CAR_Public/141117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 228


                             Headlines

ACTIVE POWER: Settlement Reached in Class Action Complaint
ALLIANCE INC: "Desmond" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMYLIN PHARMA: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Reconsider Discovery Ban
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Uses Unfair Means to Collect Debts, Suit Claims
AMERICAN REALTY: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Suit

AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Arrow Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Missouri
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Paid Immaterial Amount to Settle Case
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Settlement Wins Preliminary Court Approval
AVON PRODUCTS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Nevada Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Final Settlement of Securities Suits Affirmed
BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
BEACHBODY LLC: "Crawford" Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
CAMPBELL SOUP: Removes "Nelson" Suit to California District Court
CARRIER IQ: Agrees to Settle Suit Alleging Smartphone Spying

CATHEDRAL ENERGY: Faces "Wallace" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CENTRAL AVENUE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Auto Body Repairman Says
CHOICE TAXI: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHICAGO 24 HOUR: Faces "Demma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CLARITY SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 19
CODY AUSTIN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Oral Argument Scheduled for December 2014
CREATIVE DESIGNS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DICKERSON & BOWEN: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

DRDGOLD LTD: Gathering Info in Preparation for Silicosis Suit
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces 2 Securities Actions in California
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces 3 Antitrust Actions in California
DRIL-QUIP INC: Wins Release From Deepwater Personal Injury Case
E & D INC: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime

EAGLE ROCK: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Class Actions
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Limited Discovery in Okla Suit
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Robb" Securities Class Action
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Deceptive Testosterone Therapy Marketing
ENTEGRIS INC: Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint Pending

EXPEDIA INC: Court Dismisses Hotel Booking Practices Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs File Appeal in Apartheid Litigation
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Removes "Williams" Suit to D. New Mexico
FORMFACTOR INC: Fails to Reach Settlement After Mediation
GLADSTONE LAW: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

GROUPON INC: To Appeal Class Certification in Securities Action
GROUPON INC: Appeal in Marketing and Sales Class Action Pending
GT ADVANCED: Faces "Robey" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
HEB GROCERY: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HERITAGE GREEN: Faces "Suarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $76MM Outstanding Bond in Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Faces Animas Credit Suite Over Alleges Data Breach
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Kleinbank" Suit in Georgia District Court
IMMERSION CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Case
ITT CORP: Discovery Proceeding in Class Action Against Travelers

JIMMY JOHN'S: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Data, Suit Says
JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Goldfinger" Class Action
KEMET CORPORATION: Faces 13 Actions Over Capacitors Price-Fixing
KEMET CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits in Canada Over Capacitors
KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Faces Antitrust Class Suits

KILDEER ADVISORS: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Securities Class Suit
LITHIA MOTORS: Records $6.7 Million Expenses to Settle Claims
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Seizing and Impounding Automobiles
MADISON SQUARE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions Denied

MAVERICK DRILLING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NAVASOTA OILFIELD: "Aicken" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NCL CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Crew Members' 2009 Action
NCL CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Crew Members' 2011 Action

NEWPARK RESOURCES: Taps Outside Counsel to Defend Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Class Actions
OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Stays Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
OLD REPUBLIC: Class Not Yet Certified in 2 Lawsuits
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Challenges Class Certification

OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Inks MOU to Settle Southside Merger Action
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Inks MOU to Settle Stockholders' Lawsuit
PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Get $91MM in Neurontin Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking Class Suits Pending in Brazil & Canada

PHILIP MORRIS: Public Prosecutor Files Appeal to Sao Paolo Court
PHILIP MORRIS: Closing Arguments in "Letourneau" to Close in Dec.
PHILIP MORRIS: Closing Arguments in Conseil Quebecois to End Dec.
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiff's Counsel Won't Take Actions in 6 Cases

PHILIP MORRIS: Lights Cases Pending in Israel, Chile and Italy
PHILIP MORRIS: Mid-November Oral Hearing in El-Roy Appeal
PINNACLE WEST: Appeal Pending Before Ninth Circuit Court
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Paid $4.8MM to Bridgeton Class Action Members
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Sued in EDNC Over Paint Products' Design Defects

RUST-OLEUM CORP: Sued in SDNY Over Defective Restore Product
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal of Investors' Class Action Sought
SHIRE PLC: AbbVie Seeks Dismissal of Stockholder Class Action
STARWOOD HOTELS: Accused of Recording Info in Credit Card Deals
STERLING JEWELERS: Sued Over Inaccessible POS Devices for Blinds

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Abdeljalil" Plaintiffs Seek Certification
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Stays "Cowan" Class Action
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Settles 2 TCPA Class Actions
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TECO ENERGY: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Gas Shortages Case

TEST MASTERS: Ordered to Pay $90,000+ in Legal Fees
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Suits Over Guardrails; Crash Tests Set
TWC ADMINISTRATION: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UNITED OILFIELD: Faces "Slusher" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UNITIL CORP: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Upholds Ruling

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Sued Over Student-Athletes' Education
VCA ANTECH: "Graham" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Product Liability Legal Tab Hits $7.2MM
VECTOR GROUP: 4 Class Actions Pending Against Liggett
VECTOR GROUP: 16 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through Sept. 2015

WASHWERKS AND DETAIL: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WISCONSIN ENERGY: Brown County and Cook County Cases Dismissed
WORLD WRESTLING: Joins in Bid for Consolidation of Class Actions
WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Haynes" Class Action Over Brain Injuries


                            *********


ACTIVE POWER: Settlement Reached in Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Active Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has
reached agreements in principle and entered into memorandums of
understanding to settle both class action complaint and the
consolidated derivative actions.  If completed, the class action
settlement would result in a payment of $1.5 million to the
settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses.

The Company said, "On September 10, 2013, a purported class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas against us and certain of our former
executives. The case is captioned Don Lee v. Active Power, Inc.,
et. al. (Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00797-SS). As amended, the
complaint alleges that on February 19, 2013, we reported that we
had begun working with an unnamed Chinese distributor partner, and
that on April 30, 2013, we announced in press releases and
conference calls that we had entered into a strategic distribution
partnership with Digital China. However, on September 5, 2013,
after the close of trading, we disclosed that our partnership was
with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which is neither an affiliate
nor a subsidiary of Digital China. The amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all stockholders who
purchased common stock between February 19 and September 5, 2013.
On March 7, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the class action
complaint.  Our motion was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014.
On August 11, 2014, we filed an answer to the class action
complaint, and on September 2, 2014, the Court declined to certify
its order of July 2, 2014 for an interlocutory appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."

"On September 13, 2013 and October 14, 2013, two separate
stockholders filed complaints in the District Court of Travis
County, Texas, purporting to bring derivative actions on behalf of
us against certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company. The first derivative action is captioned Okumura v.
Almgren, et. al. (Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003230), and the second
derivative action is captioned Shaev v. Milner, et. al. (Cause No.
D-1-GN-13-003557). The allegations of each derivative complaint
mirror those of the class action complaint, and they assert claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and/or abuse of
control and seek damages on our behalf.  These derivative actions
were stayed by agreement pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss in the securities class action. The stay was lifted and on
August 4, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate
the two derivative cases.  On September 18, 2014, the District
Court appointed lead counsel in the consolidated derivative
action.

"On September 23, 2014, we reached agreements in principle and
entered into memorandums of understanding to settle both the class
action complaint and the consolidated derivative actions.  The
proposed settlements would resolve for all defendants all of the
issues that are pending in the class action complaint and in the
consolidated derivative actions.  If completed, the class action
settlement would result in a payment of $1.5 million to the
settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses.  The proposed
consolidated derivative settlement includes, among other things,
certain governance improvements by us.

"We anticipate that the total settlement amounts and related
expenses would be paid from insurance proceeds.  The proposed
settlements are not yet consummated, and are subject to a number
of conditions. The terms outlined in the memorandums of
understanding are subject to the parties concluding definitive
settlement agreements. The proposed settlements are also subject
to final approval by our insurance carrier and by the Courts
following completion of a fairness hearing. Hearing dates have not
yet been set on final approval of the proposed settlements."

Active Power designs, manufactures, sells, and services flywheel-
based UPS products that use kinetic energy to provide short-term
power as a cleaner alternative to conventional electro-chemical
battery-based energy storage.


ALLIANCE INC: "Desmond" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shervon Desmond, Christy King, Lydia Lashley, and Dawn Tucker v.
Alliance, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03499 (D. Md., November 6, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Alliance, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that provides
community-based services to persons with mental illness and
developmental disabilities

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      Suite 1700, Charles Center South
      36 South Charles Street
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com


AMYLIN PHARMA: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Reconsider Discovery Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that more than 540 plaintiffs alleging they developed
pancreatic cancer by taking one of four Incretin-based drugs have
asked a federal judge to reconsider his ban on discovery into
adverse events involving those drugs that were reported to the
Food and Drug Administration.

Plaintiffs lawyers from Johnson Becker in Minneapolis; Watts
Guerra in San Antonio, Texas; Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Shkolnik in
New York and Tor Hoerman Law in Edwardsville, Ill., said that U.S.
District Judge Anthony Battaglia relied upon old case law rendered
before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Wyeth v. Levine.

The justices ruled that the Food and Drug Administration's
regulation of pharmaceutical drugs does not preempt the duties
drugmakers owe to consumers under state tort law.  The court also
specifically rejected the FDA's position in a 2006 regulation that
the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts state law.

Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC faces lawsuits over its Byetta; Eli
Lilly & Co. for its collaboration with Amylin in the promotion of
Byetta; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. over its Januvia and Janumet;
and Novo Nordisk Inc. for its Victoza.

Incretin-based treatments are prescribed to lower blood sugar
levels in people with Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of
that disease. The multidistrict litigation is pending in the
Southern District of California.

Judge Battaglia denied discovery for the underlying documents
describing adverse events as well as the databases maintained by
each drug company.  The judge said it is not for the courts to
evaluate the degree to which manufacturers comply with FDA
regulations, so there was no justification for the plaintiffs to
view the information.

The costs of production would be between $280,000 and $400,000,
the judge added.

Judge Battaglia cited In re Bextra, a 2006 Northern District of
California decision holding that the "FDA's interpretation of the
preemptive effect of its regulations is entitled to deference."
But the plaintiffs said that court adopted "a minority position on
preemption, holding that courts should defer to the FDA when
interpreting the preemptive effect of FDA regulations."

The plaintiffs also cited Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg's dissent in Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., in which she said
courts have "overwhelmingly held that FDA approval of a new drug
application does not preempt state tort suits."

"Plaintiffs wish to be able to make the same argument made by the
Levine plaintiff regarding preemption, but they first need the
adverse event source documents and databases," the plaintiffs
said.  "That information is relevant because it will help
plaintiffs demonstrate that there is no clear evidence that the
FDA will fail to approve a properly supported pancreatic cancer
warning."

Judge Battaglia has set a briefing schedule on the motion for
reconsideration.  The defendants must file a response by Dec. 1.
In earlier court papers, the defendants said that, "given the
results of preclinical and clinical studies finding no causal link
between pancreatic cancer and Incretin-based therapies, the FDA
publicly has stated that adverse event reports are not relevant,
much less material, to the question of whether Incretin-based
drugs cause pancreatic cancer."


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Uses Unfair Means to Collect Debts, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Shalem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Medical Collection Agency and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-06966-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., November 6, 2014) is
brought on behalf of New Jersey consumers seeking redress for the
Defendant's alleged actions of using an unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

American Medical Collection Agency is a collection agency with its
principal office located in Elmsford, New York.  The identities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court action
filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class Action
Complaint," asserting direct and directive claims, inter alia, of
breach of fiduciary duty arising from the proposed acquisition of
the Company by Ventas, as well as claims for breach of the duty of
candor, unjust enrichment, corporate waste and aiding and abetting
fiduciary breaches.

In connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas Inc. of all
of the outstanding stock of the Company, purported shareholders of
the Company have filed thirteen class action lawsuits in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland and the Supreme Court
of the State of New York and federal district court in Maryland
naming the Company and its board of directors, among others, as
defendants. The filed actions are: Holzer v. American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003553
(Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 6, 2014; Romano v. American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003534
(Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 6, 2014; Brenner v. American Realty
Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003540
(Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 9, 2014; Schindler v. Burns, et al.,
Index No. 671761/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed June 10, 2014; Frey
v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Index
No. 651772/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), filed June 10, 2014; Hamill v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003636, (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 11, 2014; Stanley v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003664 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 12, 2014; Shine v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003707 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 13, 2014; Uhl v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003710 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 13, 2014; Kuo v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003765 (Md. Cir. Ct), filed June 17, 2014; Flor v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-003817 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed June 19, 2014, Rosenzweig v.
Schorsch et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-02019-GLR (U.S.D.C. - Dist. Md.)
(Russell, D.J.), filed June 23, 2014; and Abbasi, et al. v.
American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al., Case No.
24-C-14-004104 (Md. Cir. Ct.), filed July 9, 2014.

The Stanley, Shine, Kuo, Rosenzweig and Abbasi complaints also
assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against the
individual defendants.

On October 10, 2014, lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class
Action Complaint," asserting direct and directive claims, inter
alia, of breach of fiduciary duty arising from the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Ventas, as well as claims for breach
of the duty of candor, unjust enrichment, corporate waste and
aiding and abetting fiduciary breaches and seek (i) to enjoin the
proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed
acquisition is completed. There have been no other material court
filings in any of these matters.

The Company believes that such lawsuits are without merit, but the
ultimate outcome of such matter cannot be predicted with
certainty. Because the lawsuits are in their early stages, neither
the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of a probable loss or
any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time. No
provisions for such losses have been recorded in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2014. An adverse judgment for monetary damages
could have a material adverse effect on the operations and
liquidity of the Company. A preliminary injunction could delay or
jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment
granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin
completion of the Merger. All defendants believe that the claims
are without merit and are defending against them vigorously.
Additional lawsuits arising out of or related to the Merger
Agreement may be filed in the future. As of September 30, 2014,
there were no other material legal proceedings pending or known to
be contemplated against the Company.

