CAR_Public/141118.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 229


                             Headlines

ABBOTT: Ronald E. Johnson Files Testosterone Class Action in Ill.
ACCENTIA BIOPHARMA: January 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ADT CORP: Falsely Marketed Home Security Products, Suit Claims
ALPERT DEVELOPMENT: "Espinal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
AUNT MILLIES: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

AUSTRALIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Live Export Ban
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Securities Class Action for $69 Million
BARRETT BUSINESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
BARRETT BUSINESS: Wagner Firm Files Class Action in Washington
BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces "Rana" Suit Over Gender & Race Bias
BLUCORA INC: Plaintiff Agrees to Dismiss Class Action
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Unlawful Marketing Practices
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Pending
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Class Certification Sought in Guzman Case

BRISTOL HARBOUR: Jan. 8 Hearing Set for Employees' Wage Suit
BSH HOME: Judge Grants Stay in Moldy Washer Class Action
CACIQUE HOLDINGS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CANADIAN WHEAT: FCWB to Appeal Class Action Ruling
CANADIAN WHEAT: Agriculture Minister Balks at FCWB Appeal

CASHCALL INC: 4th Circuit Upholds Order Decertifying Class
CB FINANCIAL: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Appeal Case Dismissal
CLAIBORNE MEDICAL: "Hager" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CVS PHARMACY: Schubert Jonckheer Mulls Class Suit Over Apple Pay
DEX MEDIA: 5th Cir. Affirms Trial Court Decision in ERISA Suit

DEX MEDIA: Former Employee's Class Action Remanded to Trial Court
DEX MEDIA: Tentative Settlement Reached in FLSA Collective Action
DISH NETWORK: Faces "Langhorne" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing on Dismissal Motion Set for Dec. 18
ENSCO INCORPORATED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Power Steering System Suit
GIOVANNI & SONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
GREAT SOUTHERN: Investors Challenge Class Action Settlement
GT ADVANCED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HEALTHCARE SUPPORT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MOU to Settle Shareholder Class Action
INTERIOR CONCEPTS: "Saldana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Massachusetts
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
K12 INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over 38% Stock Price Drop

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Parties Agree to Briefing Schedule
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Partially Indemnified by Former OneLink Owners
LINNCO LLC: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
MERCK & CO: Manipulates Availability of Mumps Vaccine, Suit Says

NEW YORK, NY: Education Department Faces Class Action
NICAEA ACADEMY: "Scheall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NOVA BENEFIT: Faces "Dix" Suit in Cal. Over RICO Violations
NRG ENERGY: GenOn Files Opening Brief in Supreme Court Appeal
NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Class Action Proceeding in District Court

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Pension
QEP RESOURCES: Louisiana Supreme Court Dismissed Claim in "Gatti"
QEP RESOURCES: Class Certification Hearings Ongoing in Gagne Suit
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement Talks in Class Suits Ongoing

REGIONS FINANCIAL: 11th Circuit Vacates Certification Ruling
RISTORANTE SIENA: "Peralta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ROCK OHIO: Faces "McPherson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in NY

SCHUFF INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
SEQWATER: Trial Date Set for Flood Victims' Class Action
SEQWATER: Hearing Held on Flood Class Action
SEQWATER: Queensland Seeks Dismissal of Wivenhoe Dam Class Action
SEQWATER: Wivenhoe Dam Class Action Faces Legal Hurdle

SOUTH CHICAGO AUTO: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valdez" Suit Claims
STATE FARM: Bailey & Glasser Files Class Action in Washington
SYNGENTA CORP: Heninger Garrison Files Class Action Over GMO Corn
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Hearing on Settlement Postponed to November 18
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settles Posting Order Litigation

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Paid All Amounts Due Under Griner Settlement
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Klinger" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Primeaux" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Settled Class Action for Immaterial Amount
TERRA DIRECTIONAL: "Grimes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Puerto Rico JUA Case
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dentist Assoc. Case Dismissed With Prejudice
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Antitrust Case in Discovery
UMW INC: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Social Security Administration Settles Class Action

UNITED STATES: Foster Mom Files Class Action Against DSS
VARIABLE ANNUITY: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Plaintiff's Reply in Appeal Due November 21
WARNER CHILCOTT: Dismissal Bid Objection in Actos Case Due Nov 21
WARNER CHILCOTT: Seeks to Dismiss Androgel Amended Complaint

WARNER CHILCOTT: Responses to Amicus Briefs Filed in Cipro Appeal
WARNER CHILCOTT: Jan. 7 Final Fairness Hearing in Doryx Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: Retailers' Action Over Doryx Consolidated
WARNER CHILCOTT: Oral Argument Scheduled in Lidoderm Litigation
WARNER CHILCOTT: Bid to Stay Loestrin(R) 24 Case Due Nov. 21

WARNER CHILCOTT: Final Approval Granted for Celexa/Lexapro Deal
WARNER CHILCOTT: Forest Labs Files Opposition Brief in Appeal
WARNER CHILCOTT: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Minnesota Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: Hearing Held on Bid to Nix Massachusetts Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: Washington Action Joined With Other Celexa Cases

WARNER CHILCOTT: Celexa and Lexapro Action in Missouri Stayed
WARNER CHILCOTT: Dec. 8 Oral Argument in Columbia Lab Suit Appeal
WARNER CHILCOTT: Accord Reached in Forest Labs Securities Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: Settlement Reached in Furiex Securities Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: No Trial Date Yet on Cert. Motion in Mo. Case

WARNER CHILCOTT: Court Reentered Stay in Physicians Case
WARNER CHILCOTT: St. Louis Heart Center Case Remains Stayed
WARNER CHILCOTT: Forest Labs Files Answer to "Barrett" Complaint
WARNER CHILCOTT: Defendant in 217 Actonel Product Liability Cases
WARNER CHILCOTT: Provides Updates on Alendronate Litigation

WARNER CHILCOTT: 7 Trials Set in 2015 Related to Celexa & Lexapro
WARNER CHILCOTT: Discovery Ongoing in 4 Fentanyl Cases
WARNER CHILCOTT: 1,180 Metoclopramide Cases Remain Pending
WARNER CHILCOTT: 9th Circuit Not Yet Ruled on Rehearing of Appeal
WARNER CHILCOTT: Claims Over Testosterone Products Consolidated

WARNER CHILCOTT: 8 Zarah Product Liability Suits Still Pending
WEIGHT WATCHERS: December 2014 Hearing to Approve Settlement
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Litigation
WILKINS REBUILDERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WORLD WRESTLING: Stoll Berne Files Concussion Class Action

ZAGG INC: 10th Cir. Appeal in Consolidated Case Pending


                            *********


ABBOTT: Ronald E. Johnson Files Testosterone Class Action in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the heels of the September 17, 2014 FDA Advisory Committee
meeting discussing the risks of testosterone, Ronald E. Johnson,
Jr. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who paid for
testosterone medications for "low T."  As discussed during the FDA
Advisory Committee meeting, testosterone is not approved to treat
"low T," also referred to as age-related hypogonadism, which may
not even be a disease.

The class action was filed in conjunction with several other law
firms in the nationwide personal injury litigation involving
testosterone drugs before Judge Kennelly in the Northern District
of Illinois (In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products
Liability Litigation, Master Case Number 1:14-cv-01748, Specific
Case Number 1:14-cv-8857). Ron is already co-lead counsel in this
litigation.

Ron and his firm, Schachter, Hendy & Johnson, P.S.C., will now
work diligently for those who paid for testosterone medications,
like AndroGel, Axiron and Testim, based on allegedly deceptive
marketing claims about "low T" and treating "low T" with
testosterone.

