makers, the Department of Justice
and the Environmental Protection Agency requires Hyundai and Kia
to pay a combined $300 million penalty to the federal government
for violations of the Clean Air Act stemming from the "MPG"
misrepresentations.

The dispute dates back to complaints Consumer Watchdog received in
2011 from consumers who were disappointed that their vehicles were
not getting the advertised gas mileage.  After writing both the
White House and the EPA without response, Consumer Watchdog
attorneys filed suit against Hyundai for misrepresenting the fuel
economy of its vehicles.  However, on November 2, 2012, the EPA
announced that its investigation of the auto manufacturers
determined that the manufacturers' estimates were inflated.

The EPA announcement sparked the filing of more than 50 other
lawsuits, which were centralized in U.S. District Court in Los
Angeles, at the request of the Consumer Watchdog legal team, in
November 2012.  In February 2013, two of the 60 law firms
representing Hyundai and Kia owners and lessees announced they had
reached a class action settlement with the car manufacturers that
would conclude the claims of an estimated 900,000 consumers who
purchased or leased Hyundai and Kia vehicles with falsely
advertised fuel economy.  The proposed settlement was made public
on December 23, 2013.

Court review of class action settlements is a two-step process.
Courts engage in a preliminary review prior to class members
(consumers) receiving notice of their rights under the settlement.
At a future time, the court will engage in a final review of the
settlement for its overall fairness, considering concerns and
objections raised by class members.

The court preliminarily approved the class action settlement on
October 3, 2014 and the hearing on final approval is currently
scheduled for June 11, 2015.

The case is In re: Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, C.D.
Cal. Case No. 2:13:ml-02424-GW-FFM.

On the Net: http://is.gd/uxJY5Y

Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org--
is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in
Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA.


I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Blumenfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06536
(E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014) alleges 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


INTEL CORP: Plaintiffs in Antitrust MDL Appeal Denial of Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a multi-district antitrust litigation against Intel
Corporation filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, a request for interlocutory appeal of the denial of
certification to the case, according to the company's Oct. 29,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Sept. 27, 2014.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the
allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against the
company by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation,
these class-action lawsuits allege that the company engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by,
among other things: providing discounts and rebates to the
company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors;
interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing the company's
microprocessors. The company disputes these class-action claims
and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal and state class actions other than the
California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all
pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The
Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address
issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In
January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion
for sanctions for the company's alleged failure to preserve
evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously filed by
AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in
the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of a class of
members who purchased certain personal computers containing
products sold by the company.  In July 2010, the Special Master
issued a Report and Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to
certify a class. The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the
Special Master's Report, and a hearing on those objections was
held before the district court in July 2013. In July 2014, the
district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an
order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a request for interlocutory
appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs
in the California actions have moved for class certification,
which the company is in the process of opposing. At the company's
request, the court in the California actions agreed to delay
ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court
ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings. Given the
procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including the
fact that the Delaware district court's decision has been
appealed, the company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of
the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these
matters.


INTEL CORP: Appeals Disapproval of Employee Antitrust Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation filed
a petition for writ of mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit to reverse an order denying approval to the
settlement of the suit, according to Intel Corp.'s Oct. 29, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Sept. 27, 2014.

Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe
Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class action lawsuits in
the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had
entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their
employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and in September
2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The
plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in
the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and
subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies
named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to
cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there
was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs
assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and
Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold
call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants'
alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as
provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act,
restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting
of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven
defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so-
called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former
technical, creative, and research and development employees at
each of the defendants. In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for
summary judgment, which the court denied in March 2014.

In April 2014, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached an
agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which is subject
to court approval. In August 2014, the district court denied
preliminary approval of the settlement. In September 2014,
defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district
court's decision. The Ninth Circuit has ordered briefing and will
schedule a hearing date on the writ petition.


INTEL CORP: Summary Judgment in McAfee Shareholder Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit over Intel Corporation's acquisition of
McAfee, Inc. filed a notice of appeal against the grant of summary
judgment to defendants, according to Intel Corp.'s Oct. 29, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Sept. 27, 2014.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for
$48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-
action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value
of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be
$62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April
2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of
Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the
court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that
motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in
February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Directors Sued Over Planned Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Directors of International Rectifier Corporation are facing
shareholder lawsuits over an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2014.

On August 27 and 28, 2014, two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, and on September 3, 2014, a putative stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, all of which seek to enjoin the merger
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 20,
2014, by and among the Company, Infineon Technologies AG
("Infineon"), and Surf Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Infineon ("Merger Sub"), or, in the alternative, to recover
unspecified damages. The complaints generally allege that the
directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by (i)
agreeing to the merger at an unfair and inadequate price and (ii)
agreeing to unreasonable deal protection provisions in the merger
agreement, including the termination fee and the prohibition
against soliciting competing bids. On October 1, 2014, an amended
complaint was filed in one of the California cases adding claims
that the preliminary proxy statement filed on September 22, 2014
fails to disclose additional details about the discussions that
led up to the approval of the proposed merger and about the
financial analysis performed by J.P. Morgan in connection with
rendering its fairness opinion. The complaints name as defendants
the Company and each of its directors, as well as Infineon and
Merger Sub, which are alleged to have aided and abetted the
claimed breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors.


JAMES HARDIE: "Hernandez" Suit Consolidated in HardiePlank MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Hernandez v. James Hardie
Building Products, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02767, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The Minnesota
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-04655-MJD to the
proceeding.

The case is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re:
HardiePlank Fiber Cement Siding Litigation, MDL No. 0:12-md-02359-
MJD.

All actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
arising from HardiePlank Fiber Cement exterior siding products
manufactured and marketed by James Hardie.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the siding was defectively designed and failed prematurely
due to defects inherent in the siding's formulation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Harold Anderson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com


KINDER MORGAN: Dismissal of Suit v. El Paso Pipeline Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., et
al. is appealing the dismissal of the case, according to Kinder
Morgan, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. and
its majority-owned and controlled subsidiaries (EPB) filed a
purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging both
derivative and non derivative claims, against EPB, and EPB's
general partner and its board. EPB was 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 EPB 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.


KINDER MORGAN: Unitholder Files Motion to Enjoin Vote on Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
Unitholders Litigation, Case No. 10093-VCL filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin a vote on the company's
merger transaction, according to Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s Oct. 29,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in connection with the proposed
Merger Transactions: (i) William Bryce Arendt v. Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 10093-VCL; (ii) The Haynes
Family Trust U/A. v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al.,
Case No. 10118-VCL; (iii) George H. Edwards, et al., v. El Paso
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 10160-VCL; and (iv)
Irwin Berlin v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. 10191-VCL. On September 28, 2014, the Arendt and Haynes
actions were consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholders Litigation, Case No. 10093-VCL,
with the complaint in the Haynes action designated as the
operative complaint. Among the relief sought in the complaints
filed in these lawsuits is to enjoin one or more of the proposed
Merger Transactions.

The plaintiffs in the In re Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
Unitholders Litigation action allege that (i) KMR, KMGP, and
individual defendants breached the express terms of and their
duties under the KMP partnership agreement, including the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the KMP
Transaction and by failing to adequately disclose material facts
related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such
breach; and (iii) KMI tortiously interfered with the rights of the
plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP partnership
agreement by causing KMGP and the individual defendants to breach
their duties under the KMP partnership agreement. Further,
plaintiffs allege that the KMP partnership agreement mandates that
the transaction be approved by two-thirds of KMP's limited partner
interests. On September 26, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for
expedited proceedings. On September 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the KMP
vote.

In the George H. Edwards, et al. v. El Paso Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al. action, plaintiffs allege that (i) El Paso Pipeline
GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP) breached the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing by approving the EPB transaction in bad faith;
(ii) EPGP, the EPGP directors named as defendants, E Merger Sub
LLC, and KMI aided and abetted such breach; (iii) EPGP breached
its duties under the EPB partnership agreement, including the
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (iv) EPB, the
EPGP directors named as defendants, E Merger Sub LLC, and KMI
aided and abetted such breach and tortiously interfered with the
rights of the EPB unitholders under the EPB partnership agreement.

The plaintiffs also allege that (i) KMR and KMGP breached their
duties under the KMP partnership agreement including the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (ii) KMP, the KMGP
directors named as defendants, P Merger Sub LLC, and KMI aided and
abetted such breach and tortiously interfered with the rights of
the KMP unitholders under the KMP partnership agreement. In
addition, plaintiffs allege that KMR and KMGP breached the
residual fiduciary duties owed to KMP unitholders, and KMP, the
KMGP directors named as defendants, P Merger Sub LLC, and KMI
aided and abetted such breach. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the
KMP partnership agreement mandates that the KMP merger be
approved, alternatively, by at least 95% of all of KMP's limited
partner interests, by at least two-thirds of KMP's limited partner
interests, or by at least two-thirds of KMP's common unitholders.
On September 26, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
discovery, and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin the KMP vote.

On October 7, 2014, the Court ruled that expedited discovery and
expedited proceedings could proceed with respect to claims
relating to the vote required to approve the KMP merger. The Court
has scheduled a hearing on this matter for October 31, 2014.

In the Irwin Berlin v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., et al.
action, plaintiff alleges that (i) KMR, KMGP, KMI, and members of
the Board of Directors of KMGP breached their fiduciary duties by
entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately
disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided
and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMGP breached its duty of good
faith and fair dealing. Although KMP is listed as a defendant in
the caption, no claims are asserted against it in the complaint.


KINDER MORGAN: Faces Lawsuits by Public Holders of KMEP Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants
Kinder Morgan Inc. and its majority-owned and/or controlled
subsidiaries (KMI), Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (KMGP) and nominal
defendant Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMEP) on February
5, 2014 and March 27, 2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan,
Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and Burns et
al v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case
No. 9479) respectively. The cases were consolidated on April 8,
2014 (Consolidated Case No. 9318). The consolidated suit seeks to
assert claims both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all public holders of KMEP units during the period
of February 5, 2011 through the date of the filing of the
complaints. The suit alleges direct and derivative causes of
action for breach of the partnership agreement, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting, and tortious
interference. Among other things, the suit alleges that defendants
made a bad faith allocation of capital expenditures to expansion
capital expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures
for the alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's
distributions and growth rate. The suit seeks disgorgement of any
distributions to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond
amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a
"good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together
with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages
and attorney fees.