American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. invests primarily
in real estate serving the healthcare industry in the United
States.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Arrow Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Arrow Hardware, LLC v. Amerigas
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04132, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania 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-00986-GAF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of antitrust laws.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants are engaged in an unlawful conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of propane
exchange tanks by reducing their fill levels, in violation of the
Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          Tobias L. Millrood, Esq.
          POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD  LLC
          8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1520
          161 Washington Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          Facsimile: (610) 941-4245
          E-mail: hpogust@pbmattorneys.com
                  tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Paid Immaterial Amount to Settle Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp made an immaterial payment to the plaintiff
in a class action as part of the resolution of this matter, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit, Wanda Boone v. Associated Banc-
Corp, was filed on April 10, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The lawsuit claimed
that loan coordinators employed by the Bank were not compensated
for all hours worked, including the payment of overtime, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin
wage laws. On July 30, 2014, the case was dismissed with
prejudice.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Settlement Wins Preliminary Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
entered on October 10, 2014, an order preliminarily approving a
proposed settlement in the purported shareholder derivative and
class action captioned Manson v. Friedman, et al. (the "Action"),
currently pending in the Court. Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, and in exchange for releases and a dismissal of the
Action with prejudice, Mr. Jeffrey Friedman will voluntarily
relinquish, and the Company will rescind, 63,714 of the 125,000
options awarded to him in 2012, and for the twelve-month period
following final settlement, the Company will not award any stock
options to Mr. Friedman. Also, the Company will implement
additional processes relating to the future granting of equity
awards and pay for plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses approved
by the Court with respect to the Action.

"We maintain insurance that will help defray the cost of the
proposed settlement, and we do not expect the proposed settlement
to have a material impact on our financial results," the Company
said.

Associated Estates Realty Corporation is a fully-integrated, self-
administered and self-managed equity real estate investment trust
("REIT") specializing in multifamily ownership, operation,
acquisition, development, construction, disposition and property
management activities.


AVON PRODUCTS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Rossello, Maria Isabel Villeneuve, and Wanda E. Vazquez v.
Avon Products, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01815 (D.P.R., November 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Avon Products, Inc. is one of the largest direct sellers of beauty
and beauty-related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth Colon, Esq.
      804 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 302
      San Juan, PR 00907
      Telephone: (787) 250-1420
      Facsimile: (787) 763-3286
      E-mail: kenneth.colon@icepr.com

         - and -

      Juan M. Frontera-Suau, Esq.
      UFRET & FRONTERA LAW FIRM
      Capital Center Building Suite 305
      239 Arterial Hostos Avenue
      San Juan, PR 00918-1475
      Telephone: (787) 250-1420
      Facsimile: (787) 763-3286
      E-mail: fronterasuau@hotmail.com


BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Nevada Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the Nevada class action against Bally Technologies,
Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing
for the settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the
Nevada Action on a class-wide basis, subject to certain
confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and
the approval of the Nevada court, Bally said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

These complaints challenging the merger with Scientific Games have
been filed in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
County of Clark, Nevada (the "Nevada court"): (i) Shaev v. Bally
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705012-B; (ii) Crescente v.
Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705144-C; (iii)
Lewandoski v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-705153-C;
(iv) Rosenfeld v. Bally Technologies, Inc., et al., No. A-14-
705162-B; (v) Stein v. Bally Technologies, et al., No. A-14-
705338-B; and (vi) Hahm v. Bally Technologies, Inc., No. A-14-
706234-C.

Each of the actions is a putative class action filed on behalf of
the public stockholders of Bally Technologies, Inc. and names as
defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games, Merger Sub and
Financing Sub. The complaints generally allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
their consideration and approval of the merger. Four of the six
complaints also allege that all of the entity defendants aided and
abetted the purported breaches by the individual defendants. Of
the remaining two complaints, Shaev v. Bally Technologies, Inc.,
et al., alleges that Scientific Games, Merger Sub and Financing
Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants' purported
breaches but makes no such claim against Bally, and Hahm v. Bally
Technologies, Inc., et al., alleges that Bally alone aided and
abetted the individual defendants' purported breaches. The
complaints seek, among other relief, to enjoin the merger.

On August 26, 2014, the Shaev, Crescente, Lewandoski, Rosenfeld
and Stein actions were consolidated into a single proceeding under
the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, No. A-14-705012-B (the "Nevada Action"). The Hahm
action was consolidated into the Nevada Action after it was filed
on August 27, 2014. On or about September 19, 2014, the plaintiffs
served an amended consolidated class action complaint. On or about
October 3, 2014, those plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings. On October 7, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Nevada Action based on the plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. On October 8, 2014,
the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action withdrew their motion for
expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary
settlement discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action (the "Settling Parties") entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement
in principle of all claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a
class-wide basis, subject to certain confirmatory discovery by the
plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and the approval of the Nevada
court. While Bally believes that no further disclosure was
required under applicable laws to supplement the preliminary proxy
statement Bally filed with the SEC on September 8, 2014, Bally
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain
supplemental disclosures in the definitive proxy statement it
filed on October 20, 2014.  Bally and the other named defendants
entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to
vigorously deny, that they have committed any violation of law or
engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the
Nevada Action. The MOU outlines the terms of the Settling Parties'
agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were
or could have been asserted in the Nevada Action.

The parties to the MOU have agreed promptly to enter into a
stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Nevada
court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Nevada
court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will
provide for, among other things, the conditional certification of
the consolidated Nevada Action as a non-opt-out class action. The
stipulation of settlement will provide for the release of any and
all claims arising from the merger, subject to approval by the
Nevada court. The release will not become effective until the
stipulation of settlement is approved by the Nevada court, and
there can be no assurance that the Settling Parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Nevada court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if the
merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement
will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in
connection with the settlement, which are subject to court
approval, are not expected to be material. The settlement will not
affect the consideration to be received by Bally's stockholders in
the merger or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger.

The outcome of the lawsuits cannot be predicted with any
certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a
material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Bally.
A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion
of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent
injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the
merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them in the lawsuits are without merit.

Bally is a diversified global gaming supplier that designs,
manufactures, operates and distributes EGMs, networked and casino-
management systems, table game products and interactive
applications that drive revenue and provide operating efficiencies
for gaming operators.


BANK OF AMERICA: Final Settlement of Securities Suits Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that the 2nd Circuit
affirmed a final settlement of shareholder lawsuits stemming from
the Bank of America's merger with Merrill Lynch at the height of
the global banking crisis.

The underlying litigation harkens back to Bank of America's
negotiations with Merrill Lynch in the fall of 2008, which
culminated in the two financial institutions merging in January
2009.

The negotiations took place against the backdrop of the collapse
of Merrill, and included whether Bank of America would subsidize
prospective year-end bonuses for Merrill Lynch executives, a
condition to which Bank of America agreed.  The parties also
agreed that these bonuses would be paid out in December 2008,
prior to the merger officially closing.

Holders of Bank of America stock and derivative options brought
claims against Bank of America when it was discovered that senior
officers at the Bank withheld information leading up to the
shareholder vote on the merger -- information that included
Merrill Lynch's losses of more than $20 billion in the final
quarter of 2008 and agreements regarding bonuses orchestrated by
the two financial institutions in anticipation of the merger.

Plaintiffs contended that rather than disclose the true extent of
Merrill Lynch's losses in the fourth quarter of 2008, the
financial institutions filed a joint proxy statement seeking
shareholder approval of the merger.

The plaintiffs charged these alleged false and misleading
statements were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933.  They further
asserted that while some Bank of America officials wanted to stop
the merger from taking place, those efforts were stymied by then-
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and then-Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Ben Bernanke.

The plaintiffs said for agreeing not to invoke the so-called
"material adverse change" clause that would have killed the deal,
the federal government provided Bank of America with a $138
billion bailout.

The aggrieved shareholders weren't the only ones to take notice.
In January 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged
Bank of America with violating federal proxy rules by failing to
disclose "extraordinary financial losses at Merrill Lynch & Co."
before the shareholders vote that approved the merger of the two
companies.  The SEC said the bank knew that Merrill lost $4.5
billion in October 2008 and billions more in November -- between
its merger announcement and the shareholders vote -- but did not
inform shareholders of it.

The action came just weeks after Bank of America agreed to show
the SEC the legal advice it received before buying Merrill Lynch,
a move the Courthouse News characterized as "a giant step" in
trying to dress up the allegations that Merrill agreed to hand out
billions of dollars in bonuses even as it failed, that Bank of
America approved the plan while accepting $45 billion in a
taxpayers' bailout, and that both companies lied about the bonuses
to shareholders.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel consolidated the claims and
named lead plaintiffs to pursue actions on behalf of the larger
class. However, before the trial commenced, the parties negotiated
a $2.4 billion settlement agreement that set aside funds to pay
any litigation costs and attorneys' fees award by the court.

Castel approved the notice of settlement to class members in
December 2012, but after it was issued, a number non-named class
members objected to the proposal.

Specifically, four family trusts questioned whether attorneys'
fees under the settlement agreement were reasonable, whether
representative plaintiffs were entitled to a $453,000
reimbursement for litigation costs, and when the notice complied
with due process requirements and various federal regulations.

Judge Castel ultimately concluded the settlement notice was "the
best notice practicable under the circumstances," the appellate
ruling states.  The objectors promptly appealed Castel's ruling.

On review U.S. Circuit Judges Peter Hull, Ralph Winter Jr., and
Barrington Parker Jr. found no evidence the district court abused
its discretion in approving the settlement agreement.

In regard to the reimbursement to the representative plaintiffs,
the three-judge panel found the notice approved by Castel
"unequivocally conveys the relevant information to the respective
class members.  The district court, therefore neither exceeded the
bounds of its discretion in approving the notice, nor violated the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the United States
Constitution."

The panel also noted the representative plaintiffs submitted
detailed affidavits to the district court regarding hours
dedicated to litigation and a statement that these hours
constituted lost work time.

On the matter of attorneys' fees, the panel said that "Despite
challenging the reasonableness of the fees awarded in the present
case, the objectors-appellants have failed to identify any
specific abuse of discretion on the part of the district court,
and therefore our review convinces us that the court awarded fees
based upon an application of the criteria set out in Goldberger."

Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc. was a 2000 case in which the
2nd Circuit said, "What constitutes a reasonable fee is properly
committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and will
not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion, such as a mistake
of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding."

Finally, the panel rejected the objector's claims that Judge
Castel erred on the average amount of damages per share he award.
Here again, the circuit judges concluded, the lower court was well
within its discretion to decide the matter as it did.

The Objector-Appellant Michael Washenik is represented by:

          Steve A. Miller, Esq.
          STEVE A. MILLER, P.C.
          1625 Larimer St., Suite 2905
          Denver, CO  80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-9933
          E-mail: sampc01@gmail.com

The Objectors-Appellants Leonard Masiowski, MaryAnn Masiowski,
Michael J. Rinis, Babette Rinis; and Michael J. Rinis, IRA., are
represented by:

          N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Esq.
          N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR., PA
          4128 NW 13th Street
          Gainesville, FL 32609-1807
          Telephone: (352) 378-9859
          E-mail: nab@nabjr.com

The Plaintiffs-Appellees Public Pension Funds and Grant Mitchell
are represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          New York, NY
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  ffox@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          David Kessler, Esq.
          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: dkessler@ktmc.com
                  snirmul@ktmc.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
          Brad S. Karp, Esq.
          Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3020
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0020
          E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com
                  bkarp@paulweiss.com
                  asoloway@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq.
          Lewis J. Liman, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 225-3999
          E-mail: mlowenthal@cgsh.com
                  lliman@cgsh.com

               - and -

          Julia Guttman, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          The Warner
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, D.C. 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 639-7700
          Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
          E-mail: julia.guttman@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Colby A. Smith, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          555 13th Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 383-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 383-8118
          E-mail: casmith@debevoise.com

               - and -

          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com

The appellate case is Michael Washenik, et al. v. Bank of America
Corp., et al., Case No. 13-1573(L), in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Arciaga, Joseph Masseli, Vimal Mathimaran, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barrett Business
Services, Inc., Michael L. Elich, and James D. Miller, Case No.
3:14-cv-05884 (W.D. Wash., November 6, 2014), alleges that
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business
management solutions, combining human resource outsourcing and
professional management consulting for its operational platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cliff Cantor, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
      627 208th Ave SE
      Sammamish, WA 98074
      Telephone: (425) 868-7813
      Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
      E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Avi Wagner, Esq.
      THE WAGNER FIRM
      1925 Century Park E, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 491-7949
      Facsimile: (310) 491-7949


BEACHBODY LLC: "Crawford" Suit Moved From S.D. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Pamela Crawford v. Beachbody, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-01583, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).  The
Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-08641-DSF-
MRW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: skye@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com
                  ron@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy B. Alderfer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2101
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: aalderfer@cozen.com

               - and -

          Matthew Stephen Steinberg, Esq.
          Sara Poster, Esq.
          Brett N. Taylor, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-7900
          Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
          E-mail: msteinberg@cozen.com
                  sposter@cozen.com
                  btaylor@cozen.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Removes "Nelson" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Nelson v. Campbell Soup
Company, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00033088-CU-MC-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-02647-DMS-JLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie LeMaye Hussey, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
          San Diego, CA 92130-2594
          Telephone: (858) 720-5750
          Facsimile: (858) 720-5799
          E-mail: jhussey@perkinscoie.com


CARRIER IQ: Agrees to Settle Suit Alleging Smartphone Spying
------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier IQ has agreed in principle to settle class action claims
that its software -- installed on millions of smartphones --
collects user keystrokes and other data, and then sends the
information to telecom providers, according to William Dotinga at
Courthouse News Service.

Carrier IQ and various telecoms were hit in 2011 with a raft of
class actions alleging that it used a device called IQRD to access
smartphones while hiding its presence and subverting standard
operating system functions or other applications.

A consolidated amended class action in San Francisco federal court
alleges violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, and the Stored Communications Act, as well as
multiple federal and state-law warranty and consumer-protection
claims.