As noted during the above-referenced FDA Advisory Committee
meeting, the majority of men taking testosterone do so to treat a
condition called "low T" or age-related hypogonadism.  The FDA
Advisory Committees were particularly disturbed by the fact that
there is no evidence that testosterone treatment for "low T"
confers any benefit.  In fact, during the FDA Advisory Committee
meeting it was noted that under modern standards testosterone
could not be approved as a treatment for "low T."

The class action will focus on the allegedly fraudulent and
illegal marketing practices involved in the promotion of
testosterone medications and unbranded disease awareness campaigns
by companies like Abbott, AbbVie, Actavis Pharma, Auxilium, Eli
Lilly and Company, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Watson
Pharmaceuticals.

As co-lead counsel for the testosterone products liability
litigation and as counsel in the class action, Ron will continue
to fight for justice for those allegedly wronged by the
manufacturers and marketers of testosterone.


ACCENTIA BIOPHARMA: January 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs hereby gives Notice, pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the
Court, that a Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
Court in the above-captioned action.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL CONSIST OF ALL PERSONS WHO,
DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 26, 2008, TO AND THROUGH AUGUST 14,
2012, INCLUSIVE, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK
OF ACCENTIA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND/OR THE COMMON STOCK OF
BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.

The proposed Settlement provides for the establishment of a
settlement fund of $1,250,000.00.  A hearing will be held before
the Honorable Steven D. Merryday, in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M. Gibbons U.S.
Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, at
9:00 a.m. on January 26, 2015, to determine whether (1) the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be
approved; and (2) to dismiss with prejudice the Action and the
claims of the Settlement Class Members.

The Court will also consider: (1) the proposed Plan of Allocation
for distribution of the Settlement proceeds, (2) the application
by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, which is payable out of the Settlement Fund, and (3) the
application for a service award to the Lead Plaintiffs, which is
payable out of the Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.

If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses and a Proof of Claim and Release form, you may
obtain copies of these documents by identifying yourself as a
member of the Class and by contacting: Accentia/Biovest Securities
Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
Jericho, NY 11753-8914; Phone: 800-766-3330; Fax: 516-931-0810;
Website: www.berdonclaims.com

Email: visit http://www.berdonclaims.comand click on "Contact
Us."

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim,
may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel: Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Seaport East, Two Seaport Lane, Boston,
MA 02210; Email: cases@shulaw.com; Phone: 617-439-3939.

To participate in the Settlement, you must file a Proof of Claim
by mailing it to the Claims Administrator at the address set forth
above postmarked no later than February 19, 2015.  If you want to
exclude yourself from the Class, you must file a request for
exclusion received no later than January 5, 2015 in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.  IF YOU
ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF AND DO NOT FILE A
TIMELY AND PROPER PROOF OF CLAIM, YOU WILL NOT SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT, BUT YOU WILL STILL BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT AND ANY FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT.

Further information regarding filing a claim, documentation
required, etc., may be obtained by contacting the Claims
Administrator, as set forth above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT ACCENTIA, BIOVEST, THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S
OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA


ADT CORP: Falsely Marketed Home Security Products, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Baker, individually, and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The ADT Corporation, a Delaware corporation and ADT,
LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-08988 (N.D. Ill., November 9, 2014),
arises out of the Defendants' deceptive and unlawful marketing
practices home security equipment and monitoring services as being
safe and reliable, when in fact, its' wireless signals are
unencrypted and unauthenticated, and can easily be intercepted and
interfered with by unauthorized third parties.

The Defendants provide home security, home automation equipment,
services, and monitoring in various States throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


ALPERT DEVELOPMENT: "Espinal" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Espinal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Alpert Development Group, LLC, Jodani Associates, L.P., Bronx
Park Management, Inc., Seymour Alpert, Howard Kleinbaum, and
Profiro Melendez, Case No. 1:14-cv-08917 (S.D.N.Y., November 7,
2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, compensatory,
statutory, and liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate development and
management company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)209-3933
      Facsimile: (212)209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


AUNT MILLIES: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Terrazes, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Aunt Millies Diner, Inc. and Monica Garcia,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08984 (N.D. Ill., November 8, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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


AUSTRALIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Live Export Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for The Land, reports that Western
Australian National Party MLC Paul Brown is one of 30 participants
engaged in a second class action claim over the Indonesian live
cattle export ban which is expected to merge with another bigger
claim filed in the Federal Court.

The agricultural region representative was so incensed by the
former Labor government's snap suspension decision in June 2011 it
motivated his entry into State politics.

Mr. Brown said he entered the political arena to ensure
agriculture's voice and that of the live export industry were
heard effectively in the corridors of power and ensure politicians
could never repeat such a decision with detrimental impacts on
commercial enterprise.  He's hoping this class action claim will
also achieve a similar result and protect the live export
industry, and other industries, from similar government
intervention in future.

Mr. Brown was also caught up in the centre of the catastrophe when
a shipment of 2000 cattle destined for Indonesia was stranded in
his Port Hedland feedlot after the second control order was handed
down by former Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig, banning trade for
six months.  That second order is now the focus of the class
action claim headed by lead litigants, Brett Cattle Company,
represented by Minter Ellison lawyers.

Minter Ellison is alleging "misfeasance" of public office by the
former minister in claiming that his second control order was
"invalid".

That claim also has the backing of the Australian Farmers Fighting
Fund (AFFF) and has been steeled by a high powered legal opinion
by former Federal Court of Australia judge and Royal Commissioner
Roger Gyles.

A Neutral Evaluation of the claim conducted by Mr. Gyles
concludes: "I regard the draft statement of claim as disclosing a
cause of action which has at least a meaningful prospect of
liability being established".

'Better served' by joining together

McCullough Robertson Lawyers in Brisbane said its 30 clients are
also seeking compensation for a range of financial losses relating
to the ban and would be better served by joining the Minter
Ellison claim, given it also has the AFFF's backing.

McCullough Robertson's Trent Thorne -- tthorne@mccullough.com.au
-- doesn't expect the case to reach court and believes a potential
mediated settlement can be achieved within 12 months, while
predicting a total compensation figure north of $1 billion.

"It will be absolutely in the government's interest to try and get
this thing sorted out before it goes to a contested hearing," he
said.

Speaking to Fairfax Media, Mr. Brown ruled out any potential
conflict of interest between his involvement in the claim and role
as an MLC, given he's been a party to the class action run by
Mr. Thorne prior to entering State parliament, after the WA
election in March 2013.

"This action was initiated well and truly before I was elected to
State parliament and it's an action against the federal
government," he said.

"It was started against the previous Labor government when Joe
Ludwig was the Agriculture Minister.

"It's unfortunate the claim wasn't able to be resolved during
Labor's time in government and now the Liberal-National government
in federal parliament has been left to defend the action, on their
behalf."

Mr. Brown said he couldn't see any reason why the two class
actions can't be joined together.

"Our lawyer is advising that would possibly be the best outcome
for everyone in the industry," he said.

"I also welcome comments from the Honourable Roger Gyles that this
legal action has promise and we look forward to a positive
outcome."

Political storm

Mr. Brown said his Port Hedland feedlot company was "well and
truly adversely affected" by the sudden trade suspension to
Indonesia.

An official phone call from Canberra on June 6 blocked the 2000-
head consignment destined for the Indonesian market, as news broke
of the impending and controversial ban during the height of an
unprecedented political storm.

"We were moments away from giving the trucks the green light to go
down to the Port Hedland port," he said.