KINDER MORGAN: "Walker" Lawsuit by KMEP Unitholder Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
The case Walker v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.
et al. is stayed pending further resolution of In Re Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation, according to Kinder
Morgan, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against Kinder Morgan
Inc. and its majority-owned and/or controlled subsidiaries (KMI),
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (KMGP), Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
(KMR), Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L.
Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit
was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and
alleges direct and derivative causes of action for alleged
violation of duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of
control" and "gross mismanagement" in connection with the
calculation of distributions and allocation of capital
expenditures to expansion capital expenditures and maintenance
capital expenditures. The suit seeks unspecified money damages,
interest, punitive damages, attorney and expert fees, costs and
expenses, unspecified equitable relief, and demands a trial by
jury. Defendants believe this suit is without merit and intend to
defend it vigorously. By agreement of the parties, the case is
stayed pending further resolution of In Re Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. Derivative Litigation.


LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Stretches FCRA Limits
-------------------------------------------------
Katharine H. Parker, Esq. -- kparker@proskauer.com -- and Daniel
L. Saperstein, Esq. -- dsaperstein@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
with increasing regularity, states and localities have passed laws
that limit the ability of private employers to inquire into or
otherwise consider the criminal or credit histories of their
prospective and current employees.  At the federal level, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has continued to
pursue litigation against a number of companies on the grounds
that their screening procedures have a "disparate impact" on
racial and ethnic minorities in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In recent years, however, private plaintiffs' counsel have turned
their focus to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the federal
law that permits background checks for purposes of employment so
long as employers obtain authorization from the person subject to
the check and furnish him or her with the appropriate disclosures
and notices.

Unlike other federal, state, and local laws that restrict
employers from conducting background checks regardless of whether
they outsource the task to a third party, FCRA only applies to
employers if they solicit a vendor known as a consumer reporting
agency (CRA) to run the check.  Thus, whether a given company
qualifies as a CRA affects whether an employer must abide by FCRA
when using that company to vet applicants and employees.  To
qualify as a CRA under FCRA, a company must regularly "assemble"
or "evaluate" consumer information for third parties such as
employers.

A new suit contends that LinkedIn, of all companies, is a CRA and,
as a consequence, bound by FCRA.  InSweet v. LinkedIn Corp. -- a
case filed in the Northern District of California -- the
plaintiffs allege that LinkedIn violated several disclosure,
certification, and notice requirements under FCRA in the course of
disseminating "trusted reference" reports to prospective employers
for a subscription fee.  Trusted reference reports contain the
names, locations, employment areas, and current employers and
positions of all persons in a LinkedIn member's network.

The plaintiffs argue that LinkedIn members must input and update
their own employment history (including job titles) and that if a
member falsifies his or her job title from a past employer, or
fabricates an employment position altogether, that
misrepresentation would appear on a reference report for an
individual who purportedly worked with that member at the same
employer.  This, according to the complaint, does not "assure
maximum possible accuracy of consumer report information" and
could lead to "negative consequences" in violation of FCRA.

Proskauer's Ms. Parker and Mr. Saperstein do not believe there is
merit to the plaintiffs' allegations, as several courts have held
that merely obtaining and forwarding consumer information to a
third-party does not make an entity a CRA.  LinkedIn is not
gathering information from multiple sources and creating a
background report; it is simply formatting and sending the
information that users voluntarily post to its site for the
purpose of advertising themselves to potential employers.
Moreover, it is generally understood and accepted that information
posted on social media sites like LinkedIn may be inaccurate,
incomplete or out of date.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit is the latest effort by the plaintiff's
bar to broaden the definition of a CRA beyond the intended scope
of FCRA and illustrates that employers must continue to monitor
developments to ensure that they are following FCRA as appropriate
when seeking information about prospective or current employees
from outside companies.


LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Faces New Motion in Jail Crowding Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an editorial posted at The Blade, severe and
intolerable crowding in the Lucas County Jail underscores the need
for a new jail.  Still, the county can't build its way out of the
crowding problem, any more than the state and nation can cure the
malady of mass incarceration by constructing more prisons.

Finding a long-term solution to jail crowding will take new ways
of doing business, to ensure that those who don't need to be
locked up aren't.  Facing a new motion in a class-action lawsuit,
and ongoing monitoring by a federal court, county commissioners
and Lucas County Sheriff John Tharp must accelerate those efforts
and set a reasonable and flexible cap on the jail population.

Advocates for Basic Legal Equality Inc. wants U.S. District Judge
James Carr to order Mr. Tharp to release from jail, as well as to
refuse to admit, any defendants who are charged with nonviolent
misdemeanors.  The motion stems from a lawsuit ABLE filed in 1970
on behalf of inmates held in the old county lockup.

A new jail was built in the late 1970s, but severe crowding
persists nearly four decades later.  The poorly designed and
decrepit jail is plagued with leaky pipes, a deteriorating roof,
elevators that break down, cracked tiles where roaches can breed,
and visiting areas that lack privacy.

With a capacity of roughly 350 beds, the downtown jail generally
houses 425 to 450 prisoners, forcing dozens of inmates to sleep on
cots in dayrooms.  On occasion, the population exceeds 500.  The
cramped, outdated nine-level building precludes efficient direct
supervision of inmates.

Mr. Tharp is already doing much to manage the jail population.  He
is releasing some people charged with nonviolent misdemeanors, or
not admitting them to the jail.  County law enforcement agencies
are issuing summons to some who have missed court dates, instead
of automatically arresting them.

The sheriff is working hard to maintain a clean and safe jail.  He
has expanded the jail library, created an honor dorm, provided
incentives for good behavior, and kept violent inmates from the
rest of the population.  He is working with community agencies to
treat people with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Despite those efforts, the jail remains dangerously crowded. Lucas
County is probably right that its jail conditions are not
unconstitutional, but that's hardly worth bragging about.

Carol Contrada, the president of the board of county
commissioners, told The Blade's editorial page that the county
opposes releasing prisoners based solely on their charges, saying
that policy could jeopardize public safety.  Such a system would
not consider a detainee's previous history, which could include
more-dangerous offenses and make defendants a higher risk for
flight or re-offense.

The county, working with Lucas County Common Pleas Court judges,
is working on a better risk assessment method for evaluating
releases.  It should start early next year, Ms. Contrada said.

The county is correct in asserting that comprehensive risk
assessment tools, similar to those used by parole boards around
the country, are better predictors of a pretrial detainee's
behavior than charges alone.  But commissioners must take further
steps to reduce the prisoner population now, or risk having such a
rigid -- and risky -- remedy imposed on them by the court.

Even before Lucas County starts using the new risk assessment tool
for releases, it should cap the number of prisoners permitted in
the county jail.  Such a cap should probably not exceed 400
inmates.

Until the county starts using its risk assessment tool, it will
need other ways to meet the cap.  As an interim measure, the
county could establish a committee, including the sheriff and a
judge, to make individual decisions about releases.

To ensure public safety, the county could contract with the
Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio to hold excess prisoners it
determined would pose a significant risk of flight or re-offense.

Other efforts that are already under way to manage the jail
population must accelerate.  These efforts include reducing the
time newly convicted prisoners spend in jail before they are moved
to a state prison, and expanding options for some defendants
awaiting trial by using electronic monitoring and drug screening
instead of jail space.  It's important to remember that prisoners
who await trial have not been convicted and, as such, ought to be
presumed innocent.

Lucas County also should continue its commendable efforts to treat
prisoners with mental health and substance abuse problems, not
only in the community but also in jail.

Dealing with crowding will be far tougher in the current jail.
But a new jail won't be built for two to three years or longer,
depending on how long funding problems delay the project.  New and
more effective ways of managing jail populations must start now.

County officials understand the problem.  In the past two years,
Lucas County has launched many innovative initiatives to reduce
the jail population safely and to run a more efficient and humane
jail.

Despite these efforts, however, the county has failed to keep its
jail population at a safe and humane level.  Capping the
population reasonably and flexibly would help ensure that it does.


MARITIME SANITATION: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an employee
filed a class action lawsuit against Maritime Sanitation Inc. for
misrepresenting him as an independent contractor and violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The defendants have hired approximately 25 employees as rig
representatives in Kemah, Texas, since August 2011 to perform
consulting work on offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico,
according to a complaint filed Nov. 3 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

Onward LLC and Autrey P. McVicker II were also named as defendants
in the suit.

Marcus Austin claims he was misclassified as an independent
contractor for four months from Aug. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31,
2011.  The defendants did not have any written independent
contractor agreements with the plaintiff or any other similarly
situated misclassified contractors, according to the suit.

"Defendants hired, trained, directed and supervised the daily work
of plaintiff and the other similarly situated misclassified
contractors working on offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of
Mexico for defendants' customers," the complaint states.

Austin claims the plaintiff and the other class members were
required by the defendants to comply with instructions about when,
where and how their work was to be done.

The defendants required the plaintiff and other class members to
attend an onshore training course to enable them to perform their
job in a particular method and manner, according to the suit.

"The services provided by plaintiff and the other similarly
situated misclassified contractors were integrated into
defendants' business operations," the complaint states.

Mr. Austin claims all services he and class members provided for
the defendants were required by the defendants to be performed by
them personally.  The plaintiff and the class members did not have
the capability or authority to hire, supervise or pay assistants
to help them perform the services that they were being paid to
perform, according to the suit.

Mr. Austin claims he and class members were prohibited from
setting their own offshore work schedule.  The plaintiff and the
class members were required by the defendants to devote their full
time to their job at the defendants' customer's offshore drilling
rigs and were prohibited from performing any other work, according
to the suit.

"Defendants required plaintiff and the other similarly situated
misclassified contractors to provide daily reports of their
activity and performance," the complaint states.  "Defendants
created and provided to plaintiff and the other similarly situated
misclassified contractors an 'invoice' to complete for any work
performed."

Mr. Austin claims the plaintiff and class members had no
opportunity to realize either a profit or a loss, other than their
non-guaranteed wages.

The defendants prohibited the plaintiff and the class members from
working for other vendors at the same time, according to the suit.

"Plaintiff and the other similarly situated misclassified
contractors did not make their services available to the general
public," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated misclassified contractors were subject to termination for
reasons other than nonperformance of contract specifications."

Mr. Austin claims he and class members were able to terminate
their relationship with the defendants without incurring liability
for failure to complete a job.  Mr. Austin and class members were,
therefore, employees of the defendants, and not independent
contractors, according to the suit.