While Carrier markets the device as capable of measuring
performance and user experience while not affecting the devices,
consumers say the so-called rootkit software actually decreases
battery life and overall performance while increasing data use and
recording all keystrokes, messages, media, and location statistics
and other information.

Carrier and the telecoms -- including Sprint, AT&T and others --
failed to persuade U.S. District Judge Edward Chen earlier this
year to force arbitration based on users' agreements with their
wireless providers.  Chen said that users had no idea what Carrier
was at the time they signed their contracts, and that the software
developer was not a party to the agreements in any event.

On November 3, Carrier told Chen that it had "reached an agreement
in principle that will resolve plaintiffs' claims against Carrier
IQ on a class-wide basis."

Prior to that, however, the company said the parties will go
through another round of mediation on Nov. 12 to hammer out the
best course of action.  Carrier has consistently maintained that
while its software sometimes records the content of users'
messages, the data is not readable.  The company says the software
is supposed to be used by wireless providers to uncover their own
network problems, like dropped calls.

Last year, cellphone manufacturer HTC settled Federal Trade
Commission charges that Carrier software on its Android phones
left users vulnerable to malware and other malicious applications
by third parties.

HTC agreed to issue software patches to button up the devices and
has implemented a security program as part of the FTC settlement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswplaw.com
                  wnewsom@pswplaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rodger R. Cole, Esq.
          Molly R. Melcher, Esq.
          Annasara G. Purcell, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          Silicon Valley Center
          801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041
          Telephone: (650) 988-8500
          Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
          E-mail: rcole@fenwick.com
                  mmelcher@fenwick.com
                  apurcell@fenwick.com

               - and -

          Tyler G. Newby, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Johnson, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: tnewby@fenwick.com
                  jjjohnson@fenwick.com

The multidistrict litigation is known as In re Carrier IQ, Inc.
Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 3:12-md-02330-EMC, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.


CATHEDRAL ENERGY: Faces "Wallace" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kody Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cathedral Energy Services Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03186
(S.D. Tex., November 6, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Cathedral Energy Services Inc. is a Canadian based oilfield
service company with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL AVENUE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Auto Body Repairman Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Ramos, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Central Avenue Auto Body, Inc. d/b/a Yonkers
Auto Body and Anthony Oliveri, Case No. 1:14-cv-08836 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 6, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has never been paid
overtime compensation after he works more than 40 hours each week.

Mr. Ramos has been employed by the Defendants as an auto body
repairman from June 2013 to the present.

Central Avenue Auto Body, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation.
Central Avenue owns and operates Yonkers Auto Body located in
Yonkers, New York.  Anthony Oliveri is an officer, director or
managing agent of Central Avenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314
          Westbury, NY 11590
          Telephone: (516) 228-5100


CHOICE TAXI: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Ortega behalf of other employees similarly situated v.
Choice Taxi Association, Inc. and Zerezghi Iyassu, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08916 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants provide transportation needs within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


CHICAGO 24 HOUR: Faces "Demma" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Demma, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Chicago 24 Hour Towing, Inc. and Oren Chen,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08911 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a towing company within the State
of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


CLARITY SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Turnage, Polly Larimer, Carshena Jackson, Sam Forbes,
Michelle Campbell, Sharon Holmes, Becky Nicholds, Susan Folley,
Felix Gillison, Jr., Lawrence Mwethuku, James Hayes, Jazmine
Hayes, Cheolieces Shannon, Gloria Cunningham, Herbert White,
Cherile Devries and Allen Honesty, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Clarity Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00760-HEH (E.D. Va., November 6, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
          1800 Diagonal Rd., Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-6080
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
                  kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA PROVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 E Main Street, Suite 610
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 782-9430
          Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
          E-mail: jay@vplc.org


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is set for December 19, 2014, on the settlement
in the class action against Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

SWR is a defendant in a suit filed in April 2011 in the Circuit
Court of Union County, Arkansas where the plaintiffs initially
sought in excess of $8 million for the costs of environmental
remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced in the
1930s. In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining
defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million, of which SWR
will pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement, the case has
been converted to a class action, and each member of the class
will be offered the right to either participate or opt out of the
class and continue a separate action for damages. If more than 25%
of the plaintiffs elect to opt out of the settlement, SWR has the
right to terminate the settlement. Any plaintiffs opting out will
be subject to all previous rulings of the court, including an
order dismissing a significant number of the plaintiffs' claims on
the basis that such claims were time barred.

SWR believes that the number of plaintiffs opting out of the
settlement, if any, will be insignificant. A loss on settlement of
$0.7 million was recorded in June 2013 in connection with this
proposed settlement. Settlement documents were agreed to and the
court entered an order of settlement. A fairness hearing is set
for December 19, 2014.

Clayton Williams is engaged in developmental drilling in two
primary oil-prone regions, the Southern Delaware Basin and the
Giddings Area in Texas, where the Company has a significant
inventory of developmental drilling opportunities.


CODY AUSTIN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paco Sanchez-Lagomarcino v. Cody Austin Corporation and Phil
Baris, Case No. 0:14-cv-62527 (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a car repairs business in Sunrise,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Oral Argument Scheduled for December 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court has
scheduled an oral argument for December 2014 in the appeal of
plaintiffs on the dismissal of their class action lawsuit
involving Columbia Laboratories, Inc., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et
al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al. and asserted
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged
class of purchasers of the common stock during the period from
December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were
consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia
Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis,
Inc., and three of its officers have been added as defendants.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Columbia and two
of its officers, one of whom is a director, omitted to state
material facts that they were under a duty to disclose, and made
materially false and misleading statements that related to the
results of Columbia's PREGNANT study and the likelihood of
approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") of a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for
the prevention of preterm birth in women with premature cervical
shortening. According to the amended complaint, these alleged
omissions and misleading statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the common stock. The plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts
supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The
Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint,
and they did so on July 11, 2013.

Columbia moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the
court did on October 21, 2013.  The Court ruled that changes the
plaintiffs made to their first amended complaint "still do not
create a strong inference that the Defendants acted with an intent
to deceive, manipulate or defraud." The Court ordered that if the
plaintiffs sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a
third amended complaint, they must do so within thirty days and
specifically address why the attempt would not be futile. The
plaintiffs chose not to file any further amendments and the case
was dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2013.

On December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Briefing of
the appeal is complete, and the Court has scheduled an oral
argument for December 2014.

Columbia believes that the appealed action is without merit, and
intends to defend it vigorously. At this time, it is not possible
to determine the likely outcome of, or to estimate the potential
liability related to this action, and Columbia has not made any
provision for losses in connection with it.

Columbia Laboratories provides provide pharmaceutical development,
clinical trial manufacturing, product supply, and advanced
analytical and consulting services to the pharmaceutical industry.


CREATIVE DESIGNS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apolinar Velasquez, on behalf of other employees similarly
situated v. Creative Designs Management Co., and Ibrahim Shihadeh,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08893 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of real-estate
development, property management and rental properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


DICKERSON & BOWEN: "Martin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Martin, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Dickerson & Bowen, Inc., a Mississippi for Profit
Corporation and Cecil P. Estess, Case No. 5:14-cv-00105 (S.D.
Miss., November 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dickerson & Bowen, Inc. is a paving company specializing in
asphalt paving of public roads and highways.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      One Jackson Place, Suite 777
      188 East Capitol Street
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


DRDGOLD LTD: Gathering Info in Preparation for Silicosis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DRDGOLD Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that the companies are currently
gathering information in preparation for the silicosis litigation.

In January 2013 DRDGOLD, ERPM and 23 other mining companies were
served with a court application for a class action issued in the
South Gauteng High Court by alleged former mineworkers and
dependants of deceased mineworkers. In the pending application the
applicants allege that DRDGOLD, ERPM and other mining companies
conducted underground mining operations in such a negligent manner
that the former mineworkers contracted silicosis. The applicants
have not yet quantified the amounts which they would like the
mining companies to pay as damages.

The companies are currently gathering information in preparation
for the matter. An answering affidavit opposing the application
for the certification of a class action was filed with the High
Court on June 24, 2014.

"Taking into account that the silicosis claim is still at
certification stage and should anyone bring similar claims against
DRDGOLD or any of its subsidiaries in future, those claimants
would need to provide evidence proving that silicosis was
contracted while in the employment of the company and that it was
contracted due to negligence on the company's part. The link
between the cause (negligence by the company while in its employ)
and the effect (the silicosis) will be an essential part of any
case. It is therefore uncertain as to whether the company will
incur any costs related to silicosis claims in the future and due
to the limited information available on any claims and potential
claims and the uncertainty of the outcome of these claims, no
reliable estimation can be made for the possible obligation," the
Company said.

DRDGOLD Limited is a South African gold mining company engaged in
surface gold tailings retreatment, including exploration,
extraction, processing and smelting.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces 2 Securities Actions in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder class actions and a derivative lawsuit have been
filed against Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo.

In September 2014, a putative shareholder derivative action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company (nominally and in a derivative
capacity) and several of its officers and directors for alleged
violations of fiduciary duties to the Company for, among other
things, permitting the Company to issue alleged material
misstatements and omissions regarding the financial performance of
Turbo. This lawsuit generally asserts, purportedly on the
Company's behalf, the same underlying factual allegations as those
made in the class action lawsuits discussed above and has been
deemed a related case. These lawsuits seek to recover damages on
behalf of shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified
monetary relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
Because these lawsuits have only recently been filed, at this time
the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

Dreamworks' business is primarily devoted to developing, producing
and exploiting animated feature films (and other audiovisual
programs) and their associated characters in the worldwide
theatrical, home entertainment, digital, television,
merchandising, licensing and other markets.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces 3 Antitrust Actions in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws have been filed against
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc., and various other companies, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

In September and October 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws
were filed against the Company and various other companies. These
lawsuits generally assert that the defendants agreed to restrict
competition through non-solicitation agreements and agreements to
fix the wage and salary ranges for certain employees and
consultants. The lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all
persons who worked for the defendants at any time from 2004 to the
present. All of the cases were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and have been or may be
deemed related to cases filed in 2011 against other defendants.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
Because these lawsuits have only recently been filed, at this time
the Company is unable to reasonably predict the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

Dreamworks' business is primarily devoted to developing, producing
and exploiting animated feature films (and other audiovisual
programs) and their associated characters in the worldwide
theatrical, home entertainment, digital, television,
merchandising, licensing and other markets.


DRIL-QUIP INC: Wins Release From Deepwater Personal Injury Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dril-Quip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a personal injury
lawsuit related to the Deepwater Horizon incident was settled and
all claims against the Company were released.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig
known as the Deepwater Horizon, that was operated by BP
Exploration & Production, Inc. ("BP") sank after an explosion and
fire that began on April 20, 2010. Pursuant to a contract that the
Company entered into with an affiliate of BP, it supplied to BP a
wellhead and certain other equipment that were in use on the
Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident. The Company was
named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class
action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon
incident. These lawsuits were consolidated in the multi-district
proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 ("MDL Proceeding"). In 2012,
the judge presiding over various lawsuits and proceedings
dismissed all claims asserted against the Company in those
proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an
order granting a final judgment in favor of the Company with
respect to the court's prior order that granted the Company's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

One of the lawsuits against the Company consolidated in the MDL
Proceeding was a personal injury lawsuit initially filed in a
Texas state court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
lawsuit back to the Texas state court. In August 2014, the Company
was informed that this lawsuit was settled and all claims against
the Company were released.

Dril-Quip, Inc., designs, manufactures, sells and services highly
engineered offshore drilling and production equipment that is well
suited for use in deepwater, harsh environments and severe service
applications.


E & D INC: Sued in N.D. Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Yareldin Tovar-Carrillo, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. E & D, Inc., and Jesus Jimenez,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08906 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


EAGLE ROCK: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
The court consolidated three class action lawsuits into an action
styled In re Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-00521 and appointed a lead plaintiff and
co-lead counsel, Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27,
2014.

In March and April 2014, alleged unitholders of the Partnership
filed three class action lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the
Partnership's public unitholders. The lawsuits name the
Partnership, its Board of Directors, Regency, and Regal Midstream
LLC as defendants. One of the lawsuits also names the
Partnership's general partner and its general partner's general
partner as defendants. Plaintiffs in each lawsuit alleged a
variety of causes of action challenging the Midstream Business
Contribution, including alleged breaches of fiduciary or
contractual duties, alleged aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of duty, and alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The lawsuits allege
that the Partnership (i) sold its midstream assets for inadequate
value, (ii) engaged in an unfair sales process, (iii) agreed to
contractual terms (the no-solicitation, fiduciary out, superior
proposal, and termination fee provisions and the voting and
support agreement) that would dissuade other potential acquirors
from seeking to purchase the midstream assets and (iv) failed to
disclose material information in its definitive proxy statement
concerning the analysis of our financial advisors, potential
conflicts of the advisors (and directors), management's financial
projections, strategic alternatives, other potential acquirors,
the bases for certain actions, and the background of the
transaction. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs seek to
have the sale rescinded, monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

In August 2014, the court consolidated the lawsuits into an action
styled In re Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-00521 and appointed a lead plaintiff and
co-lead counsel. The lead plaintiff had a deadline of November 3,
2014 to file a consolidated amended complaint.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or the amount of
time and expense that will be required to resolve it. The
Partnership, however, intends to defend vigorously against the
claims asserted," the Company said.

Eagle Rock is a growth-oriented master limited partnership engaged
in (a) the exploitation, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties and (b) ancillary gathering, compressing,
treating, processing and marketing services with respect to its
production of natural gas, natural gas liquids, condensate and
crude oil.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Limited Discovery in Okla Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court granted the plaintiff's request for limited discovery in
the shareholder derivative class action captioned Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al., Education
Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders
due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of
Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to
admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting
tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency
standards, improper classification of job placement data for
graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S.
Department of Education's financial responsibility standards.  The
Company previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff
which were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the
EDMC Board of Directors and found to be without merit.

The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the
same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012.

The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the
Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper
recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well-
being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation
Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the
plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to
admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics.