"But we were given no notification, other than a couple of minutes
prior to the leave for loading being removed, that anything like
this was going to happen.

"We'd seen the response to the Four Corners program and knew there
was the possibility of some reaction, but we were caught
completely unaware by the high level (of government) where the
suspension decision was made."

Mr. Brown said prior to the ban, his feedlot operated on a solid
business model, with increasing cattle exports out of Port Hedland
year on year.

But the suspension meant the 2000-head consignment was caught in
the feedlot causing other shipments, booked for longer periods of
agistment, including a 5000-head shipment destined for Israel, to
find another home.

"Since that time it has been very hard and if we could regain the
type of business we had prior to the suspension, I think we would
be talking in the millions of dollars," he said.

Mr. Brown said he wasn't a lawyer but believed the lack of
effective consultation by the Labor government would be a key
legal point underpinning the legal claim.

"The ban was put in place without any consultation with our
industry, the industry in Indonesia, without speaking to the
various State governments in Australia and the Indonesian
government about the possibilities, obligations and ramifications
this may have," he said.

But he said in about six weeks, the trade was restarted without
any appreciable gains in animal welfare.

"That would lead me to believe it was a very dubious decision to
suspend trade in the first place," he said.

"It was a very knee-jerk reaction by a Labor government which had
very little experience in agriculture.

"They capitulated when the initial decision to suspend the trade
was made and did so again six weeks later when re-opening the
trade, without any significant improvements being made to animal
welfare."

Mr. Brown said the industry stakeholders in both class actions had
so far negotiated in good faith with the government but they'd
refused any type of settlement.

"We understand the Honourable Roger Gyles has assessed the
potential for a positive outcome, so we would be looking for a
good outcome," he said.

"And it's about time -- it has been three and a half years.

"The Commonwealth government has continually stalled this claim
and refused any out-of-court settlement and now the industry is
looking very positively at having its day in court and I welcome
that opportunity.

"The industry and all stakeholders who've been adversely affected
by the suspension are looking at this class action claim
positively."


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Securities Class Action for $69 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that Bank of America Corp and U.S. Bancorp have reached a $69
million settlement in a class action lawsuit over their roles as
trustees for securities backed by risky mortgages from Washington
Mutual Inc, which failed in 2008.

Lawyers for the investor plaintiffs called the settlement the
first of its kind in a class action challenging the conduct of
residential mortgage-based securities bond trustees.

The agreement resolves claims by pension funds that filed the
lawsuit alleging the banks failed to protect investors from
hundreds of millions of dollars of losses when home loans
underlying the securities they bought soured.

The settlement was disclosed on Friday in papers filed with the
U.S. district court in Manhattan.

Both defendants denied liability, and Bank of America would make
the $69 million cash payment on behalf of itself and U.S. Bancorp,
the papers show. The accord requires approval by U.S. District
Judge Katherine Forrest.

Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson and US Bancorp
spokesman Patrick Swanson declined to comment.

Deborah Clark-Weintraub, a partner at Scott & Scott representing
the plaintiffs, in an email said the settlement "represents an
excellent recovery for class members."

The accord resolves a lawsuit filed in April 2012 by the
Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, and
joined by many other pension funds and institutional investors.

Bank of America, which is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and
U.S. Bancorp, which is based in Minneapolis, were accused of
failing as bond trustees to properly oversee a few dozen trusts
dating from 2005 to 2007 that contained loans from Washington
Mutual, then a major mortgage lender.

According to the plaintiffs, the banks failed to properly take
possession of loan files or ensure they were complete, or require
Washington Mutual to fix or buy back defective loans.

In court papers, the plaintiffs said their investments sank in
value because of high loan default rates, foreclosure delays and
substantial credit losses that would not have occurred "but for
defendants' failure to perform their responsibilities."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to seek from the settlement fund
up to $13.8 million for legal fees and $3 million to cover
expenses.

The lawsuit was filed a week after another federal judge in
Manhattan let four pension funds pursue similar claims against
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. over its role as bond trustee for
Countrywide Financial Corp., now part of Bank of America.

Washington Mutual was the largest U.S. savings and loan before it
failed on Sept. 25, 2008.  JPMorgan Chase & Co bought most of its
operations.

The case is Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of
Chicago v. Bank of America NA et al, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, No. 12-02865.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Barrett
Business Services, Inc., on Nov. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of Barrett Business Services securities between
February 12, 2013 and October 29, 2014, inclusive.

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

Barrett Business Services provides a variety of business
management solutions for small and medium-sized companies in the
United States.  The Complaint alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's operations and financial
performance and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company under accrued its self-
insured workers' compensation reserves; (2) as a result, the
Company overstated its earnings; (3) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4), as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 28, 2014, BBSI disclosed that it had a $37.8 million
net loss for its 2014 fiscal third quarter.  The Company
attributed the loss to an $80 million pretax increase in workers'
compensation reserves, which effectively wiped out Barrett
Business Services' pretax earnings for the past five years.  As a
result of this news, the Company's stock declined more than 58%,
or $26.18 per share, to close at $18.28 per share on October 29,
2014, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than January 5, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, or Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


BARRETT BUSINESS: Wagner Firm Files Class Action in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wagner Firm representing investors of Barrett Business
Services, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the Western
District of Washington on behalf of a class comprising purchasers
of BBSI securities between February 12, 2013 and October 29, 2014,
both dates inclusive.

BBSI provides business management solutions for small and medium-
sized companies in the United States.  The Complaint alleges that
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company under accrued its self-insured
workers' compensation reserves; (2) that, as a result, the Company
overstated its earnings; (3) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 28, 2014, BBSI disclosed that it had a net loss of
$37.8 million for its 2014 fiscal third quarter.  According to the
Company, this loss was driven by an $80 million pretax increase in
workers' comp reserves, which effectively wiped out the Company's
past five years of pretax earnings.  As a result of this news, the
Company's stock declined $26.18 per share, over 58%, to close on
October 29, 2014 at $18.28 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.

If you purchased BBSI shares, if you have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss
these matters or have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Avi Wagner, Esquire, of The Wagner Firm, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 491-
7949, by e-mail at info@thewagnerfirm.com or visit our website at
http://thewagnerfirm.com


BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
George Kelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bed Bath & Beyond, a New York Corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-00816 (D. Utah, November 7, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bed Bath & Beyond is a retailer that sells a wide assortment of
domestic merchandise and home furnishing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nancy A. Mismash, Esq.
      ROBERT J. DEBRY & ASSOCIATES
      4252 S 700 E
      Salt Lake City, UT 84107
      Telephone: (801) 262-8915
      Facsimile: (801)262-8995
      E-mail: nmismash@robertdebry.com

         - and -

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rush, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: dgounds@johnsonbecker.com
              jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


BED BATH & BEYOND: Faces "Rana" Suit Over Gender & Race Bias
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
two former employees of Bed, Bath & Beyond Inc. have filed a class
action in New Jersey federal court, claiming the retailer
discriminates against its warehouse workers who aren't young,
Hispanic males.

Plaintiffs Archana Rana and Earl Porter of Passaic, N.J., filed
the complaint on Oct. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming the defendant has a "commonly
applied policy and practice of discriminating against anyone who
is not a young, Hispanic male, while simultaneously providing
preferential treatment to those employees who are young, Hispanic
males."

Ms. Rana and Mr. Porter, former warehouse managers in New Jersey,
allege the company had intentionally engaged in discriminatory
conduct for at least three years.

The complaint in Rana v. Bed, Bath & Beyond claims violations of
the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act.  The plaintiffs also cite the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection Act, claiming the retail company
retaliated against Rana and Porter for their "protected, 'whistle-
blowing conduct.'"