On Jan. 1, 2012, the defendants re-classified the plaintiff and
class members as W-2 employees and, upon information and belief,
this change was made because of a potential investigation or
proceeding by the IRS, according to the suit.

Mr. Austin claims misclassifying employees violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and caused him and class members damages.

Mr. Austin is seeking class certification and compensatory
damages.  He is being represented by Michael A. Starzyk, Stephen
R. Ricks, April L. Walter and Megan M. Mitchell of Starzyk &
Associates PC.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas case
number: 3:14-cv-00350


MCGRAW HILL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a securities case against McGraw Hill Financial,
Inc., according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2014.

In August 2007, a putative shareholder class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and was
subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York. The
Company and its former CEO and CFO were named as defendants in the
suit, which alleged claims under the federal securities laws in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by
the defendants relating to the Company's earnings and S&P Ratings'
business practices. In April 2012, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and in December 2012, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in
its entirety. The plaintiffs sought to be relieved from the
judgment dismissing the case and also sought permission to file an
amended complaint. The Court denied these requests in their
entirety in September 2013, and the Court's decision was affirmed
by the U.S. Court of Appeals on September 8, 2014.


METROPOLITAN HOUSING: Faces Class Action Over Evictions
-------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley, writing for Arkansas Times, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed in federal court on Nov. 3 against the
Metropolitan Housing Alliance and its director Rodney Forte for
terminating housing subsidies for indigent residents unfairly.

The lawsuit describes the plight of an indigent resident who
thought she had a deal to delay rent payments as she waited to
move to a cheaper apartment, but was evicted for failure to pay
without a fair hearing as provided in agency rules and lost her
Section 8 housing subsidy, though she'd been a good tenant.  The
lawsuit said almost 1,000 tenants had lost Section 8 housing
benefits on a notice by a landlord to vacate without proper
hearings.

The lawsuit said Housing Alliance policies allow eviction on the
word of landlords alone and tenants aren't allowed to cross-
examine them at hearings on the termination.  The lawsuit said
these procedures violate constitutional due process rights as well
as federal law.  The lawsuit describes the experience of a
plaintiff whose subsidy was reduced because the size of her family
dropped and she qualified for a smaller subsidy.  She had an
agreement in writing with a landlord, but he reneged on it and
moved to evict her after she complained to the Arkansas attorney
general.

The lawyers for the plaintiff Brenda Glover -- David Slade --
dslade@cbplaw.com -- John Williams -- jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- and
Hank Hates -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- ask for a preliminary
injunction to restore Glover's Section 8 housing benefits until
the case can be decided.  The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Glover
and all others in similar circumstances.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-06539 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014) alleges 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


MURPHY DISTRIBUTION: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
employees have filed a class action lawsuit against Murphy
Distribution Inc. after they claim it violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay them their proper wages.

Anthony San Miguel and Aaron Soliz claim Murphy Distribution and
Don Murphy violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by employing them
and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek
longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for
[their] employment in excess of [40] hours . . . at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they
are or were] employed," according to a complaint filed Oct. 31 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants violated the FLSA by failing
to maintain accurate time and pay records for them and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees as required.

The defendants own and operate a blasting and painting company.

"Defendants employed Anthony San Miguel as a laborer during the
three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit," the complaint
states. "Defendants employed Aaron Soliz as a laborer during the
three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit."

The plaintiffs claim during their employment with the defendants,
they were engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce.  During the plaintiffs' employment with the defendants,
they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, according to
the suit.

"Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that plaintiffs
worked in excess of forty hours per week," the complaint states.
"Defendants paid plaintiffs a fixed amount of money per job which
did not take into consideration the total number of hours worked
each week."

The plaintiffs claim the defendants did not pay them overtime pay
for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week.  The
defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the
plaintiffs were not exempt from the overtime provisions of the
FLSA, according to the suit.  The defendants failed to maintain
accurate time and pay records for the plaintiffs and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees and often, the plaintiffs'
regular rates fell below the minimum wage, according to the suit.

"Defendants knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its
pay practices violated the FLSA," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim all laborers employed by the defendants are
similarly situated to them because they have similar job duties;
they are not paid for all hours worked at the minimum wage;
regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week; are not paid
overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week; and
are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs from the defendants.

The defendants failed to pay the minimum wage for all hours
worked, failed to pay overtime and failed to maintain accurate
records, according to the suit.  The plaintiffs are seeking class
certification and compensatory damage with pre- and post-judgment
interest.  They are being represented by Melissa Moore and Curt
Hesse of Moore & Associates.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas case
number: 4:14-cv-03131


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Two Student Athletes Join "Jenkins" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two student athletes joined Clemson football player Martin Jenkins
in challenging NCAA rules that limit or cap the amount of
compensation and benefits players can earn while enrolled in
college, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service.

Wisconsin sophomore forward Nigel Hayes and Anfornee Stewart,
starting linebacker for Middle Tennessee State, added their names
to the class action led by Jenkins.  In an amended complaint filed
on October 30, Rutgers basketball player J.J. Moore, University of
Texas El Paso football player Kevin Perry and UC Berkeley football
player Bill Tyndall were dropped from the lawsuit, as their
eligibility recently lapsed.

Along with the governing body for college athletics, the players
are suing the five Power Conferences that represent NCAA Division
I men's basketball and FBS football.  They seek an injunction to
allow the free market to dictate how much college athletes are
paid.

The players were expected to move for class certification on
November 6.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          David G. Feher, Esq.
          David L. Greenspan, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-4193
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
                  dfeher@winston.com
                  dgreenspan@winston.com

               - and -

          Sean D. Meenan, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: smeenan@winston.com

The case is Jenkins, et al. v. NCAA, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-
02758-CW, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division.


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kopen, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. National Recovery Solutions, LLC, a New York
limited liability company, and John and Jane Does Numbers 1
Through 25, Case No. 2:14-cv-06362-CMR (E.D. Pa., November 5,
2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC
          30 E. Butler Pike
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com


NEW YORK CITY, NY: 2nd Cir. Junks Suit Over Stop-and-Frisk Reform
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that blasting
police unions for a "collateral attack on the democratic process,"
appellate judges removed the final roadblock preventing New York
City Mayor Bill de Blasio from fulfilling a campaign promise not
to appeal court-ordered stop-and-frisk reform.

Black and Latino New Yorkers in the case of Floyd v. The City of
New York have fought for six years against racial profiling in
street stops.

After a closely watched trial last year, a judge found it
unconstitutional for the police to target and frisk minorities
such as the lead plaintiff in the class action, a black medical
student who was about a block away from his home when police
allegedly reached into his pockets.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin mandated that police clamp
down on discrimination in stops by wearing body cameras, filling
out more paperwork and submitting to a court monitor.

Fighting these measures tooth and nail, then-exiting Mayor Michael
Bloomberg impugned Scheindlin's impartiality and launched an
appeal.

De Blasio promised to bring this counteroffensive to an end in his
mayoral campaign against social inequality symbolized by a "Tale
of Two Cities," but several police unions never signed on to his
plans.

The Detectives' Endowment Association and other groups sought to
intervene in a federal court, and then appealed that decision
after losing before a new judge, Analisa Torres.

A unanimous 2nd Circuit ruling on October 31 skewered the unions'
attempt to scuttle the city's deal.

In a 30-page opinion, the judges wrote that "granting the unions'
motions in the wake of the November 2013 mayoral election would
essentially condone a collateral attack on the democratic process
and could erode the legitimacy of decisions made by the
democratically-elected representatives of the people."

Judges Barrington Parker, Jose Cabrenes and John Walker, who co-
authored the opinion, made similar points during oral arguments in
the case earlier this month.

They agreed that they had "serious reservations about the prospect
of allowing a public-sector union to encroach upon a duly-elected
government's discretion to settle a dispute against it," in the
opinion.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the advocacy group
that brought the underlying lawsuit, noted that the city withdrew
its appeal immediately following the release of the decision this
morning.

"T[he] ruling confirms the unions cannot claim they are harmed by
court orders simply requiring them to comply with the
Constitution," the CCR's legal director Baher Azmy said in a
statement.  "Now, after the unions' unnecessary obstructionism,
all New Yorkers can work together to end racially discriminatory
policing and bring meaningful reform and accountability to the
NYPD."

Zachary Carter, a lawyer for the New York City Law Department,
confirmed that the decision "clears the way for implementation of
the remedial measures" that the city agreed to enact, but he did
not comment on what the timeline for rolling out these reforms
might be.

The Detectives' Endowment Association did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

The Floyd Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Baher Azmy, Esq.
          Darius Charney, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6464
          Facsimile: (212) 614-6499

               - and -

          Philip A. Irwin, Esq.
          Eric Hellerman, Esq.
          Gretchen Hoff Varner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: pirwin@cov.com
                  ehellerman@cov.com
                  ghoffvarner@cov.com

               - and -

          Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
          Joshua S. Moskovitz, Esq.
          BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN, LLP
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 490-0400
          Toll Free: (800) 275-4977
          Facsimile: (212) 557-0565
          E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com
                  jmoskovitz@blhny.com

The Ligon Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Alexis Karteron, Esq.
          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          Jordan Wells, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street, New York NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 607-3300
          Facsimile: (212) 607-3318

               - and -

          Mariana Kovel, Esq.
          THE BRONX DEFENDERS
          360 East 161st Street
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 838-7878
          Facsimile: (718) 665-0100

               - and -

          Juan Cartagena, Esq.
          LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
          99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-2815
          Telephone: (212) 219-3360
          Facsimile: (212) 431-4276

               - and -

          J. McGregor Smyth, Jr., Esq.
          NEW YORK LAWYERS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          151 West 30th Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10001

               - and -

          John A. Nathanson, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Resetarits, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          E-mail: john.nathanson@shearman.com
                  jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com

The Defendant-Appellant New York City is represented by:

          Richard Dearing, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel
          Deborah A. Brenner, Esq.
          Fay Ng, Esq.
          Kathy Park, Esq.
          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 356-1148

The Appellants-Putative Intervenors Detectives' Endowment
Association, Inc., et al., are represented by:

          Joseph A. Diruzzo, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Molinaro, Esq.
          FUERST ITTLEMAN DAVID & JOSEPH, PL
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 32nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350-5690
          Facsimile: (305) 371-8989
          E-mail: jdiruzzo@fuerstlaw.com
                  jmolinaro@fuerstlaw.com