The Special Litigation Committee filed supplemental reports on
October 15, 2013, January 9, 2014 and February 28, 2014, finding
no support for the incentive compensation and graduate placement
statistic claims. The Court held a hearing on the defendants'
supplemental motion to dismiss the case on January 29, 2014 and
granted the plaintiff's request for limited discovery on June 11,
2014.

Education Management Corporation offers campus-based education
through four different education systems and through online
platforms at three of the four education systems, or through a
combination of both. These four education systems comprise the
Company's reportable segments, which are The Art Institutes,
Argosy University, Brown Mackie Colleges and South University.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Robb" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment
No. 1 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that on
September 19, 2014, a securities class action complaint captioned
Robb v. Education Management Corporation, et. al was filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers. The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
of 1934 and rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder due to allegedly
materially false and misleading statements made by the Company
during the period of August 8, 2012 through September 16, 2014 in
connection with the Company's filings with the SEC, press releases
and other statements and documents.

Education Management Corporation offers campus-based education
through four different education systems and through online
platforms at three of the four education systems, or through a
combination of both. These four education systems comprise the
Company's reportable segments, which are The Art Institutes,
Argosy University, Brown Mackie Colleges and South University.


ELI LILLY: Sued Over Deceptive Testosterone Therapy Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
"low testosterone" is nothing more than a pseudocondition
fabricated by pharmaceutical companies, which have violated civil
racketeering laws by fraudulently marketing medications bringing
huge profits for the drug industry but billions of dollars of
unjustified claims for health insurers, and health risks for
patients, a proposed class action alleges.

On Nov. 3, the insurer Medical Mutual of Ohio lodged a 341-page
broadside against Eli Lilly & Co, Actavis Pharma, Abbott
Laboratories and an array of subsidiaries in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  In the crosshairs are
testosterone replacement therapy drugs including AndroGel, Testim,
Axiron, Testopel, Androderm and Fortesta Gel.

"These . . . drugs were marketed as part of a decade-long
deceptive marketing scheme to transform the male aging process
into a curable disease [that] defendants variously called
'andropause,' 'late-onset male hypogonadism,' 'age-related
hypogonadism' or simply 'Low T,' which were invented from whole
cloth," the complaint says in Medical Mutual v. AbbVie.

Along with alleged violations of RICO statutes, the complaint,
which defines the putative class as all health insurers who have
paid claims for the testosterone medications, alleges the drug
companies violated consumer protection laws in all 50 states and
engaged in common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, the pharmaceutical firms are
deliberately misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of the drugs
for off-label uses, knowingly misrepresenting the existence and
findings of scientific data and clinical trials concerning the
safety and medical efficacy of the drugs; deliberately concealing
negative scientific and medical findings about their use; and
illegally paying physicians "kickbacks" for prescribing the
medications.

"The companies also are purposefully downplaying, understating and
outright ignoring the health hazards and risks associated with
using [the] drugs," the complaint says, noting that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration announced in January it was investigating
potential cardiovascular risks.  More than 220 testosterone
lawsuits, in which plaintiffs allege manufacturers have failed to
warn of the dangers of the drugs, have been filed in the Northern
District of Illinois.

The FDA has approved the use of the medications for only the
treatment of hypogonadism, a rare condition in which the body
produces little or no sex hormone, but not for the normal decrease
in testosterone that accompanies aging, according to the
complaint.

"What was once a rare condition was suddenly said to affect up to
40 percent of middle-aged men, according to respected 'thought
leaders' -- specialist urologists and endrocrinologists at
teaching university hospitals -- many of whom were in fact on one
or more of defendants' respective payrolls as consultants,
speakers, and/or researchers," the complaint says.

Medical Mutual credits the companies' marketing campaigns with
generating an "astronomical spike" in the number of prescriptions
for the testosterone drugs -- up by 170 percent between 1999 and
2002, according to the complaint.  By 2012, annual sales reached
about $2 billion and they are expected to hit $5 billion by 2017,
according to forecasts cited by the complaint.  Market research
showed the manufacturers of the top six branded testosterone
replacement drugs spent about $55 million promoting the products;
by 2013, that amount had grown five-fold, to $282 million, the
complaint contends.

"Defendants' respective unlawful marketing schemes directly
convinced patients, physicians and [insurers] that hypogonadism
was vastly underdiagnosed and undertreated, directly causing
prescriptions for [testosterone-replacement] drugs to increase,"
the complaint says.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with the firms Kanner &
Whiteley; The Simmer Law Group; Seeger Weiss; Simmons Hanly
Conroy; and Schachter, Hendy & Johnson.


ENTEGRIS INC: Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entegris, Inc. and ATMI Inc. each filed a motion to strike the
plaintiff's second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit;
that motion is pending, Entegris said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014.

On or about February 7 and 28, 2014, two putative class action
complaints challenging the merger between the Company and ATMI,
Inc. ATMI) were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Danbury, captioned Andrew Pace
v. ATMI, Inc., et al. and Dolores Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al.,
respectively. The complaints were filed on behalf of the public
shareholders of ATMI, Inc. and name as defendants ATMI, Inc., the
members of the Board of Directors of ATMI, the Company and the
Company's subsidiary, Atomic Merger Corporation. The complaints
generally alleged that ATMI's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to ATMI's shareholders by agreeing to sell ATMI for
inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate
and unfair process, and that ATMI, the Company and Atomic Merger
Corporation aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
complaint in the Carter action and the second amended complaint in
the Pace action also allege purported disclosure deficiencies in
the preliminary and definitive proxy statements for the merger
that ATMI filed with the SEC. The complaints sought, among other
things, to enjoin the merger. The merger was approved by ATMI's
shareholders on April 15, 2014 and was closed on April 30, 2014.

The case captioned Dolores Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al. was
subsequently dismissed by the plaintiff. The case captioned Andrew
Pace v. ATMI, Inc., et al. continues to be pending and has been
transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket.

On July 21, 2014, ATMI and the Company each filed a motion to
strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint; that motion is
pending before the court. The Company continues to believe that
this case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this
case.

Entegris, Inc. is a provider of yield-enhancing materials and
solutions for advanced manufacturing processes in the
semiconductor and other high-technology industries.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Dismisses Hotel Booking Practices Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has entered judgment in favor of online travel companies
and dismissed the lawsuit relating to hotel booking practices,
Expedia Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On July 31, 2012, the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading
("OFT") issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Expedia,
Booking.com B.V. and InterContinental Hotels Group PLC ("IHG")
have infringed European Union and United Kingdom competition law
in relation to the online supply of hotel room accommodations. The
parties voluntarily proposed to address the OFT's investigation by
offering formal commitments.

On January 31, 2014, the OFT announced that it had formally
accepted the commitments offered by the parties, with no finding
of fault or liability. On April 2, 2014, Skyscanner Limited filed
an appeal challenging the OFT's January 31, 2014 decision. On
September 26, 2014, the United Kingdom's Competition Appeal
Tribunal granted Skyscanner Limited's appeal. This judgment
requires the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), the United
Kingdom's competition authority, to review the decision of its
predecessor body, the OFT. Expedia continues to believe the
commitments it voluntarily gave to the OFT, and which specify
certain hotel room discounting rights for online travel companies,
represent a sensible and balanced outcome to the OFT's three year
investigation.  The Company intends to continue to apply these
commitments pending further developments.

In addition, a number of competition authorities in other European
countries have initiated investigations into competitive practices
within the travel industry and, in particular, in relation to
"Most Favored Nations" clauses and other contractual arrangements
between hotels and online travel companies, including Expedia.
These investigations differ from the OFT investigation, in
relation to the parties involved and the precise nature of the
concerns.  Expedia is unable at this time to predict the outcome
of these investigations and their impact, if any, on its business
and results of operations.

Since August 20, 2012, more than 30 putative class action
lawsuits, which refer to the OFT's Statement of Objections, have
been initiated in the United States by consumer plaintiffs
alleging claims against the online travel companies, including
Expedia, and several major hotel chains for alleged resale price
maintenance for online hotel room reservations, including but not
limited to violation of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection statutes and common law tort claims,
such as unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated and
transferred to Judge Boyle in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.

On February 18, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to move for
leave to amend their complaint. On October 27, 2014, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. On October 28, 2014,
the court entered judgment in favor of the online travel companies
and dismissed the lawsuit.

Expedia, Inc. is an online travel company, empowering business and
leisure travelers with the tools and information they need to
efficiently research, plan, book and experience travel.


FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs File Appeal in Apartheid Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is a defendant in purported class action
lawsuits seeking unspecified damages on behalf of South African
citizens who suffered violence and oppression under South Africa's
apartheid regime. The lawsuits allege that the defendant companies
aided and abetted the apartheid regime and its human rights
violations. On August 28, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints and
dismissed the complaints with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed,
Ford said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Removes "Williams" Suit to D. New Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Williams, et al. v. Foremost
Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Case No. D-101-CV-2014-02208, was
removed from the First Judicial District Court to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico (Las Cruces).  The
New Mexico District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-01010-
SMV-GBW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for personal injury.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. O'Friel, Esq.
          O'FREIL AND LEVY, PC
          PO Box 2084
          Santa Fe, NM 87504-2084
          Telephone: (505) 982-5929
          E-mail: dan@ofrielandlevy.com

               - and -

          Jaime F. Rubin, Esq.
          JAIME F. RUBIN, LLC
          PO Drawer 151
          Truth or Consequences, NM 87901
          Telephone: (505) 894-3031
          Facsimile: (505) 894-3282
          E-mail: jrubin@zianet.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ross L. Crown, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
          201 Third St. NW, Suite 1950
          PO Box 1027
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 764-5402
          Facsimile: (505) 764-5463
          E-mail: RCrown@LRRLaw.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Fails to Reach Settlement After Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit participated in a mediation during the third
quarter of fiscal 2014, which did not result in a settlement.

In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's
Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009 to the present. In
February 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike
portions of Plaintiff's first amended complaint, clarifying the
scope of the putative class. A second amended complaint has also
been filed.

Procedurally, the case is in the early stages of litigation and no
defined class has been certified. The parties participated in a
mediation during the third quarter of fiscal 2014, which did not
result in a settlement.

The Company currently believes that any settlement reached would
be in an amount that is not material to the Company's financial
statements. The Company denies the allegations contained in the
lawsuit and, based on available information, believes it has
significant defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit. If the
matter is not settled, the Company could incur material attorneys'
fees in defending the lawsuit.

FormFactor designs, develops, manufactures, sells and supports
precision, high performance advanced semiconductor wafer probe
card products and solutions.


GLADSTONE LAW: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Bach, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gladstone Law Group, P.A., a Florida Professional
Corporation, and Nusrat Mansoor, individually, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01823-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., November 6, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEO W. DESMOND
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, Fl 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5231
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


GROUPON INC: To Appeal Class Certification in Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon Inc. filed a petition for leave to appeal the court order
granting plaintiff's motion for class certification in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding pursuant to
which, on October 29, 2012, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, and the underwriters that participated in the
initial public offering of the Company's Class A common stock.
Originally filed in April 2012, the case is currently pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois: In re Groupon, Inc. Securities Litigation. The
complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Allegations in the consolidated
amended complaint include that the Company and its officers and
directors made untrue statements or omissions of material fact by
issuing inaccurate financial statements for the fiscal quarter and
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 and by failing to
disclose information about the Company's financial controls in the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Class A common stock and in the Company's
subsequently-issued earnings release dated February 8, 2012.  The
class action lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, reimbursement for fees and costs incurred in connection
with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and various other
forms of monetary and non-monetary relief.

The plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification on
December 4, 2013.  On March 18, 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting deadlines for fact discovery by March 13,
2015, expert discovery by August 31, 2015, and dispositive motions
by October 30, 2015. On May 2, 2014, defendants filed a motion
requesting exclusion of the opinions of plaintiff's proposed
market efficiency expert in resolving the motion for class
certification. The court held a hearing on the motion to exclude
plaintiff's expert on September 11, 2014 and ordered that the
parties file post-hearing briefings.

On September 23, 2014, before the parties had commenced the
ordered post-hearing briefing, the court entered an order granting
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On October 1, 2014,
the Company filed a petition for leave to appeal that order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The
petition is currently pending.

Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries, which commenced operations in
October 2008, operates online local commerce marketplaces
throughout the world that connect merchants to consumers by
offering goods and services at a discount.


GROUPON INC: Appeal in Marketing and Sales Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by objectors to the court order approving the
settlement in In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation remains pending, Groupon Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class
actions that came to be consolidated into a single case in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
consolidated case is referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the
parties agreed to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before
any determination had been made on the merits or with respect to
class certification.  Because the case had been filed as a class
action, the parties were required to provide proper notice and
obtain court approval for the settlement. During that process,
certain individuals asserted various objections to the settlement.
The parties to the case opposed the objections and on December 14,
2012, the district court approved the settlement over the various
objections.

Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain
of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the
settlement and appealing the matter to the Ninth Circuit of the
U.S. Court of Appeals, where the case remains pending.  The
Company believes that the settlement is valid and intends to
oppose the appeal.  Plaintiffs also maintain that the settlement
is valid and will be opposing the appeal.  The settlement,
however, is not effective during the pendency of the appeal.

The Company does not know when the appeal will be resolved.
Depending on the outcome of the appeal, it is possible that the
settlement will be rejected, or that there will be further
proceedings in the appellate court or district court, or that the
settlement will be enforced at that time without further
objections or proceedings.

Groupon, Inc. and subsidiaries, which commenced operations in
October 2008, operates online local commerce marketplaces
throughout the world that connect merchants to consumers by
offering goods and services at a discount.