Ms. Rana, an Indian female over 40 years old, and Mr. Porter, an
African-American male over 40 years old, claim they were routinely
subjected to discriminatory and harassing conduct by two other
managers.  Ms. Rana claims one of her supervisors, a Hispanic
male, "filed false, frivolous complaints" to the company's human
resources department about her work.

She alleges that, after a year of the harassment, she was
hospitalized with extremely high blood pressure due to the stress.
When she complained, Ms. Rana claims, she was retaliated against
by being overworked and ultimately fired.

The suit claims Mr. Porter also faced discrimination by a Hispanic
male supervisor who made racist comments about African-Americans
while Porter was present.  Although he complained to his
supervisor and others about the discriminatory conduct, it
continued and Porter was fired, the suit states.

Plaintiffs allege that "many of the older, non-Hispanic males who
have been terminated by BB&B since the beginning of 2012 have been
replaced by younger, Hispanic males."  There are at least 100
putative class members who have been harmed by the retailer's
discriminatory conduct and actions, plaintiffs said.


BLUCORA INC: Plaintiff Agrees to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Blucora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on May 12, 2014, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company
and certain of its officers.  The complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  This case
purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period between
November 5, 2013 and February 20, 2014.  On November 3, 2014, the
plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss this case without
prejudice, and a stipulation of dismissal is currently pending.

Blucora, Inc. operates three primary businesses: an internet
search and content business, an online tax preparation business,
and an e-commerce business.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Unlawful Marketing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Jarvis and Michael Jarvis, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-00654 (M.D. Fla., November 7, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant overstated the fuel economy in miles per gallon of the
Mini Coopers on its advertising and promotional materials,
including its website and advertising brochures for the vehicles.

BMW of North America, LLC promotes, markets, distributes and sells
Mini Coopers across United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, PA
      888 Seventh Ave
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities action against Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. filed a motion for class certification which is
currently pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. Finally, on July 26, 2012,
another purported securities class action complaint was filed in
the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based
upon the same general set of allegations and class period. The
complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to
Ashford University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation
process, and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning
Ashford University's persistence rates. The plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint by the October 31, 2013 deadline and
therefore the case is now proceeding to discovery. On August 6,
2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which
is currently pending with the Court.

Bridgepoint Education is a provider of postsecondary education
services.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Class Certification Sought in Guzman Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification has been filed in Guzman v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al., and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present. In March 2011,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court
granted University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the
Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement
of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees. The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the
second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in
part.

On March 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to deny class
certification for students enrolled on or after May 2007 when
Ashford University adopted a binding arbitration policy. On August
23, 2013, the Court denied the motion finding that although "some"
absent class members in this case may have signed an enforceable
arbitration agreement, this does not demonstrate an overbroad or
unascertainable class that forecloses certification at this stage
of the proceedings. On September 23, 2013, the Court entered an
order bifurcating discovery and permitting only class
certification discovery to take place until the plaintiff's motion
for class certification, which was filed on April 30, 2014, is
decided.

Bridgepoint is a provider of postsecondary education services.


BRISTOL HARBOUR: Jan. 8 Hearing Set for Employees' Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Sherwood, writing for Greece Post, reports that attorneys
for both sides in a case that targets Bristol Harbour Resort over
wages paid to banquet staff are looking to Jan. 8 when they are
scheduled to present their arguments before a judge.

"I think we have a very strong case," said Justin Cordello, the
attorney representing dozens of current or former hourly banquet
service staff made up of servers, bussers and bartenders at the
resort on Seneca Point Road.

Bristol Harbour "illegally retained gratuities customers paid as
service charges for banquets and similar events" held at the
resort from May 2008 through May 2014, according to the class
action lawsuit.  The suit filed on behalf of former Bristol
Harbour employee Allison Plante and all other employees in a
similar situation will be heard in state Supreme Court in Monroe
County before Judge Matthew Rosenbaum.

Originally on the court docket for Nov. 6, the case is getting
plenty of attention from both attorneys, who now have two
additional months to prepare their cases before going before the
judge.

"We have several hundred more documents from our communication
from customers," said Matt Fusco with Trevett Cristo Salzer &
Andolina P.C. in Rochester, who represents Bristol Harbour.
Mr. Fusco argues Bristol Harbour "made it clear" the resort pays
its banquet servers above the minimum wage and therefore, does not
pay tips.

"There is a lot of favorable case law in this area," to support
the lawsuit, Mr. Cordello said.  Aside from the dozens of members
in the class action, Mr. Cordello said he has heard from other
Bristol Harbour workers wanting to submit affidavits of support.

According to Fusco, Bristol Harbour changed its policy to paying
above minimum wage and eliminating tips for banquet servers in
2011 and the "vast majority" of employees are happy with the
policy.  He hopes the case can be heard before a jury so the judge
can hear how servers like the system, he said.

"We acknowledge that before 2011 there were some mistakes made,"
Fusco added.

Before 2011, only 14 percent of a 20 percent gratuity charged to
customers went to banquet servers -- the rest to administrators
for booking the party.

Mr. Fusco said Bristol Harbour did not book nearly as many
banquets before 2011 -- compared to now, when the resort may do as
many as four weddings in a weekend -- so those affected and the
amount of money represented is minimal, though an amount his side
is willing to compensate for.

Representing the workers, Mr. Cordello said the law is clear and
the way Bristol Harbour handled wages for banquet service staff --
before and after 2011 -- violated the law.

"Just because you pay someone more than minimum wage and you tell
the customer" doesn't mean it fits the law, Mr. Cordello said.

Customers don't know what servers are paid and a customer would
reasonably think the additional charge goes to service staff, he
added.  The suit seeks to reimburse workers for wages it claims
they are owed.

Mr. Cordello said the class action suit is a good way to deal with
such a case.  It saves the court system time and money to have the
workers represented as a group, rather than individual workers
presenting their cases on their own.


BSH HOME: Judge Grants Stay in Moldy Washer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and David Siegel, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Nov. 5 granted a stay in a class
action against BSH Home Appliances Corp. over an alleged defect
that causes its washing machines to get moldy, after the parties
told him they plan to settle the dispute.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter granted a joint stipulation to
stay the proceedings, after BSH and plaintiff Diana Tait indicated
that they had agreed on the terms of a settlement.  The settlement
terms were not disclosed. The parties are expected to file a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by early
December, according to the case docket.

The dispute was originally scheduled to go to trial next year, and
the Jan. 13, 2015, trial date will still remain on the calendar
for the time being, Judge Carter said in a docket entry on Nov. 5.

An attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment and a
representative for BSH could not immediately be reached for
comment on Nov. 6.

The move toward settlement follows Whirlpool Corp.'s win last
month in an unusual class action trial over moldy washers, in
which the jury rejected allegations by plaintiffs Gina Glazer and
Trina Allison that the Whirlpool washer models at issue were
negligently designed.

That dispute involved 20 front-loading washer models sold to Ohio
residents over an eight-and-a-half-year span, beginning in 2001.

The parties in the Tait case were previously locked in a fight
over sanctions, with plaintiffs arguing that BSH should be
penalized for allegedly failing to alert its sales representatives
of a litigation hold it had put in place since 2009.

The alleged lapse caused the representatives to delete potentially
relevant information to comply with the manufacturer's alleged
policy of requiring the routine deletion of internal documents,
including emails, they claimed.

But Judge Carter in September declined to impose sanctions,
finding that the plaintiffs had not shown BSH knew that the sales
department employees had relevant evidence.