The Appellant-Putative Intervenor Sergeants Benevolent Association
is represented by:

          Anthony P. Coles, Esq.
          Courtney G. Saleski, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 335-4501
          E-mail: anthony.coles@dlapiper.com
                  courtney.saleski@dlapiper.com

The Appellants-Putative Intervenors Patrolmen's Benevolent
Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al., are represented
by:

          Steven A. Engel, Esq.
          Edward A. McDonald, Esq.
          James M. McGuire, Esq.
          Elisa T. Wiygul, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6797
          Telephone: (212) 698-3500
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: steven.engel@dechert.com
                  edward.mcdonald@dechert.com
                  james.mcguire@dechert.com
                  elisa.wiygul@dechert.com

Amici Curiae Grand Council of Guardians, Inc., National Latino
Officers' Association, and 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care
are represented by:

          James Reif, Esq.
          GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS, LLP
          817 Broadway 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-7727
          Facsimile: (212) 228-7654
          E-mail: JReif@grmny.com

Amici Curiae Communities United for Police Reform, et al., are
represented by:

          David B. Rankin, Esq.
          RANKIN & TAYLOR, PLLC
          11 Park Place, Suite 914
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 226-4507
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9480

Amici Curiae Law Professors are represented by:

          Jonathan Romberg, Esq.
          SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
          One Newark Center
          1109 Raymond Boulevard
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 642-8500
          E-mail: jonathan.romberg@shu.edu

Amici Curiae Public Advocate for the City of New York and Members
of the New York City Council are represented by:

          Jennifer Levy, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE
          1 Centre St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 669-2175

The appellate cases are: Floyd v. City of New York, Case No. 13-
3088-cv; Ligon v. City of New York, Case No. 13-3123-cv;
Detectives' Endowment Ass'n, Inc. v. Floyd, Case Nos. 14-2829-cv,
14-2848-cv; and Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Ligon, Case No.
14-2834-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, on Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Collins, Jenny Heinz, Elizabeth Lapenne, Emilou Maclean,
Ann Shirazi, Asya Weisenhaus, and Chloe Weisenhaus v. The City of
New York, New York City Police Department ("NYPD") Deputy Chief
Steven Anger, NYPD Lieutenant Michael Zielinski, NYPD Lieutenant
William Cooke, NYPD Officer Thameshwar Sharma, Shield No. 22759,
NYPD Officer Francisco Delgado, Shield No. 20240, NYPD Officer
James Louie, Shield No. 13986, NYPD Officer Cheung Li, Shield No.
05474, NYPD Officer Nikim Walker, Shield No. 02320, and NYPD
Officer John McNamara, Shield No. 22960, Case No. 1:14-cv-08815-UA
(S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014) is an action for compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees arising from alleged
violations of the Plaintiffs' civil rights, as secured by the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of
the state of New York.

The City of New York is a municipal entity created and authorized
under the laws of the state of New York, with general offices
located in New York.  New York City is authorized by law to
maintain the New York City Police Department, which acts as its
agent in the area of law enforcement, and is ultimately
responsible for the NYPD and assumes the risks incidental to the
maintenance of it and its employees.  The Individual Defendants
are NYPD officers, officials or agents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq.
          GIDEONLAW
          277 Broadway, Suite 1501
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (646) 263-3495
          Facsimile: (646) 349-2914
          E-mail: gideon@gideonlaw.com


NEW ZEALAND: Ross Investors File Suit v. Inland Revenue Dept
------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish McNicol, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that swindled
David Ross investors have filed the first "test case" claiming
full tax refunds on what they say amounts to them paying taxes for
being robbed.

Inland Revenue Department in November 2013 detailed how investors
in Ross Asset Management could have tax returns from 2008 onwards
reassessed.  This had followed a proposal from Inland Revenue on
March 19 last year, which said possible tax refunds were being
considered for tax paid in relation to what has since emerged as
fictitious investments.

In March, however, the period was extended to include eight years
of overpaid tax after Inland Revenue concluded investors had made
a "clear mistake or simple oversight".

Lower Hutt-based Ram operator Ross, 64, was last year sentenced to
10 years and 10 months in jail for operating the scheme which
robbed 700 investors of at least NZ$115 million.

Before the refund period was extended to eight years, Ram
Investors Group head Bruce Tichbon estimated the total refund
could be worth between NZ$15 million and NZ$20 million, as
liquidators revealed Ram portfolios were overstated by more than
$300 million in 2012.  But investors have considered legal action
and the possibility of a class-action against a deal they say
amounts to them paying taxes for being robbed.

Brent Gilchrist, a 30-year tax specialist who worked for Inland
Revenue for 10 years and who was sentenced to 10 months home
detention last year for his role in a fictitious invoice-writing
scheme, has questioned Inland Revenue's initial refund offer,
saying it was not as generous as it sounded.  He filed his first
"test case" on behalf of an investor duped of $875,000, claiming
an additional refund from the Inland Revenue.

"What I've been doing is saying to people: 'Use your accountant to
get your initial refund, because it's all there in front of them.'

"And once you've got that, come back to me and I will look at
trying to get you an additional refund on the basis that my view
is they shouldn't be paying any tax on it."

The Inland Revenue had indicated some of the Ram funds were
legitimate investments, based on revised values from the
liquidator, which should be taxed.

Liquidator PwC had calculated the reduced value of Ram portfolios
between 2007 and 2012 and in some instances accounts were worth
just 3.67 per cent of the original value.  For instance, Ram's
portfolio worth in 2012 was stated as being in excess of NZ$345
million; PwC had recalculated its actual value to be just NZ$12.7
million.

Mr. Gilchrist said Ross should be paying the taxes, though Inland
Revenue would not be able to recoup anything from him now.

"People who steal the money should be taxed on the ill-gotten
gains. It just seems wrong to be taxed on something stolen off
you."

An Inland Revenue spokesperson said it had received about 330
amendment requests from investors, of which 17 had been declined.
Requests were continuing to be filed but it would not disclose how
much tax had been refunded to date.  Mr. Gilchrist had been filing
amendment requests for "Mum and Dad" investors where between 70
and 75 per cent of the original tax paid was being refunded.


NISEN SUSHI: Faces "Liu" Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
De Xiong Liu and Ming Qiang Bao v. Nisen Sushi of Woodbury LLC,
Nisen Sushi of Commack LLC, Tom Lam, Robert Beer, John Doe and
Jane Doe, Case No. 2:14-cv-06525 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014)
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


OMNICARE INC: US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 3 in a securities
class action against pharmaceutical giant Omnicare, asking to what
extent, if any, a corporation needs a "reasonable basis" for
opinions in its SEC registration statement, reports Lorraine
Bailey at Courthouse News Service.

Omnicare is the largest provider of pharmaceutical services for
residents of long-term care facilities in the United States and
Canada.  In 2005, it raised $750 million in a public stock
offering, after filing a registration statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The statement said that Omnicare's contracts with drug companies
were "legally and economically valid arrangements that bring value
to the healthcare system and patients that we serve."  But a rash
of whistleblower suits before and after the offering accused
Omnicare of taking kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies to
promote certain drugs, and submitting false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid.

Omnicare agreed in June to pay $124 million to settle claims
brought by the Department of Justice involving false billings to
federal healthcare programs.

A 2006 shareholder class action accused Omnicare of making false
statements to the SEC.  A federal judge in Kentucky dismissed that
action, finding that plaintiffs could not show Omnicare knew its
statements of legal compliance were false at the time.  But the
6th Circuit revived the lawsuit under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1934, holding that it was unnecessary for shareholders to
plead that Omnicare did not believe its own statement.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on November 3.

Omnicare attorney Kannon Shanmugam, with Williams & Connolly, told
the court that the company can be held liable for a false
statement in its registration statement only if the person who
signed the statement did not actually hold the stated belief -
regardless of whether it was reasonable.

Justice Elena Kagan doubted it: "Mr. Shanmugam, suppose that in a
particular registration statement there was a statement that said
a particular kind of transaction was lawful, all right, and the
person who makes that statement, whoever it is, really believes
it. But in fact, that person knows that the government is
breathing down his neck, that the government seems to have a
different view.  That person knows that its competitors have a
different view.  And that person has also consulted three lawyers,
and two of them have given a different view.  But he still
believes what he believes.

"But the only thing he says is, 'I think this is lawful.'  Now,
why isn't that something where there is an omission that makes the
statements misleading?"

Shanmugam said this hypothetical underscored the fact that
Congress did not impose liability on untrue or misleading
statements -- according to Omnicare's reading of the statute.  The
statements have to be knowingly false to impose liability, he
said.

Mark Foster, a securities litigator with Morrison Foerster, told
Courthouse News: "Omnicare argues that opinions are exactly that.
They are beliefs, not based on objective facts, but expressions of
judgment.

"Others may disagree with that judgment -- this case raises the
question, do all statements of opinion inherently contain this
disclaimer?"

Shareholders' attorney Thomas Goldstein, with Goldstein & Russell,
argued before the court for the Laborers District Council
Construction Industry Pension Fund.

"With respect," Goldstein said, "[Section 11] is a strict
liability statute.  If the factual representations that are
expressed or implied are incorrect, then [Omnicare is] liable."

Under this reading of the law, Omnicare would be liable even if it
genuinely believed its statement at the time it was made, because
events showed the statement to be objectively false.

"The whole point of having these [statements] in the registration
statement is to persuade people about the state of the company,
about the state of what it's doing, about its profitability and
the like.  And if you announce a legal rule that says . . . so
long as you put the words 'we believe' in front of any of those
sentences, then what you're going to have is a situation in which
every single time when Congress is trying to make sure that the
company speaks truthfully, the plaintiff is going to be held to
the burden of proving what's inside people's heads.  And I don't
think that that is what you would naturally infer from a statute
like this," Goldstein said.

Justice Samuel Alito asked to what extent a CEO must investigate
whether something illegal is going on in his company -- could he
or she just trust the general counsel's word, or would they have
to hire an outside firm to investigate whether someone was paying
bribes?

"All you're saying is 'reasonable, reasonable, reasonable,'" Alito
said.  "I would like some more concrete guidance as to what is
reasonable."

Goldstein said the answer depends upon the context.