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Robey" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Robey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Kanwardev Raja Sing Bal, and Richard
J. Gaynor, Case No. 1:14-cv-00499 (D.N.H., November 6, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that there were significant risks that the
Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements of the Apple
Agreement to supply sapphire material, that the Company's sapphire
material would not be used in the Apple iPhone 6 devices, that, as
a result of the Apple Agreement problems, the Company was facing a
liquidity crisis.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
      MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC
      3 N. Spring Street
      Concord, NH 03301
      Telephone: (603) 228-2277
      Facsimile: (603) 228-2275
      E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com

         - and -

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


HEB GROCERY: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Rosales, Milton Betancourt, Wilmer Brito, Dennis Rosales,
Zuniga, Jesus v. Heb Grocery Company, LP and Frio Nevada
Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-03187 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate grocery stores within the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM LLP
      9801 Westheimer Road, Ste. 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


HERITAGE GREEN: Faces "Suarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fortino Suarez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Heritage Green Apts, LLC, and Ibrahim
Shihadeh, Case No. 1:14-cv-08904 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Heritage Green Apts, LLC offers spacious garden homes and
townhomes with attached garages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


HILTON WORLDWIDE: Has $76MM Outstanding Bond in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company has an outstanding bond of $76 million under a class
action lawsuit against Hilton and the Domestic Plan to support
potential future plan contributions from the Company.

"We funded an account, which is classified as restricted cash and
cash equivalents in our condensed consolidated balance sheets, to
support this requirement. If the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia approves of our compliance with the
requirements of the ruling from the class action lawsuit, then the
bond may be released in 2014," the Company said.

Hilton is one of the largest and fastest growing hospitality
companies in the world, with 4,265 hotels, resorts and timeshare
properties comprising 705,196 rooms in 93 countries and
territories.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Animas Credit Suite Over Alleges Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Animas Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated financial institutions v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03577 (N.D. Ga., November 6, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to safeguard customers' personal
and financial information.

The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      8 East Liberty Street
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 447-8400
      Facsimile: (912) 233-6584
      E-mail:  twithers@gwllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      PNC Park, 115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Kleinbank" Suit in Georgia District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Kleinbank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03586-CC (N.D.
Ga., November 6, 2014) alleges breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr., Esq.
          Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
          DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
          1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-8900
          E-mail: edoffermyre@dsckd.com
                  kcanfield@dsckd.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON
          80 South Eighth Street
          3550 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com


IMMERSION CORP: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Immersion Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court's
dismissal with prejudice in In re Immersion Corporation Securities
Litigation.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers. Over the following five weeks, four
additional class action complaints were filed. (One of these four
actions was later voluntarily dismissed.) The securities class
action complaints name the Company and certain current and former
Company directors and officers as defendants and allege violations
of federal securities laws based on the Company's issuance of
allegedly misleading financial statements. The various complaints
assert claims covering the period from May 2007 through July 2009
and seek compensatory damages allegedly sustained by the purported
class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010. Defendants moved to dismiss the action
on June 15, 2010 and that motion was granted with leave to amend
on March 11, 2011. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on April 29, 2011. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 1, 2011.

On December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted with
prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was entered in favor
of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2012,
plaintiff filed his opening appeals brief. On July 13, 2012, the
Company filed its response brief. On September 4, 2012, plaintiff
filed his reply. The Court heard oral argument on February 12,
2014 and took the matter under submission. On August 7, 2014, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the
district court's dismissal with prejudice.

Immersion Corporation is a premier IP and technology licensing
company focused on the creation, design, development, and
licensing of patented haptic innovations and technologies that
allow people to use their sense of touch more fully when operating
a wide variety of digital devices.


ITT CORP: Discovery Proceeding in Class Action Against Travelers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the Connecticut Court
has lifted the stay and discovery is proceeding in the putative
class action suit ITT and Goulds Pumps filed against Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company.

In January 2012, ITT and Goulds Pumps filed a putative class
action suit in federal court in Connecticut against Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company (ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps
Inc., v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company), (Fed Dist Ct, D. Conn., CA NO.3:12-
cv-00038-RN)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally
reinterpreting language contained in older Aetna policies so as to
avoid paying on asbestos claims. This action was stayed pending a
decision by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in the
action, Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct.,
Los Angeles County, on interpretation of policy language.

On January 29, 2014, the Superior Court issued its opinion
upholding the Goulds Pumps' claims that it is entitled to receive
reimbursement from Traveler's for asbestos claims. The Connecticut
Court has now lifted the stay and discovery in the case is
proceeding.

ITT Corporation is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for the
energy, transportation, and industrial markets.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Data, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Irwin, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, Jimmy John's Enterprises,
LLC a/k/a Jimmy John's LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02275-HAB-DGB (C.D.
Ill., November 6, 2014) is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged failure to secure and safeguard their customers'
personal and financial data, including credit and debit card
information, and for failing to expediently inform the Plaintiff
and the Class that Jimmy John's had experienced a data breach and
that the Plaintiff's personal financial information had been
acquired by a an unauthorized person.

Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC and Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC are
Delaware limited liability companies with their principal place of
business in Champaign, Illinois.

The Defendants own, operate and control a franchised chain of
sandwich restaurants with over 2,000 locations nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
          THE HINTON LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 723-3377
          Facsimile: (914) 530-2954

               - and -

          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
          HEFFNER HURST
          30 North LaSalle Street, 12th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466
          Facsimile: (312) 346-2829
          E-mail: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

                           *     *     *

Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
data breach that targeted the Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches
chain has spawned a proposed class action by a plaintiff who
alleges the company's information systems and security oversight
were "grossly inadequate" and that its delay in announcing the
breach was unlawful.

Arizona plaintiff and past Jimmy John's patron Barbara Irwin
alleges that she was the victim of five fraudulent charges on the
credit card she had used at the sandwich store between July 3 and
Aug. 4, and that the fraud occurred as a result of the breach of
the point-of-sale system used at 216 of the company's stores in 40
states.

Jimmy John's Franchises LLC announced the breach on Sept. 24.  The
company said it learned of the break-in on July 30 and
"immediately hired third party forensic experts to assist with its
investigation," according to a notice on the firm's website.  It
said a cyberintruder stole log-in credentials from the company's
point-of-sale vendor and used them to access the stores' checkout
systems between June 16 and Sept. 5.

In Irwin v. Jimmy John's , filed Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of Illinois, where the company is based,
Irwin alleges the chain violated state statutes that require the
disclosure of such security breaches be made in the "most
expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay."

The fraud Ms. Irwin suffered was a "direct result" of the
company's waiting two months after the discovery of the break-in
to announce it.  Had there been swift notification, "plaintiff and
class members could have avoided making credit or debit card
purchases at the company's stores, could have avoided shopping at
the company's stores at all, and could have contacted their banks
to cancel their cards, or could otherwise have tried to avoid the
harm caused," the complaint says.

Jimmy John's said it has taken steps to prevent this type of event
from occurring in the future, including installing encrypted swipe
machines and other system enhancements, and reviewing its
procedures for third party vendors.

But the complaint alleges that the point-of-sale software system
used by Jimmy John's did not meet basic safety requirements
recommended by security experts, and that the company cut corners
to save money.

"Defendant's failure to comply with reasonable security standards
provided the company with short-term and fleeting benefits in the
form of saving on the costs of compliance, but at the expense and
to the severe detriment of its own customers," the complaint says.
Along with allegedly breaking state security-breach laws, the
plaintiffs allege Jimmy John's engaged in violations of state
consumer fraud statutes as well as unjust enrichment, bailment and
breach of implied contract.  They ask for injunctive relief,
damages, restitution, disgorgement and three years of credit-card
monitoring services.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with The Rosen Law Firm, the Hinton Law
Firm and Heffner Hurst.


JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Goldfinger" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Journal Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that a putative
class action suit styled Goldfinger v. Journal Communications,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 14-CV-6910, State of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
County) was filed on August 11, 2014, against the Company, its
Board of Directors and certain of is subsidiaries.

"The suit alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty
in connection with a proposed stock-for-stock merger between us
and Scripps and the spin-off of our respective newspaper
businesses into a new publicly traded company.  The complaint also
purports to assert a claim against Scripps, certain of its
subsidiaries, and certain affiliates of us and Scripps for
allegedly aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty by our
directors.  The complaint seeks to enjoin the transaction or,
alternatively, damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the
complaint," the Company said.

Journal Communications' reportable business segments are: (i)
television; (ii) radio; (iii) publishing; and (iv) corporate.


KEMET CORPORATION: Faces 13 Actions Over Capacitors Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that 13 purported
antitrust class actions (collectively, the "U.S. Complaints") have
recently been filed in United States district courts, alleging
collusion and restraint of trade in capacitors by the named
defendants.

Seven of the suits are brought on behalf of direct purchasers and
allege a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for which they
seek injunctive and equitable relief and money damages: Chip-Tech,
Ltd., v. Panasonic Corporation, et. al., filed July 18, 2014 in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California;
Dependable Component Supply Corporation v. Panasonic Corporation,
et. al., filed July 22, 2014 in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California; eIQ Energy, Inc. v. AVX
Corporation, et al., filed August 1, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and subsequently
dismissed and refiled in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California; Schuten Electronics Inc. v. AVX
Corporation, et al., filed August 14, 2014 in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California; In Home Tech
Solutions, Inc. v Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 8,
2014 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California; Quathimatine Holdings, Inc. v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al.,
filed October 22, 2014 in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California; and Walker Component Group, Inc.
v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 28, 2014 in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.

Six of the suits are brought on behalf of indirect purchasers:
Ellis et al. v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 21,
2014 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California; Bennett v. Panasonic et al., filed September 30, 2014
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California; Toy-Knowlogy Inc. v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al., filed
October 17, 2014 in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California; CAE Sound v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al., filed
October 20, 2014 in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California; Brooks and Royce Parking Control Systems,
Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 24, 2014 in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California;
and Wong v. KEMET Corporation, et al., filed October 27, 2014 in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

The Ellis, Toy-Knowlogy, CAE Sound, Brooks and Wong complaints
assert claims for damages under various antitrust and other state
laws as well as for injunctive and equitable relief under the
Sherman Act. The Bennett complaint asserts claims under California
law and seeks equitable relief and money damages.

KEMET Corporation and KEMET Electronics Corporation were named as
defendants in each of the U.S. Complaints, along with more than 20
other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries. The U.S.
Complaints are being consolidated before Judge James Donato in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors.
Kemet is organized into two business groups: Solid Capacitors and
Film and Electrolytic.


KEMET CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits in Canada Over Capacitors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that KEMET Corporation
and KEMET Electronics Corporation, along with the other defendants
of the U.S. Complaints, were named as defendants in several suits
that were recently filed in Canada (collectively, the "Canadian
Complaints"): Badashmin v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed
August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District
of Montreal; Herard v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August
6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of
Montreal; Cygnus Electronics Corporation v. Panasonic Corporation,
et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice,
Province of Ontario; LeClaire v. Panasonic Corporation, et al.,
filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec,
District of Montreal; Taylor v Panasonic Corporation, et al.,
filed August 11, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province
of Ontario; Ramsay v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August
14, 2014 in the Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia;
Martin v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed September 25, 2014
in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal;
Parikh v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in
the Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Fraser v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the Court
of Queen's Bench, Province of Saskatchewan; and Pickering v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 6, 2014 in the
Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia.

The Canadian Complaints generally allege the same unlawful acts as
in the U.S. Complaints, assert claims under Canada's Competition
Act as well as various civil and common law causes of action, and
seek injunctive and equitable relief and money damages.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors.
Kemet is organized into two business groups: Solid Capacitors and
Film and Electrolytic.


KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Faces Antitrust Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in March and
April, 2014, NEC TOKIN and certain of its subsidiaries received
inquiries, requests for information and other communications from
government authorities in China, the United States, the European
Commission, Japan and South Korea concerning alleged anti-
competitive activities within the capacitor industry.
Subsequently, NEC TOKIN has also communicated with government
authorities regarding related investigations in Taiwan and
Singapore. The investigations are continuing at various stages.
In addition, beginning July 2014, NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary,
NEC TOKIN America, Inc., have been named, along with more than 20
other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries, as defendants in
purported antitrust class action suits in the United States and
Canada. As of this date, except for legal expenses, NEC TOKIN has
not recorded an accrual as a result of the investigations and
civil litigation.

KEMET is a global manufacturer of a wide variety of capacitors.
Kemet is organized into two business groups: Solid Capacitors and
Film and Electrolytic.


KILDEER ADVISORS: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eliseo Herrera, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Kildeer Advisors, Inc., d/b/a Shop N Save
Market, and Cezary Jakubowski, Case No. 1:14-cv-08899 (N.D. Ill.,
November 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the
dismissal of a securities class action, Ligand Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its officers,
directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera Defendants")
for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera
shareholders.  The lawsuit also names the Company and its CEO as
additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the
Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on
the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-
stage pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating
Trust in May 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its
interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc.

Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to
dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 12, 2013.  Plaintiff appealed that dismissal on
September 10, 2013, and the Third Circuit reversed on October 17,
2014.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
claims against the Company and its CEO.  Due to the complex nature
of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of
this matter is not presently determinable.

Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is a biopharmaceutical company
that develops and acquires royalty and other revenue generating
assets and couples them with a lean corporate cost structure.


LITHIA MOTORS: Records $6.7 Million Expenses to Settle Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company has
recorded expenses of $6.7 million to settle all claims against it
and to pay plaintiffs' legal fees in the Alaska Consumer
Protection Act class actions.

In December 2006, a class action suit was filed against the
Company (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of
Anchorage, Inc., et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April
2007, a second class action suit (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia
Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI)
was filed against the Company, in the Superior Court for the State
of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage. These suits were
subsequently consolidated.

The Company said, "In the consolidated suit, plaintiffs alleged
that we, through our Alaska dealerships, engaged in three
practices that purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection
laws: (i) charging customers dealer fees and costs (including
document preparation fees) not disclosed in the advertised price,
(ii) failing to disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident
history of used vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally
manufactured for sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in
deception, misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers
financing from third parties without disclosing that we receive a
fee or discount for placing that loan. The suit sought statutory
damages of $500 for each violation or three times plaintiff's
actual damages, whichever was greater, and attorney fees and
costs.

"In June 2013, the parties agreed to mediate the claims. The
mediation resulted in a settlement agreement that received the
final approval of the Court on December 11, 2013.  Under the
settlement agreement, we agreed to reimburse plaintiffs' legal
fees and to pay (i) $450 in the form of cash and vouchers to valid
claimants and (ii) $3,000 for each claim representative. The
majority of cash and vouchers have been mailed.