BSH had issued the litigation hold in response to a class action
in California state court similar to the current federal case, but
the hold did not extend to the sales department because BSH
believed their marketing department would have all documents
relevant to the litigation, according to court filings.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kristen L. Sagafi, Brendan P.
Glackin and Nimish R. Desai of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP.

BSH is represented by Rick L. McNight -- fmcknight@jonesday.com --
Elwood G. Lui -- elui@jonesday.com -- Erik K. Swanholt --
ekswanholt@jonesday.com -- Erin L Burke and Jason Corbitt Wright
-- jcwright@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day and Willis DePasquale
LLP.

The case is Diana Tait et al v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., case
number 8:10-cv-00711, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


CACIQUE HOLDINGS: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Enrique Banzo Garcia and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Cacique Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Subway,
Karla Castillo, Lazaro Gonzalez, Case No. 1:14-cv-24207 (S.D.
Fla., November 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate Subway restaurant in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell
      J. H. ZIDELL, PA
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


CANADIAN WHEAT: FCWB to Appeal Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------
Martin Cash, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that just
when it seemed the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB) had
fought its last fight, the group is back.

In January 2013, the group was on the losing end of a Supreme
Court decision to refuse to hear an appeal from the supporters of
the former Canadian Wheat Board.  In that matter, they argued the
federal government broke its own law by passing legislation ending
the wheat board's monopoly without holding a plebiscite among
grain producers.

Last December, a Federal Court judge denied most of a C$17-billion
class-action claim in which the FCWB argued for financial
compensation, including loss of goodwill and assets farmers argued
had been expropriated and that they had a right to make a claim
on.

A recent court ruling upheld that decision, but Stewart Wells, a
spokesman for the group and a former director of the wheat board,
said the FCWB has decided to seek the right to appeal the class-
action claim to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Wells said recent reports about a potential imminent sale of
the CWB, as the wheat board is now called, was incentive for the
organization to once again enlist its legal team to take another
run at a Supreme Court hearing.

"It's taken on more relevancy and immediacy in the farm
community," said Mr. Wells.  "It's now more front of mind to the
farmers.  They want to know what is happening and why the
government is not being more transparent."

Last month, a Saskatchewan group called Farmers of North America
(FNA) had its offer to acquire the CWB rejected.  In the process
of making that offer, it was seeking to raise more than C$300
million from farmers.

An FNA official would not confirm how much it offered to pay for
the CWB, but it is believed to be in the C$250-million to C$300-
million range.

Mr. Wells said the sale process suggests significant assets exist
in the CWB, in addition to new funds the federal government has
disbursed since the organization switched to a voluntary model.
While the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
will attempt to reignite the entire $17-billion claim, the last
ruling on the class-action lawsuit left open the possibility for a
claim regarding misallocation of funds during the CWB's transition
from a mandatory marketing organization.

Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz was en route to China on
Nov. 4.  His office said he was unable to comment before deadline.

Even though there are many reports about a potential sale, the CWB
has not commented publicly on the process, nor has it released any
financial information publicly since the Canadian Wheat Board's
2011-12 annual report.  Meanwhile, there continues to be chatter
about the disposition of a wheat board pool fund that held as much
as $150 million.

While legal rulings to date do not necessarily back claims the
money should go to farmers, it's that pool of cash -- as well as
some additional costs involved in the transition -- that Wells
said the FCWB would be seeking in its application for leave to
appeal the class action matter to the Supreme Court.


CANADIAN WHEAT: Agriculture Minister Balks at FCWB Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Johnstone, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz blasted Friends of the Canadian
Wheat Board for taking its $17-billion class-action lawsuit to the
Supreme Court of Canada, saying the group, which supports the
wheat board's former monopoly on western wheat and barley sales,
is "stuck in the past."

"While the overwhelming majority of farmers look to the future, it
is unfortunate that a small few remain stuck in the past,"
Mr. Ritz said in a statement released by his office on Nov. 5.

The federal government will continue to work with "forward-
thinking producers" to build a stronger future for Canadian
agriculture, said Mr. Ritz, in China with Prime Minister Stephen
Harper on a trade mission.

The Friends -- represented by Harold Bell of Fort St. John, B.C.;
Andrew Dennis of Brookdale, Man.; Nathan Macklin of DeBolt, Alta.;
and Ian McCreary of Bladworth -- filed the lawsuit in 2012 over
legislation that removed the marketing agency's monopoly on
western wheat and barley sales.

Last month, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled against the group's
challenge of a lower-court decision that struck down parts of a
class-action lawsuit that alleges expropriation and interference
with economic relations.  However, the Federal Court of Appeal did
uphold the right to sue Ottawa over wheat board money the group
claims was misallocated in the 2011-12 crop year.


CASHCALL INC: 4th Circuit Upholds Order Decertifying Class
----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that a lawsuit charging CashCall, Inc. with secretly monitoring
phone calls in violation of state law will not proceed as a class
action, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled.

Div. One on Nov. 4 ordered publication of its Oct. 9 opinion
affirming a San Diego Superior Court judge's order decertifying a
class of CashCall customers.  The panel agreed with Judge Lorna
Alksne that a prior appellate ruling changed the nature of the
case to one in which individual, rather than class-wide, issues
predominate.

The suit was brought in 2006 by several borrowers, alleging
CashCall -- a money lender well known as a result of its
ubiquitous television advertising -- taped their phone
conversations without their consent.  The complaint pled several
causes of action, including one, as to which a class was
certified, for violation of Penal Code Sec. 632.

The statute imposes liability on a "person" who intentionally
listens in on or records a "confidential communication" without
consent of all parties.  A plaintiff whose rights are violated may
recover up to $5,000 per violation, or three times actual damages,
whichever is greater, and the defendant may be enjoined from
continuing to violate the section.

Prior Appeals

In the case's first trip to the Court of Appeal, the court
approved a procedure by which those whose calls had been monitored
would be informed of that fact and permitted to join the
litigation.  CashCall then moved for summary adjudication on the
Sec. 632 claim, and obtained a ruling that the statute was not
violated because the employee who allegedly monitored the
conversation and the fellow employee who participated in the call
were the same "person" as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal reversed in 2011.  Besides holding that
separate employees of the same corporation are separate persons
under the statute, it rejected the company's alternative argument
that the calls were not confidential as a matter of law, and said
there were triable issues as to whether the plaintiffs had an
"objectively reasonable expectation" of confidentiality.

CashCall argued on remand that in order to determine which, if
any, of the class members had such an expectation, the court would
have to engage in individual factfinding inappropriate to a class
action.  Judge Alksne agreed and ordered the class decertified.
Justice Judith Haller, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the
trial judge acted well within her discretion.

Different Experiences

Haller noted that each of the named plaintiffs described different
experiences with CashCall as to whether they heard a pre-recorded
disclosure from the company's automated answering system on any of
their calls, whether they had prior experience with business call
monitoring systems, and that the number of times each plaintiff
called or was called by CashCall varied.

There is, the justice wrote, no requirement that a moving party
show a "compelling justification" for decertification of a class,
only "changed circumstances," although Haller said CashCall would
have prevailed under the stricter standard as well.

"CashCall persuasively argued that each plaintiff's factual
circumstances must be considered, and cross-examination must be
permitted, to determine whether each monitored telephone call was
a confidential communication subject to section 632's statutory
prohibition," the jurist wrote.  While the presence of individual
issues will not necessarily preclude class certification, she
explained, the state Supreme Court has warned that a class action
is inappropriate "if every member of the alleged class would be
required to litigate numerous and substantial questions
determining his individual right to recover."