Chief Justice John Roberts interjected: "Is it reasonable for [the
CEO] to say, 'I don't know anything about any bribes.'  The lawyer
comes in.  'Do you know anything about bribes?' 'No, I don't know
anything about any bribes.'  Is it reasonable for him to say, 'In
our opinion, our employees are not giving bribes?'"

Goldstein responded: "If that is true across the company, because
it's not just the CEO that signs the registration statement, then
yes."

Goldstein said that shareholders alleged that Omnicare's own
lawyers told the company that some of its purchases could be
illegal kickbacks.

"What we want to do on remand is the following: We want to show
the actual facts, and we want to show that a person would not
reasonably conclude this activity was legal," Goldstein said.

Foster told Courthouse News that a corporate general counsel
usually does not sign a registration statement, even though he or
she wrote it.  "They're more like speechwriters than
speechmakers," Foster said.

He added: "There's a worry that there's a little bit of a shell
game separating those who speak from those who know.  But there
are other sources of law that prohibit CEOs from sticking their
head in the sand to avoid liability under the Securities Act.  If
they do stick their head in the sand, they may subject themselves
to liability under state law for breach of fiduciary duty."

The Department of Justice weighed in on the issue in support of
shareholders, and presented its opinion as a middle ground.

Nicole Saharsky, for the government, said that statements made in
a registration statement must have a reasonable basis.

"We mean a basis that would be expected under the circumstances,
that a lack of a reasonable basis is what makes an omitted fact
make the statement about the opinion misleading," Saharsky said.

The government disputed the 6th Circuit ruling that a company
could be liable for an opinion in a registration statement that
was later found to be untrue.

"The key point that I want to make when you are thinking about
petitioner's statement is, the SEC does really view this as a
problem to say that the petitioner's idea that you can just put
'we believe' in front of something and then not have any need to
make an investigation into it or see whether it has a basis,"
Saharsky said.

Foster said that if the Supreme Court decides to vacate and remand
the case, "It would lead to uniformity, as the 6th Circuit is the
odd man out right now.

"Alternatively, if the court adopts the middle ground approach,
that would lead to more uncertainty.  The reasonable basis test is
unsettled, and may lead to a certain amount of uncertainty for
judges and juries as to what constitutes a reasonable basis."


ORACLE CORP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Oracle Corp.
lost a bid on Nov. 7 to put a quick end to antitrust claims from a
bevy of third party technical support firms that say the company's
manner of supplying updates for its computer servers and Solaris
operating system illegally restricts competition.

Sun Microsystems, which first released Solaris in 1992, had
routinely permitted businesses to obtain updates, software patches
and bug fixes, creating an open market for support services.

Oracle ended that policy following its acquisition of Sun in 2010,
and began providing updates only to customers who purchased
expensive technical support contracts, according to Terix Computer
Company Inc., Maintech Inc. and Volt Delta Resources
With seeming reluctance, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the
Northern District of California said he was bound to let the
companies proceed with allegations that the change constitutes a
violation of federal antitrust laws that has allowed Oracle to
monopolize the market for Solaris support services.

"With respect to certain of defendants' tying-related claims, as
much as it might struggle to make sense of them under prevailing
economic theory, the court nevertheless must defer to the Supreme
Court's binding precedent and permit defendants to proceed," Judge
Grewal wrote in the 29-page opinion.

Later in his ruling, Judge Grewal suggested he has a dim view of
the precedent, the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Eastman Kodak
v. Image Technical Services.

"To say that Kodak has failed to inspire a strong following would
be an understatement.  Judges and academics have struggled to
understand the Supreme Court's underlying economic rationale . . .
" he wrote.  "But whatever its popular reception, Kodak remains
the law of the land and this court is bound to apply it."

Despite Judge Grewal's sympathies, Oracle now finds itself playing
defense in litigation it initiated.

Oracle sued Terix and Maintech in July 2013 accusing the IT
companies of stealing copyrighted code, patches, updates, and bug
fixes for Solaris.  Oracle later amended the complaint to add more
defendants offering Solaris support services.

According to Oracle, the companies either obtained access
credentials to Oracle's support website under false pretenses or
encouraged Oracle customers to log in and download updates to
Solaris unlawfully.  The suit survived a motion to dismiss earlier
this year.

Lawyers for the support companies responded with counterclaims
alleging that Oracle was illegally tying Solaris updates to
support services, using its copyright monopoly to lock in
customers who had previously been free to shop around.  The
independent service providers contend they could provide less
expensive and superior technical support if customers were not
dependent on Oracle for updates.

"This is the epitome of a tied market," wrote lawyers representing
Maintech and Volt.

Oracle, represented by Bingham McCutchen's Geoffrey Howard and
Daniel Wall at Latham & Watkins, argued that the counterclaims
fell outside the four-year statute of limitations.  But Judge
Grewal found that Oracle tolled the statute of limitations by
filing its copyright claims in 2013.

Oracle also argued that the defendants had not shown a relevant
market for their counterclaims.  Separating the sale of software
patches and updates from the provision of technical support
creates distinct markets "that exist only in the imaginations of
defendants' lawyers, not in the real world," the company's lawyers
stated in their motion to dismiss.

Judge Grewal disagreed. "No matter how common the industry
practice of combining up-front license payments and annual support
payments, before the Oracle-Sun merger, it is alleged that
customers could download updates and firmware for little or no
cost," he wrote.  While Oracle insists that it never ran an
updates business, he continued, the defendants allege "that this
is exactly what Sun did before the acquisition."

Oracle came away on Nov. 7 with some wins.  Judge Grewal dismissed
counterclaims for false advertising, copyright misuse and contract
interference.  He also struck all 87 of the defendants'
affirmative defenses to Oracle's copyright infringement claims.
He granted the defendants a chance to amend their counterclaims
and defenses.

Terix is represented by Robinson & Wood, Rimon P.C., and Lardier
McNair.  GCA Law Partners has represented Maintech and Volt Delta
Resources, and in September, lawyers with Durie Tangri entered
appearances for the companies.

Lawyers for the defendants weren't immediately available on
Nov. 7.  A spokeswoman for Oracle declined to comment.


PANERA BREAD: Subsidiary Faces Labor Lawsuit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Panera Bread Company subsidiary is facing a lawsuit filed by a
former employee in the California Superior Court, County of
Riverside, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.


PANERA BREAD: Accused by GMs of Shorting Them on Buyout Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
general managers claim Panera Bread shorted them on their "joint
venture GM (general manager) buyout payment."


PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Group of Pharmacists From Lipitor MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has dismissed a group of California
pharmacists from multidistrict litigation in which they and others
claimed drug makers Pfizer and Ranbaxy violated antitrust laws by
agreeing to postpone the rollout of a generic version of the
anticholesterol drug Lipitor.

The pharmacists claimed Pfizer and Ranbaxy violated California's
antitrust law by reaching an agreement that extended the patent on
Lipitor by 20 months.  But U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan said
their complaint failed to state a plausible claim because they did
not calculate a reasonable valuation of nonmonetary relief granted
in the Pfizer-Ranbaxy deal.

The ruling dismissing the California pharmacists comes after the
Sept. 12 dismissal of a group of direct purchaser plaintiffs,
including Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Burlington Drug Co., Value
Drug Co., Professional Drug Co., Rochester Drug Co-Operative and
American Sales Co., and the Oct. 30 dismissal of a group of end
payors, including Walgreen Co., Meijer, Rite Aid and Giant Eagle.
Still pending in the MDL are claims by a group of about 20 direct
purchasers who opted out of inclusion in the direct purchaser
class.

The plaintiffs claimed Pfizer made a "reverse payment" to Ranbaxy
by agreeing to forbearance of a damages claim in a separate
dispute relating to the Pfizer drug Accupril in exchange for
Ranbaxy's agreement to delay its launch of generic Lipitor and by
allowing Ranbaxy to launch its generic version of the drug in
certain foreign markets.

The pharmacists claimed that certain public statements by Pfizer's
management served to show their cause of action was plausible,
including a statement by former Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler, which
described the damages owed to it by Ranbaxy in the Accupril case
as "very, very substantial."

But Judge Sheridan said an estimate of the damages is necessary to
permit the court to evaluate the reverse-payment settlement
agreement under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Federal
Trade Commission v. Actavis.

In the Actavis case, the court said such reverse-payment
settlement agreements could be deemed restraint of trade if they
involved a large, unjustified payment between the patent holder
and alleged infringer.

The Lipitor litigation stems from a June 2008 agreement between
Pfizer and Ranbaxy concerning the latter's plans to produce
generic versions of Lipitor and two other drugs, Caduet and
Accupril, according to court documents.

The California pharmacist plaintiffs said they were not attempting
to rely on Actavis or to allege a reverse payment, let alone one
that is large and unjustified.  Rather, they claimed the agreement
as a per se illegal market allocation agreement.  They sought
damages under California's antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, by
reason of having paid noncompetitive prices for Lipitor as a
result of the agreement, but Judge Sheridan said the claims were
implausible in light of his dismissal of the direct purchasers.

Gil Messina -- gmessina@messinalawfirm.com -- of the Messina Law
Firm in Holmdel, N.J., representing the California pharmacists,
said he would appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.  He said his case didn't belong with the others
because it is not a class action and, unlike the others, claimed
the Pfizer-Ranbaxy deal was a violation per se of antitrust laws.

Pfizer spokeswoman Christine Regan Lindenboom provided a statement
on behalf of the company, which said, "Pfizer is pleased with the
court's decision to dismiss this case.  Pfizer has always believed
that the procurement and enforcement of its Lipitor patents,
including its settlement, was at all times proper and lawful.  The
company will continue to vigorously protect and defend its
intellectual property, which is vital to developing new medicines
like Lipitor that save and enhance patient lives."

Lawyers representing Ranbaxy in the case did not return calls.


PICKVEST: Investors File Class Action in North Gauteng High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that a group of
investors in the Pickvest-promoted property syndication companies
have applied for leave to institute a class action against the
property scheme at the North Gauteng High Court.

In recently filed court papers, Sharon Ann Vlok, an investor and
signatory to the founding affidavit, alleges that the intended
claims are aimed at various directors and individuals related to
the investment schemes in their personal capacities for "their
fraudulent and/or reckless conduct which resulted in the investors
losing much of their investments, if not everything".

The crux of the case is that no immovable properties were
transferred into the relevant investment vehicles, despite such
promises and representations having been made to investors.  In
total R3.6 billion was paid by investors for the properties which
they never received.