"We have recorded expenses of $6.7 million to settle all claims
against us and to pay plaintiffs' legal fees. Of this amount, $0.7
million was recorded in the nine months ended September 30, 2014,
as a component of selling, general and administrative expense in
our Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of September 30,
2014, the liability for unused vouchers, assuming an expected
redemption rate, was $1.1 million and is recorded as a component
of accrued liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. We
believe that these estimates are reasonable; however, actual costs
could differ materially."


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Seizing and Impounding Automobiles
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles police unconstitutionally seize and impound
automobiles, a class action claims in California Federal Court,
reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Lamya Brewster, of Fontana, sued the city, its police department
and Police Chief Charlie Beck on November 3, seeking an injunction
and damages for Fourth Amendment violations.

"It's like police rampaging through your home without a warrant,"
Brewster's attorney Donald W. Cook told Courthouse News.  "They
can't do it unless they have a real good reason.

"She's willing to pay the impound fees and go and show up and get
the car, but they're not giving it to her.  That, the police
cannot do."

Cook cited an Oct. 29 ruling in San Francisco Federal Court, in
which a judge issued a partial victory to a man whose Chevy
Silverado was impounded by the City of Santa Rosa without a
warrant.

U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson ruled that Cook's client
in that case, Simeon Avendano Ruiz, failed to show that the policy
violates "clearly established law," but found that the 30-day
impoundment of his car is unconstitutional.

Ruiz had been issued a driver's license in Mexico but is
unlicensed in the United States, Cook said.

"Most victims of this policy tend to be illegal," Cook said.
"People see it as a way of going after illegal aliens.  Regardless
of your view on that, the problem is, you cannot take property
absent a real good reason, without judicial review."

Brewster claims that licensed drivers have become victims of the
same 30-day impound policy.

Officers seized Brewster's Chevrolet Impala on Oct. 28. At that
time, Brewster says, she was at Kaiser Permanente Hospital on
Sunset Boulevard to get an evaluation for her 6-year-old daughter,
who had a brain tumor.  She loaned her Impala to her brother-in-
law so he and other family members could pick up some food, she
says, not knowing that her brother-in-law's license had been
suspended.  He was stopped as he pulled into a Chipotle parking
lot.  Officers impounded the vehicle even after Brewster arrived
in a taxi, and told them that she was the registered, licensed
owner of the car.

"The Oct. 28, 2014 seizure of the Impala was without a warrant,"
the complaint states.

The LAPD have refused to return the car and never provided any
justification for the seizure, Brewster says.  She claims that in
some cases the LAPD refuse to return vehicles to licensed and
registered drivers within 30 days, even if the driver offers to
pay storage and administrative charges.  Those charges may run
from $1,500 to $1,800, according to the lawsuit.  If car owners
cannot pay the charges, their vehicles are placed in a lien sale.

"If the amount recovered by the lien sale is insufficient to pay
outstanding storage charges and administrative fees, the vehicle's
(former) registered owner remains liable to the tow yard for the
difference," the complaint states.

Vehicle impoundment in Los Angeles has become a political issue.

The LAPD last year eased its 30-day impoundment policy with a
special order that allowed officers to use discretion if a
licensed driver was available to drive an insured vehicle.

Under the directive, if a car is towed away and impounded,
unlicensed drivers could claim it the next day.

A Superior Court judge last year struck down the order after
conservative group Judicial Watch challenged it.

Cook told Courthouse News that Brewster had to make the 50-mile
drive from Fontana to Los Angeles after her daughter had seizures
on November 1.  She had surgery on November 2 and is recovering
after a successful surgery, the attorney said.

The city did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Los Angeles police declined to comment.


MADISON SQUARE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied motions for summary judgment in two purported class
action antitrust lawsuits against the NHL and certain NHL member
clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite
distributors, The Madison Square Garden Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The complaints,
which are substantially identical, primarily assert that certain
of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by
defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain
territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television
and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek injunctive
relief against the defendants' continued violation of the
antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-
judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the complaints in their entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court
denied the motions for summary judgment. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the claims against the Company.

The Madison Square Garden Company is comprised of three reportable
segments: MSG Media, MSG Entertainment, and MSG Sports.

MSG Media produces, develops and acquires content for multiple
distribution platforms, including content originating from the
Company's venues, and is comprised of the Company's regional
sports networks, MSG Network and MSG+, collectively the "MSG
Networks."

MSG Entertainment presents or hosts live entertainment events,
such as concerts, family shows, performing arts and special
events, in the Company's diverse collection of venues. MSG
Entertainment also creates, produces and/or presents live
productions, including the Radio City Christmas Spectacular
featuring the Radio City Rockettes (the "Rockettes"), that are
performed in the Company's and other venues.

MSG Sports owns and operates the following sports franchises: the
New York Knicks (the "Knicks") of the National Basketball
Association (the "NBA"), the New York Rangers (the "Rangers") of
the National Hockey League (the "NHL"), the New York Liberty (the
"Liberty") of the Women's National Basketball Association (the
"WNBA"), the Hartford Wolf Pack of the American Hockey League (the
"AHL"), which is the primary player development team for the
Rangers, and the Westchester Knicks, an NBA Development League
(the "NBADL") team. MSG Sports also promotes, produces and/or
presents a broad array of other live sporting events outside of
the Company's sports franchises' games.


MAVERICK DRILLING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kody Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Maverick Drilling & Exploration USA, Inc. and Maverick
Drilling Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-03188 (S.D. Tex., November 6,
2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendants for the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are a Texas-based oilfield service company with
significant operations in the United States.  The Defendants
provide horizontal and directional drilling services through MWD,
LWD, directional drilling, and field support professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Gonzalez, Marco Gonzalez, and Javier Najeva, individually
and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. National
Distribution Company, Inc., and Denis Ryan, Case No. 1:14-cv-08919
(N.D. Ill., November 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants are beverage alcohol distributors of premium wines
and spirits in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


NAVASOTA OILFIELD: "Aicken" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Aicklen, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Navasota Oilfield Services, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
03191 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Navasota Oilfield Services, Inc. manufactures, repairs, and
services wellhead equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCL CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Crew Members' 2009 Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation LTD continues to defend a class action complaint
filed in July 2009 on behalf of a purported class of crew members
alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits. In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied. The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs.

In October 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings as to the denial of
Class Certification and the trial verdict. The Plaintiffs filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court seeking review of the appellate court's decision which was
denied in March 2014.

"We are vigorously defending this action and are not able at this
time to estimate the impact of these proceedings," the Company
said.


NCL CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Crew Members' 2011 Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation LTD continues to defend a class action complaint
filed in May 2011 on behalf of a purported class of crew members
alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.

"We are vigorously defending this action and are not able at this
time to estimate the impact of these proceedings," the Company
said.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Taps Outside Counsel to Defend Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. has retained outside counsel with
experience in FLSA class action litigation, and plan to vigorously
defend the case, Davida v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark
Drilling Fluids LLC filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the
Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field service
employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an
hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery on
his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated employees.

Newpark Resources, Inc. is a diversified oil and gas industry
supplier providing products and services primarily to the oil and
gas exploration and production ("E&P") industry.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that following
its announcement on August 12, 2014 that it intended to restate
its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2013 and the quarter ended March 31, 2014, and amend its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2014, putative securities fraud class action lawsuits have
been filed against Ocwen and certain of its officers and directors
regarding such restatements and amendments. Ocwen and the other
defendants intend to vigorously defend such lawsuits.

Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE: OCN) is a financial services
holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
servicing and origination of forward and reverse mortgage loans.
Ocwen is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia with offices throughout
the United States (U.S.) and in the United States Virgin Islands
(USVI) with support operations in India, the Philippines and
Uruguay. Ocwen is a Florida corporation organized in February
1988.


OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Stays Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals accepted an appeal by Old National Bancorp in a
class action and issued a stay of the case, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging its checking account
practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The
theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar to other
class action complaints filed against other financial institutions
in recent years and settled for substantial amounts. On May 1,
2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended
Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and amended certain
claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other relief, including
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Indiana
Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was
subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old
National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or
more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of
limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a
result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card
and ATM transactions from highest to lowest." Old National sought
an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class certification on
April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied.

Old National does not believe that relevant facts are in dispute
or that plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be
granted under Indiana law. Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, Old
National moved for summary judgment. On September 16, 2013, a
hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and on September
27, 2013, the Circuit Court ordered the parties to mediation and
informed the parties that "Court will be denying the motion for
summary judgment upon receiving the report of the mediator."

The parties subsequently met twice with the mediator and were
unable to reach an agreement to resolve the dispute. Old
National's pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 11,
2013, was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014, and on
April 23, 2014, Old National sought leave from the Circuit Court
to file an interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
On May 28, 2014, the Circuit Court granted Old National's motion.
On June 5, 2014, Old National filed with the Court of Appeals a
"Combined Motion to Accept Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal
Pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(B) and Motion to Stay Trial Court
Proceedings Pending Appeal Pursuant to Appellate Rule 14(H)". On
July 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals granted both of Old National's
Motions, thereby accepting the appeal and issuing a Stay of the
case before the Circuit Court. Old National believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiffs. At
this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management of
Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss.


OLD REPUBLIC: Class Not Yet Certified in 2 Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
A class has not been certified in two purported class action suits
targeting Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic
Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina and other companies,
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA") violations were filed in the Federal District Court,
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting Republic
Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company
of North Carolina (together "RMIC"), other mortgage guaranty
insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to
National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-
owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v.
PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank)
et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging
that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements
with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under
which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee
splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA.

Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits
seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the
allegedly improper payments.

A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed
motions to dismiss the cases.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Challenges Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that a purported class action lawsuit is pending against the
Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic
National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district
court in Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The
plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). A class
has been certified in the suit. ORNTIC is challenging the
certification based on more recent case precedents.


OMNIAMERICAN BANCORP: Inks MOU to Settle Southside Merger Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants and the plaintiff in the litigation related to the
merger of OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc. and Southside Bancshares,
Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for
defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures,
OmniAmerican said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On June 25, 2014, a purported stockholder of OmniAmerican filed a
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court") captioned McDougal v. OmniAmerican Bancorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 24-C-14-003920 (the "Litigation"), naming OmniAmerican,
members of OmniAmerican's board of directors, Southside
Bancshares, Inc. ("Southside"), and Omega Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Southside ("Merger Sub"), as
defendants. The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of OmniAmerican's public stockholders and seeks a
declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action and
a certification of the plaintiff and her counsel as class
representative and class counsel. The lawsuit asserts direct and
derivative claims against OmniAmerican's directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties and that OmniAmerican,
Southside and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches
by, among other things, (a) failing to take steps to maximize
shareholder value for OmniAmerican public stockholders; (b)
failing to properly value OmniAmerican; (c) failing to protect
against conflicts of interest; (d) failing to disclose material
information necessary for OmniAmerican stockholders to make an
informed vote on the First Merger; and (e) agreeing to deal
protection devices that preclude a fair sales process. Among other
relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the mergers.

On July 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the case
to Maryland's Business and Technology Case Management Program.
On July 29, 2014, OmniAmerican, OmniAmerican's board of directors
and Southside filed a motion to dismiss the case. On July 30,
2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to take expedited discovery.

After filing the Litigation and engaging in certain limited
discovery, plaintiff's counsel indicated to defendants' counsel
that they believed additional disclosures should be made available
to the stockholders of OmniAmerican.

On September 12, 2014, the defendants and the plaintiff in the
Litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
agreeing in principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for
defendants' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures.
The MOU contemplates that the parties will prepare a definitive
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to Court
approval. If approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the
settlement will result in a release of the defendants from any and
all claims that were or could have been asserted challenging any
aspect of or otherwise relating to the mergers, the merger
agreement or the disclosures made in connection therewith, and
that the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, OmniAmerican has agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures regarding the mergers in a
supplement to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The
supplemental disclosures are contained in a proxy supplement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2014,
which should be read in its entirety. In return, the plaintiff has
agreed to the dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice and to
withdraw and/or refrain from filing any and all motions seeking to
enjoin the mergers. In addition, the MOU contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith to attempt to agree upon an
amount of attorneys' fees and expenses and that plaintiff's
counsel may petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which if granted by the Court, would be paid by
OmniAmerican or its insurers or successors. Should the parties
fail to reach an agreement on attorneys' fees and expenses, the
defendants may oppose the petition for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately reach agreement on a definitive stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the proposed settlement,
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation of
settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the MOU may be terminated. The proposed settlement will not
affect the consideration to be paid to stockholders of
OmniAmerican in connection with the proposed first merger.

The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously
deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and
claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the
Litigation, including that they have committed any violations of
law or breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted any violations
of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way
or have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the
plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the
OmniAmerican directors failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the merger agreement with Southside and Merger Sub.
The settlement contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying the mergers, and
to provide additional information to the stockholders of
OmniAmerican at a time and in a manner that would not cause any
delay of the mergers, the defendants agreed to the settlement.

The parties considered it desirable that the Litigation be settled
to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the Litigation.


PEPCO HOLDINGS: Inks MOU to Settle Stockholders' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
PEPCO Holdings, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
with plaintiffs to document the agreement in principle for the
settlement of the state court lawsuit, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in a purported
consolidated state class action lawsuit and a substantially
similar purported federal class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger with an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, a
Pennsylvania corporation (Exelon), and seeking, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger on
the agreed-upon terms. If a plaintiff in these lawsuits or any
other litigation that may be filed in the future is successful in
obtaining an injunction prohibiting the parties from completing
the Merger on the terms contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the
injunction may prevent the completion of the Merger in the
expected timeframe or altogether.

While PHI believes that these lawsuits are without merit, to avoid
the risk of litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger
and to minimize the expense of defending such litigation, on
September 12, 2014, PHI entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs to document the agreement in principle for the
settlement of the state court lawsuit. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the state court will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum
of understanding may be terminated, which would create additional
uncertainty relating to the consummation of the Merger.