The case is Kight v. CashCall, Inc., 14 S.O.S. 4952.


CB FINANCIAL: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Appeal Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a hearing has
not been scheduled on the defendants' motion to appeal the
dismissal ruling in a class action lawsuit.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland,
against Fed First Financial, each of Fed First Financial's
directors, and CB Financial Services, Inc. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached
their fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders
by agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financial shareholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, by
agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or
CB Financial without regard for the FedFirst Financial
stockholders and by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that
discourages other bidders. The plaintiff also alleges that CB
Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst directors' breach of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, an
order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and rescinding
and invalidating the Merger Agreement, an order enjoining the
defendants from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and
experts' fees and certain other damages.

On June 20, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim that the
Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the merger
contains material misstatements and omissions.

FedFirst Financial and CB Financial amended their Motion to
Dismiss to address the additional claims. A hearing was held on
the Motion to Dismiss on September 19, 2014, and the court
dismissed all claims as to all defendants with prejudice.

On October 17, 2014, the defendants filed a Motion to Appeal to
appeal the dismissal ruling. A hearing has not been scheduled.

CB Financial feels the factual allegations in the complaint, as
amended, are without merit and is defending vigorously against the
allegations in the complaint.

CB Financial Services, Inc. is a bank holding company established
in 2006. CB Financial's business activity is conducted through its
wholly owned banking subsidiary Community Bank ("the Bank").


CLAIBORNE MEDICAL: "Hager" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Hager, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Claiborne County Medical Center, Case No. 5:14-cv-00106 (S.D.
Miss., November 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Claiborne County Medical Center is a public hospital owned and
operated by Claiborne County, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Chad Moore, Esq.
      DEATON & BERRY, PA
      P.O. Box 320099, 229 Katherine Drive
      Flowood, MS 39232-9588
      Telephone: (601) 988-0000
      Facsimile: (601) 988-0001
      E-mail: mmoore@dg-law.com


CVS PHARMACY: Schubert Jonckheer Mulls Class Suit Over Apple Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Clover, writing for MacRumors, reports that law firm Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe, specializing in class action lawsuits, has
announced that it has launched an antitrust investigation into CVS
and Rite Aid over their decision to stop accepting Apple Pay in
their retail stores.

The firm says that it is looking into a potential class action
lawsuit that would aim to restore Apple Pay at CVS and Rite Aid
stores, and it is currently asking to speak with consumers who may
have been affected by the stores' decision to stop offering the
payment method.

In light of this situation, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe is
investigating whether CVS and Rite Aid violated the antitrust laws
by banding together with other MCX members in a decision to
boycott other payments systems, including Apple Pay.  Consumers
with phones that support Apple Pay may be able to participate in a
class action to restore the service at CVS and Rite Aid retail
stores.

Both Rite Aid and CVS stopped accepting Apple Pay just over a week
ago, disabling the NFC capabilities of their payment terminals to
prevent it from being used.  Rite Aid and CVS are both members of
the Merchant Customer Exchange or MCX, a consortium of retailers
developing their own barcode-based payment system called CurrentC.


DEX MEDIA: 5th Cir. Affirms Trial Court Decision in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in a
class action against both the employee benefits committee and
pension plans of Verizon and the employee benefits committee
("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia.

On November 25, 2009, three retirees brought a putative class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee
benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon and the employee
benefits committee ("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia.  All
three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to
SuperMedia pension plans at or near the SuperMedia's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and
SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents,
which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both
the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary
duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other
class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The
plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages
and a reversal of the employee transfers.

The SuperMedia defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the court ruled
on the pending motion dismissing all the claims against the
SuperMedia pension plans and all of the claims against
SuperMedia's EBC relating to the production of documents and
statutory penalties for failure to produce same. The only claims
that remained against SuperMedia were procedural ERISA claims
against SuperMedia's EBC.

On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the
complaint. On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to
dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against
the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs obtained
class certification against the Verizon defendants.

After obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed
another amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against
SuperMedia's EBC. SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before
the deadline set by the scheduling order.

On March 26, 2012, the court denied SuperMedia's EBC's motion to
dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
summary judgments, denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment, and
entered a take nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. The briefing is complete and oral argument was held on
September 4, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The time to
appeal that decision has not yet run. The Company plans to honor
its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit
on the defendants' behalf.

Dex Media, Inc. is a provider of local marketing solutions to over
500,000 business clients across the United States.


DEX MEDIA: Former Employee's Class Action Remanded to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
case by a former employee against SuperMedia has been remanded to
the trial court.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against SuperMedia, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current
and former officers, directors and members of SuperMedia's
employee benefits committee or EBC. The complaint attempts to
recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were
allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA by the defendants in administrating the plans from November
17, 2006 to March 31, 2009. The complaint alleges that: (i) the
defendants wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc
common stock, (ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations
regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition, (iii)
the defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants
mismanaged the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached
their duty to monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.

At this time, a class has not been certified. The plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint. SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the
entire complaint on June 22, 2010.

On March 16, 2011, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants'
motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs
have repleaded their complaint. SuperMedia's defendants filed
another motion to dismiss the new complaint.

On March 15, 2012, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants'
second motion dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal. On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the
trial court. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc which
has been denied. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. After the Supreme
Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, the court
granted plaintiffs' writ, vacated the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals opinion and remanded the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to rule in conformity with the Fifth Third
opinion. Subsequently, the case has been remanded to the trial
court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations
and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Dex Media, Inc. is a provider of local marketing solutions to over
500,000 business clients across the United States.


DEX MEDIA: Tentative Settlement Reached in FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that terms of a
tentative settlement were reached by the parties in a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia, all
its subsidiaries, and two of its former chief executive officers
in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division. The complaint alleges that SuperMedia improperly
calculated the rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly
sales employees. On July 29, 2011, SuperMedia filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to allege that the individual defendants had "off-the-
clock" claims for unpaid overtime. Subsequently, SuperMedia
amended its motion to dismiss in light of the new allegations.

On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice. On
March 29, 2012, the court denied the SuperMedia's motion to
dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify the class. SuperMedia's motion seeking permission to file
an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied and a notice has
been sent to SuperMedia's former and current employees. The time
for opting into the class has expired.

On February 24, 2014, SuperMedia filed a motion to decertify. The
plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a
companion case with the same allegations. In early August, 2014,
terms of a tentative settlement were reached by the parties; the
settlement has been documented and presented to the court for
preliminary approval.

Dex Media, Inc. is a provider of local marketing solutions to over
500,000 business clients across the United States.


DISH NETWORK: Faces "Langhorne" Suit Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Langhorne, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-03600 (N.D. Ga.,
November 7, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Dish Network L.L.C. is a direct-broadcast satellite service
provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
      2300 Henderson Mill Road, Ste. 300
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Telephone: (844) 534-9984
      Facsimile: (855) 415-2480
      E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com

         - and -

      James L. Davidson, Esq.*
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing on Dismissal Motion Set for Dec. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on Dynavax Technologies Corporation's motion to
dismiss a second amended class action complaint is scheduled for
December 18, 2014, Dynavax said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On November 12, 2013, the Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Complaint"); Dynavax moved to dismiss the
Complaint on January 10, 2014. On April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint adds a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleges that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with statements related to our product
candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges
that the Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions
regarding the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders
unlawfully profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
June 6, 2014. On August 8, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. On September 10, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint to remove or correct erroneous statements in the
Amended Complaint attributed to confidential witnesses. The Second
Amended Complaint retains all allegations asserted in the Amended
Complaint.