The group of investors asks the court to allow one individual
class action on behalf of investors in the Highveld Syndications
19, 20, 21 and 22.  The class action suit will allow the 18 600
investors, if they so choose, to collectively sue the companies
and individuals associated with the investment scheme.

The application follows after the group of investors held several
information sessions with other investors all around the country.
The court papers do not reveal how many investors are backing the
application.

Ms. Vlok's affidavit lists 22 respondents, including Nic Georgiou,
several other members of the Georgiou family, Zephan Properties,
Hendrik Myburgh, Bosman & Visser, Willem Steyn, Hans Klopper and
Orthotouch.

In the affidavit Ms. Vlok alleges that Mr. Georgiou, a property
billionaire and MD of Orthotouch, controlled the scheme and that
the directors of the various syndication companies did not act in
the best interest of investors.

Ms. Vlok also states that Mr. Klopper, the business rescue
practitioner, compromised himself as he accepted an appointment as
a director of Orthotouch, the company he should have stood up to
in order to act in the best interest of investors.

In court next year

Following the filing of the application, the respondents will need
to file answering affidavits within 20 days of receiving the
documents.  If the parties oppose the application, the case will
only be heard early next year.

This application for leave to institute a class action was brought
two weeks before investors will vote on a proposed scheme of
arrangement on Nov. 12.

This proposed scheme of arrangement comes after Orthotouch, which
in terms of the business rescue process owns the syndicated
properties, failed to meet its interest-payment obligations to
investors.

In her affidavit, Ms. Vlok strongly opposes the proposed scheme of
arrangement.  She alleges that Orthotouch has breached its
obligations in terms of the business rescue process, and that the
proposed scheme of arrangement would result in investors signing
their rights away and having less security than they have had
before.  It is uncertain how this application for leave to bring a
class action will affect, if at all, the voting on the proposed
scheme of arrangement.

Mr. Georgiou did not respond to emails to respond to the proposed
class action and the allegations against him.

On Nov. 3 Klopper said the Sherrif has not served the papers on
him and that he could not comment.


POSITIVESINGLES.COM: Class Wins Nearly $16 Million in Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a state
court jury awarded a man nearly $16 million in damages after
finding that Positivesingles.com -- a dating Web site for STD-
positive singles - shared his profile with millions of users
despite the promise of "100 percent" confidentiality.

John Doe sued Positivesingles.com and its parent company,
Successfulmatch.com, in Santa Clara County court in 2011, for
unfair competition and violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Doe represents a class of users who also posted profiles on
Positivesingles.com, which "preys on the vulnerability of the
members of the public that test positive for STDs," according to
the complaint.

STD-positive singles are lured in with "empathetic sounding
statements like 'you feel like you are all alone in the world, do
you wish there was a place where you didn't have to worry about
being rejected or discriminated,'" Doe said in the original
complaint.  The Positivesingles Web site goes on to bill itself as
"a warmhearted and exclusive community for singles and friends
with STDs" that "cares about your privacy more than other sites,"
Doe added.

But the man said that what the Web site doesn't tell users is that
its parent company, Successfulmatch.com, mines the profiles and
displays "the personal profile, picture and other information of
those who have one condition or characteristic" on thousands of
its subsidiary Web sites -- often portraying users as something
they are not: HIV-positive, kinky, Christian, black, gay, or any
number of other characteristics that may or may not apply to them.

So Positivesingles.com's promise of a free and anonymous profile
is really just a license for Successfulmatch's 732,000 users to
view full profiles and make their own judgments about Doe, who
says he is not black, gay, Christian or HIV-positive.  That
violates both state unfair competition and consumer laws, the man
claimed.

On the last week of October, a jury agreed and awarded Doe and the
class $1,493,943.43 in compensatory damages, and another $15
million in punitives.

For the compensatory damages, the jury unanimously agreed that the
Web sites made misleading statements and misrepresented their
affiliation.  Those misrepresentations and misleading promises led
Doe and other users to sign up for Positivesingles memberships,
the jury found.

The jury also found oppression, malice and fraud on the part of
the Web sites, leading to the $15 million punitive damages award.

A similar federal case against the Web sites filed by two women
from Canada and Washington state is still alive after U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose dismissed their claims for
failing to show what specific statements of privacy they relied on
in joining Positivesingles.com.

The women - identified in their complaint as Jane Doe I and Jane
Doe II -- filed an amended class action in that case last month.

The case is John Doe v. Positivesingles.com, et al., Case No.
1-11-CV-21120, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Santa Clara.


SAMSUNG TELECOMS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Smartphone Battery Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, report that
an Illinois federal judge ruled in favor of Samsung
Telecommunications America LLC on Nov. 3 in a proposed class
action alleging the batteries in Galaxy S4 smartphones are
defective, finding the phones' warranty contains an arbitration
agreement that prevents any disputes over the phone from
proceeding as part of a class action.

U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber rejected arguments from
plaintiffs who had said the arbitration provision was never agreed
to and was invalid.  The plaintiffs claimed they weren't given a
meaningful opportunity to reject the warranty terms and that
merely being able to opt out of Samsung's dispute resolution
procedure was insufficient.

"As far as the arbitration provision is concerned there is no
reason to reject the product just on the basis of loss of access
to the courts, because by taking a relatively simple act one can
be excluded from the arbitration requirement," Judge Leinenweber's
order said.

Judge Leinenweber said it was not unreasonable to include an
arbitration provision or other warranty information in a larger
document such as a product user guide. He noted that because
smartphones have a wide range of capabilities, a purchaser would
be expected to review the product user guide in order to get as
much out of the product as possible.

The plaintiffs claimed the arbitration provision was difficult to
find and therefore concealed from them, but Judge Leinenweber said
the Seventh Circuit ruled in Hill v. Gateway 2000 Inc. that a
contract need not be read to be enforced and that people who do
not read a contract run the risk that the unread terms "may in
retrospect prove unwelcome."

In September, a California federal judge made the opposite ruling
in a separate proposed class action involving claims over the
performance of the Galaxy S4, shooting down Samsung's efforts to
send the case to arbitration.

U.S. District Judge James Donato determined that Samsung's
arbitration provision was unenforceable because the provision,
included as an answer to a question on how to resolve disputes in
its warranty booklet, didn't contain words alerting consumers that
the arbitration term was a "contract" or "agreement" and didn't
require consumers to sign their assent, according to the order.
Previous case law precludes the formation of a contract by "such
stealth tactics," he wrote.

The California suit, filed in February, accuses Samsung of
intentionally misleading consumers into believing that the Galaxy
S4 phone was faster and contained more storage than it actually
did. The complaint alleged that Samsung had programmed the phones
to run at faster speeds when it detected certain so-called
benchmarking applications, which are used by consumers and
reviewers to compare the speed and performance of smartphones and
tablets.

The plaintiffs are represented by Siprut PC, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC and Gordon
Law Offices Ltd.

Samsung is represented by Paul Hastings LLP.

The case is McNamara, et al., v. Samsung, case number 1:14-cv-
01676, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


SANMEDICA INT'L: Court Dismissed Suit Over SeroVital Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In keeping with federal policy that loosely regulates diet
supplements, a federal judge dismissed a proposed class action
against SanMedica International for its so-called human growth
hormone booster, according to Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Serena Kwan sued SanMedica on July 21, after seeing
ads for its "SeroVital" product on the Dr. Oz show and in Shape
magazine, neither of which are parties to the lawsuit.

SanMedica manufactures and pushes SeroVital as an over the counter
supplement to boost human growth hormone.  Kwan claimed that
SanMedica advertised: "(1) that SeroVital provides a 682% mean
increase in HGH levels; (2) that SeroVital is clinically tested;
and (3) that 'peak growth hormone level,' are associated with
'youthful skin integrity, lean musculature, elevated energy
production, [and] adipose tissue distribution,'" according to U.S.
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James's Oct. 30 order.

SanMedica sought dismissal on the grounds that Kwan brought only
"substantiation claims," which have no private right of action,
and even if that is not the case, then she failed to show that its
claims are false.

Kwan cited articles from the FDA and the New England Journal of
Medicine, but James found that "(t)he first problem with these
rather bare-bones allegations is that none of the authorities
cited actually refer to SeroVital.  The Court therefore cannot
infer from these statements that Defendant's advertising claims
are false."

James also found that the publications were 11 to 20 years old,
and "may well be irrelevant because they refer to a world in which
this product did not exist."

She granted SanMedica's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend by
Dec. 1.

Diet supplements, as opposed to drugs, are virtually unregulated
in the United States, unless consumers can show they contain
regulated drugs.  Congress has refused to regulate them.

The case is Serena Kwan v. Sanmedica International, LLC, Case No.
3:14-cv-03287-MEJ, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.


SECURE ENERGY: Faces Suit in Colorado Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randal Armfield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Secure Energy Services USA, LLC and Secure
Drilling Services USA, LLC d/b/a Marquis Alliance Energy Group
USA, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02993-CBS (D. Colo., November 4, 2014)
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SENIOR HOME: Nurses Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Adams; Denise Durante; Yvette Hankerson; Lynne Howell;
Ann Marie Segatore-Pettis; Marlene Sujanani; Amanda Veigh; Julia
Wright; Sylvia Morris v. Senior Home Care, Inc.; and Lynne Hebert,
Case No. 8:14-cv-02771-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2014) is an
action for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were members of the conditionally certified
collective action in Beckworth v. Senior Home Care, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-00351, N.D. FLA.  However, on September 5, 2014,
the Court decertified the collective action, but tolled the
statute of limitations for 60 days from the date of the Order, in
order to allow the opt-in plaintiffs to bring individual claims
against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
have had a policy of consistently requiring its Registered Nurses,
including the Plaintiffs, to work overtime without properly paying
them compensation and overtime compensation for work in excess of
40 hours per week as required by the FLSA.

Senior Home Care, Inc. is a Florida for Profit Corporation and
transacts business in the states of Florida and Louisiana,
including the Florida counties of Alachua, Brevard and Broward.
Lynne Hebert is the chief operating officer of Senior Home Care.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          Tyler L. Gray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 East Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
          E-mail: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com
                  Tyler@talbottlawfirm.com


SINGING RIVER: Ex-Workers Mull Class Action Over Pension Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
April M. Havens, writing for gulflive.com, reports that more than
300 current and former Singing River Health System workers
gathered at the Pascagoula Senior Center on Nov. 3 to learn a
little about their legal options in light of major pension
changes.