PHI is a holding company that, through its regulated public
utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the transmission,
distribution and default supply of electricity, and, to a lesser
extent, the distribution and supply of natural gas.


PFIZER INC: Plaintiffs Lawyers Get $91MM in Neurontin Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge gave plaintiffs lawyers $91 million -- a 28
percent cut -- in a $325 million settlement with Pfizer Inc. over
allegedly fraudulent marketing of its epilepsy drug Neurontin.

"Public policy militates in favor of a considerable fee award, as
lawsuits which help curtail fraudulent drug marketing provide a
valuable service in helping to safeguard the health and welfare of
the general public," U.S. District Chief Judge Patti Saris in
Boston wrote.

Her order Nov. 10 in In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation sprang from the decade-old multidistrict litigation
against Pfizer and its Warner-Lambert Co. unit.  Plaintiffs
lawyers sought one-third of the common fund, or $108.3 million.

The parties settled in June, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined
Pfizer's bid to review a $47 million verdict for plaintiff Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan Inc. from a five-week bellwether trial in
2010. That award was subject to trebling under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Pfizer had already settled Justice Department charges related to
marketing the drug for unapproved, off-label uses in 2004 for $430
million.

In analyzing the requested fee, Saris wrote that the plaintiffs
lawyers gave the court a $27.4 million "lodestar" amount for their
work but did not provide hourly rates or hours worked.  In class
actions, courts typically apply a multiplier to a lodestar figure
-- and, citing case law, Saris noted that multipliers of between
one and three are the norm. In this case, the multiplier of 3.32
-- to arrive at $91 million -- was "well within the acceptable
range," she wrote.

Plaintiffs lawyers declined to disclose their fees in the Kaiser
bellwether case settlement, but Saris said they subtracted that
amount to arrive at the $27.4 million lodestar.  She pointed to a
study of class action fee awards during 2006 and 2007 by
Vanderbilt University Law School professor Brian Fitzpatrick, who
found that U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit awards
averaged 27 percent; the median amount was 25 percent.

"Setting attorneys' fees at the end of a decade-long multidistrict
litigation is a sour task.  The court's decision not to award the
requested fees of 33 1/3 percent does not diminish its view of the
excellent lawyering here," Saris wrote.

Judge Saris "granted a fair award and the committee members are
very pleased," said Tom Greene of Greene LLP, chairman of the
plaintiffs steering committee and colead class counsel.

The plaintiffs' steering committee also includes lawyers from
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein;
Barrett Law Office; the Law Offices of Daniel Becnel Jr.; and
Dugan & Browne.

Pfizer counsel Sheila Birnbaum, a New York partner at Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, referred inquiries to Pfizer.
"The court's approval [Mon]day is the final step in resolving, on
a class basis, all third-party payor claims regarding off-label
promotion and state antitrust claims in connection with Neurontin.
Under the agreement, Pfizer does not admit to any wrongdoing and
will pay a previously disclosed amount of $325 million," Pfizer
spokeswoman Christine Lindenboom said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal in Brazil
is still pending, Philip Morris International Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In the class action in Brazil by The Smoker Health Defense
Association, the Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable
without hearing evidence. The court did not assess actual damages,
which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size
of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $410) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of
the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff has
appealed.

In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff did not
have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking Class Suits Pending in Brazil & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as
of October 30, 2014, there were a number of smoking and health
cases pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or
indemnitees, as follows:

   * 64 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (23),
Brazil (23), Canada (2), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2), Greece (1),
Italy (3), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared with 61
such cases on October 30, 2013, and 75 cases on November 1, 2012;
and

   * 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on October 30, 2013 and 10 such cases on November 1, 2012.


PHILIP MORRIS: Public Prosecutor Files Appeal to Sao Paolo Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor
of Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, has appealed to the
Superior Court of Justice, Philip Morris International Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In the class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public
Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) damages on
behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their
relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their relatives; and
(iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred
for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian
States and Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case discussed above and
should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao
Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated
that these cases should be consolidated for the purposes of
judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and our subsidiary filed its
closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the trial court
dismissed the case on the merits.

In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July
2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.


PHILIP MORRIS: Closing Arguments in "Letourneau" to Close in Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Closing arguments in the case Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, began in September 2014 and
are scheduled to conclude in December 2014, Philip Morris
International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In the class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, our subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. In
February 2011, the trial court ruled that the federal government
would remain as a third party in the case. In November 2012, the
Court of Appeals dismissed defendants' third-party claims against
the federal government. Trial began on March 12, 2012. Closing
arguments began in September 2014 and are scheduled to conclude in
December 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point
after the conclusion of the trial proceedings.


PHILIP MORRIS: Closing Arguments in Conseil Quebecois to End Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Closing arguments in the case Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La
Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, began in September 2014 and are scheduled to
conclude in December 2014, Philip Morris International Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

In the class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, our subsidiary and
other Canadian manufacturers are defendants. The plaintiffs, an
anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker, are seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class
was certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled
that the federal government would remain as a third party in the
case. In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on
March 12, 2012. Closing arguments began in September 2014 and are
scheduled to conclude in December 2014, with a judgment to follow
at an indeterminate point after the conclusion of the trial
proceedings.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions are pending in the case Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, Philip Morris International Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiff's Counsel Won't Take Actions in 6 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014,
plaintiff's counsel in class action lawsuits in Canada informed
defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in the
cases while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible
lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products. In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed
defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in this
case while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company, its
subsidiaries, and indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and
severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products. To date, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his
own addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from
the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from
heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates,
dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the
claim was filed. Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges
on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the
pendency of the Saskatchewan class action.

In the class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker,
alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and
suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive
on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory
diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents
and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed.
Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds
that this action should not proceed during the pendency of the
Saskatchewan class action.

In the class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use
of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PHILIP MORRIS: Lights Cases Pending in Israel, Chile and Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as
of October 30, 2014, the following lights cases were pending
against the Company's subsidiaries or indemnitees:

   * 1 case brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in Israel,
compared with 1 such case on October 30, 2013 and 2 such cases on
November 1, 2012; and

   * 2 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Chile (1) and
Italy (1), compared with 2 such cases on October 30, 2013, and 7
such cases on November 1, 2012.

The Lights Cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf
of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the
term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: Mid-November Oral Hearing in El-Roy Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
An oral hearing has been scheduled for the middle of November 2014
in the Supreme Court appeal in the class action pending in Israel,
El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., Philip
Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In the class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa,
Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company's subsidiary and its
indemnitees (PM USA and its former importer) are defendants. The
plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming that the class
members were misled by the descriptor "lights" into believing that
lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim
seeks recovery of the purchase price of lights cigarettes and
compensation for distress for each class member. In November 2012,
the court denied class certification and dismissed the individual
claims. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. An oral hearing
has been scheduled for the middle of November 2014.


PINNACLE WEST: Appeal Pending Before Ninth Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by plaintiffs in a class action against Pinnacle West
Capital Corporation is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.  On January
13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's decision.  The
appeal is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter," the Company
said.

Pinnacle West owns all of the outstanding common stock of Arizona
Public Service Company.  APS is a vertically-integrated electric
utility that provides either retail or wholesale electric service
to most of the state of Arizona, with the major exceptions of
about one-half of the Phoenix metropolitan area, the Tucson
metropolitan area and Mohave County in northwestern Arizona.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Paid $4.8MM to Bridgeton Class Action Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
paid $4.8 million to 981 participating members in a class action
lawsuit related to the Bridgeton Landfill.

On March 20, 2013, a group of residents living near the Bridgeton
Landfill filed a purported class action in Saint Louis County
Circuit Court, Missouri, on behalf of tenants and owner-occupants
of property within a one-mile radius of the landfill. Defendants
Republic Services, Inc., Allied Services, LLC, and Bridgeton
Landfill, LLC subsequently removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The action
alleges that odors escaping from the landfill due to a subsurface
smoldering event diminished the value of plaintiffs' property,
caused irritation to the eyes, nose or throat, and negatively
affected their use and enjoyment of their property. The action
also seeks an injunction requiring the landfill to take action to
prevent the subsurface smoldering event from reaching radioactive
materials buried in the adjacent Westlake Landfill. The plaintiffs
each seek $500,000 in punitive damages on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, and an unspecified amount in
compensatory damages.

"On April 15, 2014, we entered into a Settlement Agreement and
Release with settling members of the classes in exchange for our
payment of approximately $6.9 million. On August 24, 2014, the
court gave final settlement approval. On September 25, 2014, we
paid $4.8 million to 981 participating class members, representing
a 79% participation rate," the Company said.

Republic Services is the second largest provider of services in
the domestic non-hazardous solid waste industry.


RUST-OLEUM CORP: Sued in EDNC Over Paint Products' Design Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Randolph Leonard and Joan G. Leonard, on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No.
7:14-cv-00259 (E.D.N.C., November 6, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's paint products that contain serious design and
manufacturing defects, making it susceptible to separating,
cracking, bubbling, flaking, chipping and general degradation
after application and causing damage to other building components.

Rust-Oleum Corporation manufactures protective paints and coatings
for home and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jean S. Martin, Esq.
      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff, Suite 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 772-9960
      Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
      E-mail: jsm@rhinelawfirm.com
              jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


RUST-OLEUM CORP: Sued in SDNY Over Defective Restore Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Ulbardo Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., and The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-08857-VB
(S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2014) arises from the Plaintiff's alleged
use of defective product known as Restore, which is incapable of
adhering to wood or broom-swept concrete surfaces.

Rust-Oleum designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold
in buckets to retail stores throughout New York a product called
Restore, a liquid armor resurfacer, advertised, promoted and
intended for use on wood and broom-swept concrete surfaces as an
alternative to wooden deck and concrete replacement.

Rust-Oleum Corporation is a foreign state corporation
headquartered in Vernon Hills, Illinois.  Rust-Oleum is a producer
of protective paints and coatings for home and industry use.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and The Home Depot, Inc., are foreign
state corporations headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Home Depot
is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer and the
fourth largest retailer in the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Daniel Bloom, Esq.
          BLOOM AND BLOOM, P.C.
          530 Blooming Grove Turnpike
          P.O. Box 4323
          New Windsor, NY 12550
          Telephone: (845) 561-6920
          Facsimile: (845) 561-0978
          E-mail: kbloom@hvc.rr.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Isseks, Esq.
          ISSEKS AND SMITH
          6 North Street
          Middletown, NY 10940
          Telephone: (845) 344-4322
          E-mail: isseks@isseksandsmith.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal of Investors' Class Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a class action involving Spirit AeroSystems
Holdings, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the claims set forth in
the Amended Complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2014, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2014.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs -- two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock -- filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J. George and
former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations Alexander K.
Kummant.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme
to artificially inflate the market price of the Company's stock by
making false statements and omissions about certain programs'
performance and costs. It contends that the alleged scheme was
revealed by the Company's accrual of $590.0 in forward loss
charges on October 25, 2012. The lead plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of all persons other than defendants who
purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011 and October 24,
2012, and seek an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the
putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the Amended Complaint. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these allegations, and management
believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect
the Company's financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.


SHIRE PLC: AbbVie Seeks Dismissal of Stockholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shire PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative stockholder class
action lawsuit, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Plan v.
AbbVie Inc. et al., was filed on September 15, 2014, in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the members of the board of directors of AbbVie
breached their fiduciary duties to AbbVie stockholders in
connection with the proposed combination of AbbVie and Shire, and
that Shire aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that the cost reimbursement payment payable by AbbVie
to Shire in certain circumstances is coercive. The complaint also
alleges certain material omissions in the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by AbbVie with the SEC on August 21,
2014.

Plaintiffs in the action seek, among other things, finding the
AbbVie Board liable for breaching its fiduciary duties to the
class, finding Shire liable for aiding and abetting the AbbVie
board members' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, certifying the
proposed class and awarding its members compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs, and other unspecified relief.
Shire believes the claims asserted are without merit.

On October 27, 2014, AbbVie filed a motion to dismiss on the basis
that the claims are moot.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Accused of Recording Info in Credit Card Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Starwood recorded personal
identification information during credit card transactions, a
class claims.

The case is Brittany Covell v. Starwood Hotels and Resorts
Worldwide Inc., Case No. 37-2014-00037321-CU-BT-CTL, in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.


STERLING JEWELERS: Sued Over Inaccessible POS Devices for Blinds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sterling Jewelers Inc. d/b/a Kay Jewelers, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-08615 (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failing to design, construct, and own or
operate Point Of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, blind people.

Sterling Jewelers Inc. owns and operates a jewelry company
headquartered at 375 Ghent Road, Fairlawn, OH 44333-4600.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Todd Harrison, Esq.
      THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
      25876 The Old Road
      Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
      Telephone: (661) 257-2854
      Facsimile: (661) 257-3068
      E-mail: mharrison30@aol.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Abdeljalil" Plaintiffs Seek Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital
Retail Bank, filed a motion to certify the alleged class,
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Synchrony Bank is a defendant in putative class actions alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August
22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, originally naming General Electric Capital Corporation
as the defendant. In August 2013, the Court denied without
prejudice GECC's motion to dismiss the class allegations. GECC
subsequently was dismissed and the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to name the Bank as the defendant. On April 28, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the alleged class.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Stays "Cowan" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The court stayed the action, Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank,
pursuant to the parties' agreement, until a ruling on the pending
motion for class certification in the Abdeljalil action, Synchrony
Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

Synchrony Bank is a defendant in putative class actions alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On August 4,
2014, the Bank filed motions to stay and dismiss the action.
Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  On October 28, 2014, the court stayed the
action, pursuant to the parties' agreement, until a ruling on the
pending motion for class certification in the Abdeljalil action.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Unit Settles 2 TCPA Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Synchrony Bank has
resolved two putative class actions that made claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both of which were settled on
an individual basis with the class representative.

Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate
LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014.
Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014.

Synchrony Bank is a defendant in putative class actions alleging
claims under the federal TCPA, where the plaintiffs assert that
they received calls on their cellular telephones relating to
accounts not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints
allege that the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated
telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or
automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for
each violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is
unspecified.


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sanchez and David Kopelman, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-24182 (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2014), alleges that the
Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants
with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
      Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
      Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
              streisfeld@kolawyers.com
              alperstein@kolawyers.com
              edelsberg@kolaywers.com


TECO ENERGY: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Gas Shortages Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the New Mexico Gas Company February 2011 Gas
Shortages, System Emergencies, Curtailments of Service, and
Related Litigation have stated their intention to appeal the final
order dismissing their consoldated cases, TECO Energy, Inc. and
Tampa Electric Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In February 2011, New Mexico Gas Company experienced gas shortages
due to weather-related interruptions of electric service, weather-
related problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines
and in gas fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC,
and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high
usage resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC
causing involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to
approximately 28,700 customers (residential and business).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas
utility service curtailed during the early-February system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In
March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to
represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and
governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the
natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does
at NMGC.

In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class action filed
an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff purporting to
represent a class of all "similarly situated New Mexico private
businesses and enterprises."

The two purported class action suits (three purported classes)
were consolidated.

In September 2014, the court entered a final order dismissing the
consolidated cases in their entirety with prejudice. A written
order is pending. Plaintiffs have stated an intention to appeal.
The period for appeal expires 30 days after the written order is
signed, which is expected in October 2014.

Two lawsuits representing 18 insurance carriers have filed
subrogation lawsuits for monies paid to their insureds as a result
of the curtailment of natural gas service in February 2011. These
subrogation matters are pending and discovery is proceeding. NMGC
anticipates filing motions to dismiss similar to those filed in
the class actions.

NMGC believes these claims in the pending actions described above
in this item are without merit and intends to defend the matters
vigorously. The company is unable at this time to estimate the
possible loss or range of loss with respect to these claims.


TEST MASTERS: Ordered to Pay $90,000+ in Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a test prep
company has been ordered to pay more than $900,000 in legal fees
and costs to plaintiffs who accused the company of violating
District of Columbia consumer protection laws.

Three prospective law students who signed up for LSAT prep courses
through Test Masters Educational Services Inc. (TES) sued the
company in 2004, claiming they were deceived into thinking they
were enrolling in TestMasters, a competitor.

A federal district judge in Washington ruled in favor of TES,
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection
Procedures Act.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
reinstated the consumer protection claims, which involved
allegations that TES failed to correct the plaintiffs' alleged
misunderstanding about which company they were contacting.

U.S. District Senior Judge Royce Lamberth in December 2013 found
that TES was liable and awarded each of the plaintiffs $1,500 in
damages.  As the winning party, the plaintiffs filed a petition
asking for $963,415 in attorney fees and costs. They argued that
TES' "scorched-earth litigation tactics" over the past decade
drove up their fees.

Lawyers for TES urged the court not to award any fees, calling the
request "grossly abusive," unreasonable and unjustified.  They
argued that the lawsuit was financed and directed by TestMasters
founder Robin Singh and that Mr. Singh, as a nonconsumer
competitor, wasn't entitled to the benefits of the consumer
protection law.

There's a long history of bad blood between Mr. Singh and TES.
Mr. Singh unsuccessfully took TES to court over its use of the
name "Test Masters."  In the 2011 opinion reviving the consumer
protection claims in the D.C. case, the D.C. Circuit noted that
Singh was funding and directing the litigation.

In his ruling on Nov. 10 awarding fees, Judge Lamberth rejected
TES' claims that the plaintiffs failed to provide necessary
documents to support the fee petition and found that TES didn't
make specific enough objections to certain billing entries.  The
company's "broad objections, lacking even specific invoice numbers
or dates to help identify the problematic billing entries, are not
sufficient to rebut the presumption that plaintiffs' hours request
is reasonable," the judge wrote.

The judge found that the hourly rates charged by the plaintiffs'
lawyers -- between $250 and $400 -- were reasonable.  Judge
Lamberth acknowledged that there was a large difference between
the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiffs and the amount of
money their lawyers sought, but said the court didn't require fee
awards to be "proportionate to a merits award."  Mr. Singh's role
in financing the litigation didn't undermine the fee request, he
added.

The judge did reduce the fee request to account for work on an
unsuccessful motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiffs. He
awarded $854,623 in fees and $73,083 in costs, for a total of
$927,707.

Hassan Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, a lead attorney
for the plaintiffs, said on Tuesday that they were pleased with
the ruling.  TES, he said, "took an all or nothing approach --
they refused to engage in any analysis of the actual bills."

A lawyer for TES, Kevin Jewell -- kevin.jewell@chamberlainlaw.com
-- of Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry in Houston,
could not immediately be reached.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Suits Over Guardrails; Crash Tests Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Koenig, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
federal officials say crash tests will show by early 2015 whether
guardrails found along many U.S. highways work are safe.

The Federal Highway Administration said on Nov. 12 that crash
tests involving guardrails made by Trinity Industries Inc. will be
done by mid-January at an independent lab in San Antonio.  The
agency expects to release the results by the end of February.

The guardrails are designed to crumple and absorb impact.  Critics
say that a 2005 design change made it more likely that cars would
be impaled if they hit either end of a guardrail head-on. The
company faces several wrongful-death and injury lawsuits.

Trinity stopped selling the guardrails last month after a Texas
jury ruled that the company should pay at least $175 million for
failing to tell regulators about the change.

Officials said that if the guardrails flunk the crash tests, the
federal government would stop reimbursing states for buying the
devices.  It would be up to states to decide whether to remove or
replace the guardrails.

In a statement, Dallas-based Trinity expressed confidence that the
tests would vindicate the ET-Plus guardrail system, which was
designed by engineers at Texas A&M University.

A federal district court judge in Marshall, Texas, ordered
mediation between Trinity and the whistleblower who sued the
company.  If talks fail to produce a settlement, the judge could
triple the damages. Trinity has hinted that it will appeal.

Guardrails are a minor part of Trinity's business, which includes
making railcars.  The shares rose 8 cents to close at $36.06 on
Nov. 12.  They are down 29 percent since their peak in September.


TWC ADMINISTRATION: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbie Garcia, Brandon Pontious, and Orin Hughes, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWC Administration
LLC d/b/a Time Warner Cable, Case No. 5:14-cv-00985 (W.D. Tex.,
November 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

TWC Administration LLC owns and operates a call center located in
San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin A. Shellist, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza-Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net
              drodes@eeoc.net


UNITED OILFIELD: Faces "Slusher" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Slusher, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. United Oilfield, Inc. d/b/a United Centrifuge, Case
No. 4:14-cv-03190 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

United Oilfield, Inc. is an oilfield support services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITIL CORP: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Upholds Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, that the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued on October 30, 2014,
its ruling on appeal, upholding the Massachusetts' Worcester
Superior Court's (the "Court") decision denying the certification
as a class action of a Complaint filed against Unitil
Corporation's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company (Fitchburg). The Complaint, filed in early
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost
of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm. Following several years of
discovery, the plaintiffs in the complaint filed a motion with the
Court to certify the case as a class action. On January 7, 2013,
the Court issued its decision denying plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class action. The plaintiffs appealed this decision,
and the SJC has now upheld the lower Court's order. The Company
does not have any information at this time as to whether the
plaintiffs will proceed with their lawsuit on an individual basis
in light of the decision by the SJC. The Company continues to
believe these suits are without merit and will continue to defend
itself vigorously.

A copy of the slip opinion of the SJC decision is available at:

     http://tinyurl.com/nq6lu5b


UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA: Sued Over Student-Athletes' Education
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McAdoo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00935 (M.D.N.C., November 6, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant deprived its football student-athletes of the benefit of
legitimate education.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is the state of
North Carolina's flagship institution of higher education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Geraldine Sumter, Esq.
      FERGUSON, CHAMBERS & SUMTER, P.A.
      309 E. Morehead Street, Suite 110
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 375-8461
      Facsimile: (980) 938-4867
      E-mail: gsumter@fergusonsumter.com

         - and -

      Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
      N. Jeremi Duru, Esq.
      Craig Briskin, Esq.
      MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
      E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
              jduru@findjustice.com
              cbriskin@findjustice.com


VCA ANTECH: "Graham" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tony M. Graham v. VCA Antech,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02158-MEJ, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-08614-RSWL-JC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Michael Terrell, Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN AND TERRELL PC
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: jterrell@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Lawrence, Esq.
          THE LAWRENCE LAW FIRM
          101 California Street, Suite 2710
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 504-1601
          Facsimile: (415) 504-1605
          E-mail: jeffreyl@lawrencelaw.com

               - and -

          John David Bogatko, Esq.
          Richard S. Toon, Jr., Esq.
          TOON OSMOND PLLC
          1800 South Baltimore Avenue, Suite 1000
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 477-7884
          Facsimile: (918) 477-7893
          E-mail: johnbogatko@toonosmond.com
                  richtoon@toonosmond.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Wagner, Esq.
          LATHAM WAGNER STEELE AND LEHMAN LLC
          10441 South Regal Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74133
          Telephone: (918) 970-2000
          Facsimile: (918) 970-2002
          E-mail: kwagner@lwsl-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
          John A. Karaczynski, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: kimh@akingump.com
                  jkaraczynski@akingump.com


VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Product Liability Legal Tab Hits $7.2MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that for the nine months
ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, Liggett Group LLC incurred
tobacco product liability legal expenses and other litigation
costs totaling $7,282,000 and $7,334,000, respectively. The 2013
costs exclude a charge of $86,213 associated with the Engle
progeny settlement.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette
manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct,
third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged
to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen
into the following categories:

     (i) smoking and health cases alleging personal injury brought
on behalf of individual plaintiffs ("Individual Actions");

    (ii) lawsuits by individuals requesting the benefit of the
Engle ruling ("Engle progeny cases");

   (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging personal
injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing medical
monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the terms
"lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and unfair
trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal law,
purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and

    (iv) health care cost recovery actions brought by various
foreign and domestic governmental plaintiffs and non-governmental
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for health care expenditures
allegedly caused by cigarette smoking and/or disgorgement of
profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery Actions").

With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs and the
risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation increase. The
future financial impact of the risks and expenses of litigation
are not quantifiable.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, Liggett
incurred tobacco product liability legal expenses and other
litigation costs totaling $7,282,000 and $7,334,000, respectively.
The 2013 costs exclude a charge of $86,213 associated with the
Engle progeny settlement.


VECTOR GROUP: 4 Class Actions Pending Against Liggett
-----------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that as of September 30,
2014, there were four actions pending for which either a class had
been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification
where Liggett Group LLC is a named defendant, including one
alleged price fixing case. Other cigarette manufacturers are also
named in these actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held.   In June 2013, plaintiffs'
counsel moved for an indefinite stay of the case.  The defendants
did not oppose the stay and it was entered by the court.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a class was commenced
on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke
and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is
stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the
defendants.

In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in
Kansas, a class was commenced against cigarette manufacturers
alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in
November 2001. In January 2012, the trial court heard oral
argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment and in March
2012, the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the court of appeals affirmed
the lower court's decision. On August 18, 2014, plaintiffs
submitted a petition for review to the Kansas Supreme Court. A
decision is pending.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In
January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the
consolidated action. After two mistrials, on May 15, 2013, the
jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding for
the plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes,
sold between 1964 and 1969, should have included instructions on
how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further
proceedings that have not yet been scheduled. Final judgment as to
liability was issued in October 2013, after which the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals. The defendants did not appeal the verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs on the "failure to instruct" claim which impacted less
than 30 plaintiffs. If the case were to proceed against Liggett,
it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately
100 of the individual cases.


VECTOR GROUP: 16 Engle Progeny Cases for Trial Through Sept. 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that as of September 30,
2014, there were 16 Engle progeny cases scheduled for trial
through September 30, 2015, where Liggett (and in many cases, the
Company) is a named defendant. Trial dates are, however, subject
to change.


WASHWERKS AND DETAIL: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Mendez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Washwerks And Detail Center, Inc., and
Tamera Williams, Case No. 1:14-cv-08915 (N.D. Ill., November 6,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash and detail center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Brown County and Cook County Cases Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brown County and Cook County cases relating to the acquisition
of Integrys Energy Group Inc. have been dismissed in favor of the
Milwaukee County actions, Wisconsin Energy Corporation said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Since the announcement of the acquisition of Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., Integrys and its board of directors, along with
Wisconsin Energy Corporation, have been named as defendants in ten
separate purported class action lawsuits filed in Brown County,
Wisconsin (three of the cases -- Rubin v. Integrys, et al.,
Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera v. Integrys, et al.),
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases -- Amo v. Integrys,
et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.), Cook County, Illinois (two
of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys, et al. and Curley v. Integrys,
et al.), and the federal court for the Northern District of
Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v. Integrys, et al., Tri-
State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., and Collison v. Integrys, et
al.). In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, Wisconsin Energy's CEO was
also named as a defendant. The cases were brought on behalf of
proposed classes consisting of shareholders of Integrys. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the Integrys board
members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the
value to be received by Integrys' shareholders, that Wisconsin
Energy aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that
the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material
misstatements and omissions. The complaints seek, among other
things, (a) to enjoin defendants from consummating the
acquisition; (b) rescission of the Merger Agreement; and (c) to
direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
the highest value possible for the Integrys shareholders. The
Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed in favor of
the Milwaukee County actions. Wisconsin Energy believes the cases
have no merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (Wisconsin Energy) is a diversified
holding company which conducts its operations primarily in two
reportable segments: a utility energy segment and a non-utility
energy segment.


WORLD WRESTLING: Joins in Bid for Consolidation of Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. joined the motion for
consolidation made by the putative lead plaintiffs in class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company received on July 26, 2014, notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic
television license. The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages.

A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon and George A. Barrios.

Both lawsuits are purported securities class actions subject to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant
to the PSLRA. The Company joined the motion for consolidation made
by the putative lead plaintiffs. The Company believes the claims
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against
them.


WORLD WRESTLING: Faces "Haynes" Class Action Over Brain Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. received on October 25, 2014,
notice of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William
Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. alleging, among
other things, that the Company concealed and denied medical
research and evidence concerning traumatic brain injuries suffered
by WWE's performers.  The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against them, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.


                              *********

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  * * *