Attorneys Keith Miller, Dustin Thomas and Monte Tynes met with the
crowd.

"We . . . got a lot of phone calls from a lot of people asking for
our help," Mr. Thomas said.  "We'd like to get after this.  It's
wrong."

Many of those gathered said they fear their retirements are in
jeopardy since SRHS leaders announced changes to the defined
benefit pension.

That plan has about $136 million in assets but an anticipated
future need of more than $285 million, SRHS leaders have said.

Attorneys told the employees that a class action lawsuit is
possible, as are individual lawsuits, but the session had more
questions than answers.

The crowd inquired about who would be sued, if any criminal
activity took place and if the Jackson County Board of Supervisors
is culpable at all.

"Nobody's off the hook as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Thomas told
them, nothing that the health system could be sued, and possibly
the county, the system's trustees individually or even the
companies that manage the pension.

"You have to connect the dots," Mr. Thomas said.

Audience member Trudy Nelson, who addressed the county Board of
Supervisors earlier on Nov. 3 to request help, asked how a class
action lawsuit could affect current SRHS employees, if at all.

Mr. Thomas said he's not sure how the health system would respond
to a lawsuit.

Another audience member, current employee Cindy Gibson, said she
has nearly 20 years vested in the retirement system and is one
year from retiring.  She was curious if a lawsuit would freeze the
money she's already contributed.

"I want to get my money back, and then I want to sue them for
their contribution that was not made," she said.  "But I don't
want to risk losing that little junky money I do have."

Mr. Miller told Ms. Gibson she should get the money she's
contributed not matter what "because it's your money," he said.

"The question is what more do they owe you for breaching their
fiduciary duty to you," Mr. Miller said.

Ms. Gibson, a hospice office manager, said she received a fax from
Transamerica Corp. on Nov. 3 after she requested a copy of her
records.  It showed the amount she could expect to draw if she
retired this year and another figure for if she waits until next
year, as she's anticipating.

"It was exactly what I had been told," she said of the figures.
"It's just like they're playing like everything is OK."

Ms. Gibson said her biggest worry is that she won't get the
benefits she was promised and she won't be able to enjoy her
retirement by spending time with her children and grandchildren
like she has planned for years.

The attorneys said there are still lots of documents to obtain and
many questions to answer.  They also expected to hold a similar
meeting on the west side of the county last week.

"Our intent is to try to represent anybody from Singing River
Health System that's been affected by what's essentially been a
mismanagement of funds," Mr. Miller said.


SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS: Class in "Langendorf" Suit Not Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
certify an Illinois class in one of the many labeling actions
against Skinnygirl Cocktails by former reality star Bethenny
Frankel and Beam Global Spirits & Wine.

The case is Amy Langendorf v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-07060, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.


SUPERVALU INC: Faces "Mertz" Suit in Minnesota District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mertz, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SuperValu Inc., a corporation, and AB
Acquisitions LLC, a corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-04660-JNE-SER
(D. Minn., November 4, 2014) asserts claims for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 596-4092
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  riebekh@locklaw.com


SYNCHRONY BANK: Sued in E.D. Missouri Over Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Hofer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Synchrony Bank, Case No. 4:14-cv-01865-RWS (E.D. Mo.,
November 4, 2014) seeks relief relating to the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Healey, Jr., Esq.
          HEALEY LAW, LLC
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (314) 401-3261
          Facsimile: (636) 590-2882
          E-mail: bob@healeylawllc.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Raiken" Suit Alleging Product Liability Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc C. Raiken and Michael Walker, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK
Holdings, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Subaru of
America, Inc., and Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-
06391-RK (E.D. Pa., November 5, 2014) asserts product liability
claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 875-4601
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: rpaul@bm.net


TAKATA CORP: May Face Criminal Charges Over Air Bag Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., on Nov. 7 pushed the U.S. Department
of Justice to think about filing criminal charges against Takata
Corp. after a media report indicated that the Japanese
manufacturer intentionally concealed information about a safety
defect with its air bags.

Sen. McCaskill, the chairwoman of the Senate's consumer protection
panel, said in a written statement that Takata "needs to be held
fully accountable, not just with financial penalties, but also
with criminal charges" if the company knew about a problem with
its air bags in 2004 and didn't inform U.S. safety regulators at
the time, as The New York Times reported on Nov. 6.  Takata, which
has seen recalls on its air bags fluctuate to more than 50 vehicle
models in October, already is facing class action lawsuits.

"I trust that safety regulators and Justice Department officials
are looking closely at these accusations and considering every
tool available under the law," said Sen. McCaskill, who has been a
leading critic of General Motors Co. and its general counsel over
the automaker's handling of an ignition-switch defect.
Affiliate publication Corporate Counsel has more.


TD BANK: Class Counsel Awarded $1.2 Mil. in Attorney Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that class counsel who settled a wage-and-hour suit brought by
tellers at TD Bank for $6 million have been awarded $1.2 million
in attorney fees.

U.S. District Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania appointed Justin Swidler and Richard Swartz, of
Swartz Swidler in Cherry Hill N.J., as class counsel earlier this
year and this week granted their requested fees.

The settlement agreement notes the lawyers' intent to seek fees
equaling 20 percent of the total $6 million, according to Judge
Restrepo's opinion.

"In the event that the aggregate of all participating class member
payments plus attorneys' fees and costs totaled more than the
maximum settlement amount of $6 million, the payments would be
pro-rated so that the total payments would equal the difference
between $6 million and the attorneys' fees and costs," Judge
Restrepo said.

Of the roughly 23,000 potential class members, the claims
administrator only received about 9,000 valid claims, according to
Judge Restrepo's opinion.  There were 130 requests for exclusion
and no objections.

The $6 million settlement fund covers all payments to the class,
taxes, class representative service payments and attorney fees.

Judge Restrepo followed the prevailing practice in the Third
Circuit for assessing attorney fees in common fund cases -- the
percentage of recovery method.

"In the Third Circuit, 'the percentage of recovery method is
generally favored in cases involving a common fund' because it
'allow[s] courts to award fees from the fund in a manner that
rewards counsel for success and penalizes it for failure,'" Judge
Restrepo said, quoting from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit's 1998 opinion in In re Prudential Insurance America
Sales Practice Litigation.

It is typically used in wage-and-hour cases, the judge said, and
courts in the circuit have awarded between 19 and 45 percent of
the common fund for attorney fees.

Class counsel asked for fees that would be 20 percent of the fund,
which "are at the low end of this range and are consistent with
fee awards approved in this circuit and in the country for similar
wage-and-hour cases," Judge Restrepo said.

Messrs. Swidler and Swartz have significant experience handling
this type of case, the judge said, noting that they have been
class counsel in more than 60 class or collective actions since
2010. Most of them have been wage-and-hour cases.

Bank workers alleged that they were required to spend 15 to 20
minutes before clocking in to start their shifts in the morning
completing security procedures and, similarly, they had to spend
10 to 15 minutes in the evenings after they had clocked out to
complete security procedures.  In October 2012, TD Bank changed
its system for timekeeping to account for the extra work,
according to the opinion.

The suit was brought in September 2012.

Class counsel worked efficiently for the plaintiffs, Judge
Restrepo said, explaining in a footnote that their time sheets
showed 720 hours billed for the matter.

"This case was filed over two years ago, but it has involved only
a limited amount of motion practice by class counsel.  The parties
reached a settlement here before any dispositive motions were
filed.  Discovery was exchanged between the parties, but this
discovery was targeted," Judge Restrepo said.

He also noted the class counsel took the case on a contingent fee
basis and agreed to waive their costs if there were to be no
recovery for the class, which put them at risk of nonpayment.

After applying the lodestar cross-check with an hourly rate of
$450, which would result in a multiplier of just above three,
Judge Restrepo was satisfied that all seven of the factors to be
considered in weighing the requested attorney fees favored what
class counsel had asked for.

"The lodestar cross-check results in a multiplier of slightly
above three, which is within the range of one to four that is
frequently awarded in common fund cases in the Third Circuit,"
Judge Restrepo said, citing to Prudential.  "Even if any
prospective time is removed from this calculation, the requested
award still falls within this range.  As a result, the court finds
that the lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the
attorneys' fee award here."

Mr. Swidler declined to comment on the case, as did Judy Schmidt,
spokeswoman for TD Bank.  The bank was represented by Heather
Zalar Steele -- hsteele@laborlawyers.com -- and Kathleen McLeod
Caminiti -- kcaminiti@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher & Phillips.


TELSTRA: Piper Alderman Expects to File Suit Before Christmas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Coyne, writing for iTnews, reports that the lawyers behind a
class action levelled at Telstra over late fees are confident
their efforts will be more successful than a recent class action
over network issues that failed to get up against Vodafone.

Late in August, ACA Lawyers announced it would target Australia's
largest telco on behalf of customers who had been forced to pay a
late payment fee.  They said if the case was successful, the firm
would also go after Optus and Vodafone.

ACA argues that the fees for late payments represent an "unlawful
penalty" because they are disproportionate to the loss suffered by
telcos as a result of the delay.  At the time, ACA principal
Steven Lewis said Telstra's recent full-year AU$4.3 billion profit
was boosted by AU$272 million worth of revenue derived from these
fees.

The firm says Telstra customers are charged a flat fee of AU$15
for late bills worth over AU$70, Vodafone customers are hit with a
AU$10 fee per late payment, and Optus charges AU$15 for each late
payment worth more than AU$50.

ACA is currently in the book-building phase of the lawsuit, and
Mr. Lewis on Nov. 4 told iTnews "thousands" of affected telco
customers have signed up.  It will be the second attempted large-
scale class action in as many years involving a telecommunications
provider.

Law firm Piper Alderman in February 2013 claimed it had tens of
thousands of people interested in targeting Vodafone over network
issues in 2009 and promised to file a case before Christmas, but
failed to get the lawsuit up.

ACA principal Mr. Lewis told iTnews his case was on better footing
than the Vodafone effort as the action is far more narrow, and the
supporting data is more accessible from the telco.

"The Vodafone case had a lot of other issues, and trying to prove
that everyone suffered the same type of loss is a very different
type of issue than applying a legal principle to a fixed fee to
other clients," he said.

"Our case is based on the outcome already determined against the
banks for a specific fee charged by companies for the late payment
of bills," he added.

The law firm is expecting to file a suit before Christmas, he
said, should the response to the sign-up process prove the case to
be viable.

"It depends on the final budget [estimated cost of running the
case] that we decide on," Mr. Lewis explained.  "We have to look
at the commercial reality of how much the case costs, weigh up the
risk, the commercial viability, as well as the legal issues."

The suit has the backing of UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding,
which will take a cut of between 25 and 35 percent of any awarded
damages.

The litigation fund states it only bankrolls cases where damages
are over GBP3 million (AU$5.5 million).  Mr. Lewis declined to
provide the estimated budget for the case, but he previously said
it could reap "multi-millions" of dollars in damages.

ACA will rely heavily on the recent Federal Court judgment against
ANZ, Westpac and Citibank regarding credit card fees, which found
the fees did not reflect the cost of the late payment to the
banks.  The firm is waiting on the outcome of current appeals
lodged, which will determine whether other fees charged by banks
-- alongside late payment fees -- can be considered to be
penalties.

"It may deal with some of the defenses that may be able to be
raised," Mr. Lewis said.

Telstra has been contacted for comment.  Vodafone declined to
comment.


UNITED STATES: Appeals Court to Weigh on NSA Data Collection Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WND reports that a federal appeals court in Washington was set to
hear on Nov. 4 a potentially landmark case seeking to curb the
government's ability to secretly gather information on Americans.

Former Reagan Justice Department attorney Larry Klayman made
headlines around the world by winning a resounding first-round
victory in a lawsuit he said is designed to stop the government
from spying on Americans with no ties to terrorism.  It was the
first successful legal challenge to the domestic data-collection
program conducted by the National Security Agency, or NSA, since
it was revealed in June of 2013 by former contractor Edward
Snowden.

On Dec. 16, 2013, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia ordered the NSA to stop collecting
data on the personal calls of two plaintiffs and destroy records
of their calling history.

Mr. Klayman has since expanded the case to make to include more
than a hundred million phone subscribers as plaintiffs in a class-
action suit against President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder
and the heads of the NSA and Verizon.

Judge Leon called the spy technology "almost Orwellian" and noted,
"Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that
the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment," which forbids
unreasonable searches and seizures.  However, citing national
security considerations, Judge Leon stayed his order to give the
government time to appeal it.

On Nov. 4, D.C. Circuit Court judges David Sentelle, Janice Rogers
Brown and Stephen Williams will hold an oral argument to consider
permanently enjoining the NSA from continuing the domestic data-
collection program.

The case is unusual in that Mr. Klayman, a conservative activist,
has been joined in his cause to champion privacy rights by one of
the most leftist organizations in the country, the American Civil
Liberties Union, or ACLU, as well as the libertarian-leaning
Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF.

"Given the gravity of the NSA's unconstitutional acts which affect
all segments of society, this case is unique in that both
conservatives and liberals alike have joined to represent the
American people,' said Mr. Klayman.

"I am honored to stand before the court with the ACLU and the EFF,
both organizations that, like Freedom Watch, are dedicated to
preserving individual liberties, protecting the rights to privacy,
and restoring the rule of law in what has become a very corrupt
American legal and governmental system."

Mr. Klayman recently sat down with WND to discuss the case and
other lawsuits he has filed.


UNITED STATES STEEL: $58MM Settlement of Antitrust Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered
final approval of the $58 million settlement agreement reached in
an antitrust lawsuit filed against United States Steel
Corporation, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel, conspired in
violation of antitrust laws to restrict the domestic production of
raw steel and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of steel products in the United States. The cases are filed
as class actions and claim damages related to steel product
purchases during the time period of April 1, 2005, to December 31,
2007. A Hearing on class certification was completed in April of
2014. On July 10, 2014, preliminary approval of U. S. Steel's $58
million settlement agreement was granted by the Court. By Order
dated October 21, 2014, the Court entered final approval of the
settlement agreement.


UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Fritz, and all others similarly situated v. Universal Credit
Services, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00757-jdp (W.D. Wis., November 4,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael Marco, Esq.
          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, PC
          205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2940
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 361-1690
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com
                  lsmith@smithmarco.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Plaintiffs Drop Fuel Charges Case
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against Waste Management,
Inc. in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County, Florida over fuel
and environmental charges abandoned the case, according to the
company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

In October 2011 and January 2012, we were named as a defendant in
a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Sarasota County,
Florida and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Alabama,
respectively. These cases primarily pertain to the company's fuel
and environmental charges included on the company's invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts.
The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed a purported class
action in 2008 against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock County,
Alabama, making similar allegations. The prior Alabama suit was
removed to federal court, where the federal court ultimately
dismissed the plaintiffs' national class action claims. The
plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice.


WELLPOINT INC: Expects Ruling in Demutualization Lawsuit by 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wellpoint, Inc. expects a federal court to issue its decision on
liability in a case filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization
of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., sometime in 2015, according
to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.

Wellpoint is defending a certified class action filed as a result
of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
or AICI. The lawsuit names AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or
Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc., and is captioned Ronald Gold, et
al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the
Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs,
in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold
allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross
motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in
part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or
the State. The trial court also denied the company's motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The
State appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme
Court.

"We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May
11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court
denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under
sovereign immunity and dismissed the company's cross-appeal. The
case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December
15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for
summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
trial court deferred a final ruling on the company's motion for
summary judgment. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied the
company's motion for summary judgment finding that an issue of
material fact existed. A trial on liability commenced on October
14, 2014 and concluded on October 16, 2014. The matter was taken
under advisement by the Court, which has requested post-trial
briefing. We expect the Court to issue its decision on liability
sometime in 2015," the Company said.


WELLPOINT INC: Cal. Court Directs Parties to Propose Schedules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered parties in the In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-
Network "UCR" Rates Litigation to propose scheduling order for
filing motions for summary judgment, according to the company's
Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

The Company said, "We are currently a defendant in eleven putative
class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement
that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called
In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that
is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The
plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a
putative class of members who received OON services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON
non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical
Association, California Chiropractic Association and the
California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes
of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers.
The plaintiffs have filed several amended complaints alleging that
the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement
database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement
methodologies."

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. The company's motions to dismiss have been
granted in part and denied in part by the court. The most recent
pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to
which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the
claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion. The court held that the
state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims
should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court
further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved
non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved the
company's alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with
prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state
law claims with prejudice. The only claims that remain after the
court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims
priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of
one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on
behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's
claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order,
which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court
ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia
provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative
remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts
alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are back in the
case. Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification in November 2013.

"The plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes: (1) a
subscriber ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the
Ingenix database as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician
provider class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a
non-physician provider class as to OON claims processed using
Ingenix; (4) a provider ERISA class as to OON claims processed
using non-Ingenix pricing methodologies; (5) a California
subscriber breach of contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a
subscriber breach of implied covenant class for all WellPoint
states except California. We deposed all of the plaintiffs' class
certification experts. In March 2014, we filed a response in
opposition to class certification, along with a supporting expert
report, and motions to exclude the plaintiffs' class certification
experts. In September 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in its entirety and denied the
company's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' class certification
experts as moot. Some of the plaintiffs filed a petition with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an interlocutory appeal of
the district court's order denying class certification, while
other plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the district court
remand the individual cases to the district court in which they
originated.

"We opposed that motion insofar as the consolidated pre-trial
proceedings have yet to conclude. At a status conference in
September 2014, the court ordered the parties to propose a
scheduling order for filing motions for summary judgment. Earlier
in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the
Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician
plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on
prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida
Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are
barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for
declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims
are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation. We filed
a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, which was
granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the declaratory
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and
some of the medical associations did not dismiss their barred
claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in
contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs are
paying the sanctions and have appealed the Florida Court's
sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Oral argument on that appeal occurred in October
2013 and the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in June 2014.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida Court's injunction of the
plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims, but vacated the injunction
as to the ERISA claims based on the denial or underpayment of
benefits occurring after the effective date of the earlier
releases. Based on this decision, the Florida Court vacated the
sanctions."


WHOLE PERSON: Removes "Jones" Suit to Missouri District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jones v. The Whole Person Inc.,
Case No. 1416-CV19595, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00993-BCW to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant had a policy and practice
of refusing to pay employees their statutorily mandated overtime
pay due to improperly categorizing the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to him as "exempt" from overtime when they
should have been classified as "non-exempt" and, thereby, eligible
for overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
          Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
          REAVEY LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 303
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 474-6300
          Facsimile: (816) 474-6302
          E-mail: patrick@reaveylaw.com
                  kkoc@reaveylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony B. Byergo, Esq.
          Justin M. Dean, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: anthony.byergo@ogletreedeakins.com
                  justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com


* NLRB Invalidates Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Pryzbylski of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that while federal courts around
the country -- including the U.S. Supreme Court -- continue to
generally uphold "class action waivers" in mandatory arbitration
programs, the NLRB continues to go the other way and find that
such provisions violate the NLRA.  Employers who have arbitration
programs that require employees to have claims against companies
heard in front of arbitrators rather than courts often include
"class action waivers" in their programs.  The waivers prohibit
employees from forming class actions against the companies by
requiring claims to be brought only an individual basis.

In 2012, the NLRB issued its infamous decision in D.R. Horton
Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184, (2012) that ruled class action waivers
violate the NLRA because they impede "concerted activity."  That
is, the NLRB views the potential formation of class actions
contesting alleged unlawful practices as "group activity"
protected by the NLRA.  The Fifth Circuit subsequently denied
enforcement of DR Horton and held the NLRA does not work to
invalidate class action waivers.

Not to be deterred, the NLRB issued a decision on October 28,
2014, in Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 N.L.R.B. No. 72 (2014) in which
it found an employer violated the NLRA by having an arbitration
program that contains a class action waiver.  The Board noted it
disagreed with the Fifth Circuit's analysis and reaffirmed its
commitment to invalidating class action waivers.

The US Supreme Court is likely to weigh in at some point, as it
has issued a series of rulings in recent years generally upholding
various aspects of mandatory arbitration programs -- including
class action waivers (although it has not yet tackled the analysis
under the framework of the NLRA).  Until then the NLRB will
seemingly continue to find class action waivers to be unlawful
even if federal courts of appeal disagree.  Accordingly, companies
with class action waivers should take this into consideration when
evaluating the "pros and cons" of maintaining them.


                             *********

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  * * *