On October 10, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion was due on November 10, 2014. The Company's reply in
support of the motion is due on December 1, 2014. The hearing on
the motion is scheduled for December 18, 2014.

Dynavax, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops
products to prevent and treat infectious and inflammatory diseases
and cancer based on Toll-like Receptor ("TLR") biology and its
ability to modulate the innate immune system.


ENSCO INCORPORATED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Trent Kyle Stewart, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ensco Incorporated, Case No. 4:14-cv-
03208 (S.D. Tex., November 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ensco Incorporated is a provider of engineering services,
products, and advanced technologies for national security,
transportation safety and asset management.

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


FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Power Steering System Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Ford Motor Co. is asking a California federal court to dismiss a
putative class action alleging its Focus and Fusion models have
defective power steering systems, arguing the plaintiffs have not
pleaded facts sufficient to establish a warranty claim or any
other claim.

"Plaintiffs have alleged almost no specific facts about their own
claims, instead choosing to fill pages by (for example) quoting
other consumers' complaints . . . and trying to depict the
possibility of having to steer a relatively small car manually as
an unreasonably dangerous hazard," states Ford's motion filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
San Jose.

Last June, several consumers slapped Ford Motor Co. with a
putative class action in a California federal district court,
claiming the automaker equipped its Focus and Fusion models with a
defective power steering system prone to sudden failure that
leaves drivers unable to control their cars.

The plaintiffs accused Ford of falsely touting the safety and
reliability of the defective autos at the same time the company
promoted the vehicles as safe.

Ford rejected the complaint's fraud claim, saying plaintiffs'
don't allege facts showing when, or if, Ford knew of a system
defect in the cars.  "In fact, they allege Ford's knowledge not
just generally but only upon 'information and belief.'"

Ford's motion contends the complaint is "short on facts," arguing
that it can't be considered a nationwide action because plaintiffs
only bought cars in six states and can't represent consumers in
other states.

Ford also claims the complaint is not a tort action because the
only injuries that plaintiffs allege are economic and therefore
"the 'economic loss rule' bars tort claims based only on alleged
damage to a product itself." Under this rule, if there is a remedy
it would lie in contract law, Ford said.

The plaintiffs' express-warranty claims fail because "plaintiffs
appear to be alleging a design defect, which the express warranty
does not cover" and "none of the plaintiffs have alleged facts
showing the alleged defect occurred during the relevant express-
warranty period," the motion states.

The company said the implied-warranty claims in certain
jurisdictions also fail because plaintiffs have not alleged
privity.


GIOVANNI & SONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geovanis Rigual Martinez, and other similarly situated individuals
v. Giovanni & Sons High-Tech, Inc., a Florida profit corporation
and Gian Carlo Visciglia, Case No. 1:14-cv-24211 (S.D. Fla.,
November 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Giovanni & Sons High-Tech, Inc. is a metal manufacturer for
commercial projects and display.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREAT SOUTHERN: Investors Challenge Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Robertson, writing for ABC, reports that failed gum, olive
and grape plantations have proved a bitter harvest for more than
40,000 investors.

People who entrusted their savings to Great Southern plantation
investments on the advice of financial advisers lost nearly $2
billion.  So far a class action has brought a settlement of less
than a fifth of a cent in the dollar.  The last hope for those
investors is a new court hearing which will rule on the fairness
of that settlement.

In 2009 Sydney based construction worker Matt De Vries thought he
was investing in grapevines to pay for his retirement, but now he
has a debt that has more than doubled, the grapevines do not exist
and he is one of thousands faced with losing their house.

"The way I understood it was investment.  I've always been
conservative, so I assumed it was a pretty safe investment," he
told The Business.

"It feels like you are just being used and it doesn't matter . . .
it didn't matter about us at all. It was about people making
money."

ASIC found no wrongdoing

Great Southern raised nearly AU$2 billion from 43,000 investors
paying big commissions to financial planners along the way.

The company was already struggling when Matt De Vries got
involved, having lost $64 million in 2008 as plantations did not
produce the forecast returns.  The company was effectively buying
its own output to try to prop up payments to investors.

"We conducted quite a long running and detailed investigation of
Great Southern at the time it collapsed back in 2009," said ASIC
commissioner Greg Tanzer.

The investigation, ASIC said, did not discover anything
systemically wrong in the financial advice given to Great Southern
investors and it found no basis for action against the directors,
despite nearly $2 billion going down the drain.

The regulator rejected accusations it was asleep at the wheel,
telling the ABC investing is a risky business.  It is getting
involved again, though, helping the Victorian Supreme Court as it
completes the hearing of a class action which so far has yielded
$20 million for lawyers, but just $3 million for investors.

That equates to $17 for every $10,000.

"What we are there to do is to inform the court and to enable the
court, if you like, to have an independent view from the regulator
should the court seek to do this," said Mr. Tanzer.

"This is something that we've done in a number of cases in the
past."

Bendigo Bank 'acted morally' with loans

Great Southern's modus operandi was to lend money to people to
invest in its plantations, to provide income while the trees and
vines were going, it would bundle those loans up and sell them.

Bendigo Bank bought 42 parcels of loans starting in 2001 with the
last purchases in March 2009, just two months before Great
Southern collapsed.

In April 2009, Bendigo also took over the management rights to
many of those loans and Mr. De Vries said that is where his
problems really began.

"It's hard to cop when you get a letter from Bendigo Bank with
Great Southern on the same letter head saying that they are taking
over the loans so that Great Southern can focus on their core
business, and then two to three weeks later getting a letter from
a liquidator saying that Great Southern has gone under," he said.

Even harder to cop are the huge penalties imposed by Bendigo Bank
on customers.

After Mr. De Vries, like many others, took the advice of their
lawyers and stopped making payments when the true nature of the
Great Southern ponzi scheme became clear.  It is a sensitive issue
for the bank with both the chairman and chief executive defending
its actions at an annual general meeting.

"We have acted lawfully, respectfully and morally throughout this
matter," said its CEO Mike Hirst.

ASIC said there are some obligations on banks to look after
borrowers.

"Banks are subject to regulations and laws, particularly around
responsible lending and undertaking reasonable inquiries about the
capacity of people to repay loans as they go," said Mr. Tanzer
from the regulator.

As the Great Southern case goes back to court on November 17, once
again the perception is there for investors that no one is looking
out for the little guy.


GT ADVANCED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm on Nov. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of GT Advanced
Technologies, Inc. securities including buyers of call options and
common stock, and sellers of put options between November 5, 2013
and 9:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time on October 6, 2014, inclusive.

To join the GTAT class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-396.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, GT Advanced misrepresented the Company's
expected cash position and revenues, its ability to meet certain
criteria of its agreement with Apple for the production of
sapphire material.  On September 8, 2014 Thomas Gutierrez, CEO
sold 9,232 shares of GTAT, gaining over $160,000.  The next day,
Apple unveiled that both models of the iPhone 6 would come with
displays made by Gorilla Glass, a competitor of GT Advanced.  On
October 6, 2014, the Company announced that it was experiencing a
liquidity crisis and that it had filed for bankruptcy. On this
news, the values of GT Advanced securities dropped, damaging
investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 8, 2014.  If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-396.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


HEALTHCARE SUPPORT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dasean Muckle, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc., a Florida For Profit
Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-01824 (M.D. Fla., November 7, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc. is a national healthcare
recruiting and staffing firm with office and recruiting centers
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave, PO Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Has MOU to Settle Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Washington
Banking, its directors and Heritage entered on April 4, 2014, into
a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs
providing the terms of an agreement in principle among Washington
Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for the
settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation,
Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court
of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action").
The Action alleges that Washington Banking's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders
in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage combined
their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington
Banking merging with and into Heritage. The Action also alleges,
among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and
that the public disclosures concerning the Washington Banking
Merger are misleading in various respects.

Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved
the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs. If the
Court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the lawsuit
will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance,
however, that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive
settlement agreement or that the Court will approve the settlement
even if the parties enter into such an agreement.  In the absence
of either event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
MOU may be terminated.

The settlement of the Action did not affect the Washington Banking
Merger consideration paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in
connection with the completion of the Washington Banking Merger on
May 1, 2014.

Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage continue to believe
that the Action is without merit, have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, all of the allegations of wrongful or
actionable conduct asserted in the Action, and Washington Banking
and its directors and Heritage maintain that they have diligently
complied with all applicable fiduciary duties, that the Proxy
Statement is complete and accurate in all material respects and
that no further disclosure is required under applicable law.

Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into the
MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the costs,
risks, burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and
to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest.
Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public filing,
including the Current Report on Form 10-Q, shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity of filing or the materiality
under applicable laws of any of the additional information
contained herein or in any public filing associated with the
proposed settlement of the Action.


INTERIOR CONCEPTS: "Saldana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Saldana, on his own behalf and those similarly situated v.
Interior Concepts LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Stephen Fisher, individually, All Flags Construction, Inc., a
Florida for profit corporation and William Eugene Manning (a/k/a
Gene Manning), Case No. 9:14-cv-81383 (S.D. Fla., November 7,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company specializing
in demolition and drywall repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa Michelle Kohring, Esq.
      Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq.
      SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES, PL
      222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 210
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 659-3300
      E-mail: lkohring@schwarzberglaw.com
              steve@schwarzberglaw.com


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on July 31,
2014, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, the
Company's former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants. "The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing
and completion of the clinical study of our Scaffold product. The
plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers of our common
stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013
and unspecified damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit," the Company said.

InVivo Therapeutics Holdings is a pioneering biomaterials and
biotechnology company with a focus on the treatment of spinal cord
injuries.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against ITT Educational Services, Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, and
docketed under 14-cv-01651, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased ITT securities between April
26, 2013 and September 19, 2014, inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ITT securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 1, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

ITT is a leading provider of postsecondary degree programs in the
United States.  The Company's institutes offer associate,
bachelor, and master degree programs, as well as non-degree
diploma programs.

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

On March 21, 2014, the Company announced that it received an
inquiry to the Office of the Chief Accountant ("OCA") of the SEC
related to the accounting treatment for the variable interest
entity involved in the PEAKS Program.  On this news, the Company's
shares fell $2.24, or over 7%, to close at $27.71 per share on
March 24, 2014.

On May 22, 2014, the Company announced that it was withdrawing its
2014 forecast and investors should no longer rely upon it due to
uncertainties related to the accounting of its PEAKS Trust and the
Company's guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program.  On this
news, the Company's shares fell $5.30, or over 20%, to close at
$20.50 per share on May 22, 2014.

On September 19, 2014, the Company announced that it was notified
by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC that it made the
preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an
enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of
Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13 and 13a-15
under the Exchange Act.  The potential enforcement action stemmed
from a previously disclosed SEC investigation concerning the
Company's two private education loan programs for its students.
On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.70, or over 35%, to
close at $4.95 per share on September 19, 2014.

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


K12 INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over 38% Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a putative class action against online for-profit
public school company K12 Inc. over a 38 percent stock drop it
experienced last fall, saying on Nov.5 that the company's leaders
didn't intentionally mislead investors.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System said it lost
hundreds of millions of dollars when the company announced that
its enrollment numbers were down and the stock plummeted.  The
pension fund's class action complaint blamed the October 2013 drop
on allegedly misleading statements made by K12 officers in an
eight-month period leading up to the stock drop.

But U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga didn't find enough evidence
to support that contention, saying the facts didn't show scienter
and one alleged misleading statement by Chief Operating Officer
Timothy Murray was simply a "year-to-date assessment of
performance."

"Based on the facts alleged, the court concludes that none of the
relied-upon class period statements are actionable.  None of them
contains false or misleading statements of historical fact or
actionable opinions, and there are no facts that any defendant
made any relied-upon statement with the required scienter," Judge
Trenga wrote on Nov. 5.

During that eight-month period before the drop, the stock rose
from $18.53 to $37.85, the complaint said.  But the company was
partially a victim of its own success when applications couldn't
be converted into enrollments because the company's call centers
didn't have enough capacity, the complaint said.

The complaint also made reference to glowing predictions by
outside analysts.

But the judge warned, "the impact on investors of defendants' lack
of managerial competence cannot be minimized, and this case is a
cautionary tale concerning the risks inherent in relying on
corporate management's endorsements of analysts' forecasts,
against which the securities laws . . . provide limited
protections."

"We are very gratified by Judge Trenga's comprehensive and
thoughtful opinion," Peter Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- of Latham
& Watkins, an attorney for K12, told Law360 on Nov. 6.  "The
opinion adds to the Fourth Circuit's jurisprudence on 'forward-
looking' and 'puffing' statements, and upholds the Reform Act's
bar on 'fraud by hindsight' pleading."

The plaintiffs filed the original complaint in January and an
amended complaint in May alleging claims under Sections 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

K12 put a different investor suit over a separate stock drop to
bed in July of 2013, when a Virginia federal judge gave final
approval to a $6.8 million settlement K12 struck with
stockholders, ending a row over whether the company misled
investors about its enrollment and student performance.

Investors, led by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, claimed
K12 lied about students' performance on tests and student
enrollment, leading investors to believe the company was doing
very well. That final judgment closed out an 18-month battle.

The class alleged K12 failed to disclose its "improper and
deceptive" recruiting and sales strategies, that the schools'
teachers were pressured to pass poorly performing students and
that the company falsely characterized students' success on state
tests.  But after a New York Times expose in late 2011, the stock
price plunged quickly, decimating the retirement fund's
investment, according to the complaint.

K12 agreed in March 2013 to settle the dispute for $6.8 million,
or about 30 cents a share, according to court documents.

In December 2011, the article in The New York Times revealed holes
in K12's story that it was wildly successful at churning out high-
performing students, according to the original complaint.  The
information in the story was public information that should have
been given to investors, the class argued.

The company opened nine new schools in 2014, according to its
annual SEC report.  Its three business lines are "Managed Public
Schools (turn-key management services sold to public schools),
Institutional Sales (educational products and services sold to
school districts, public schools and other educational
institutions that we do not manage), and International and Private
Pay Schools (private schools for which we charge student tuition
and make direct consumer sales)," according to the filing.

The plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth Aniskevich --
eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.

K12 is represented by Peter Wald, Kevin Metz -- kevin.metz@lw.com
-- Colleen Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com -- Marcy Priedeman --
marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- and Stephen Barry --
jennifer.barry@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP.

The case is Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v.
K12, Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-00108, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Parties Agree to Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------
The parties in the Fosbre and Combs cases stipulated to a case
management schedule wherein they agree to a briefing schedule on
class certification, Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations
back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to
2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar
matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District
Court.

On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the
motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their
reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period. On February 3, 2014, the judge agreed to
the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on the issue of
expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a
decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc.

On September 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
motion to expand the class period without prejudice to re-filing a
similar motion. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the Halliburton
case on June 23, 2014, and, on October 3, 2014, the parties
stipulated to a case management schedule wherein they agree to a
briefing schedule on class certification.

This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation on Nov. 6 disclosed that it agreed
to settle shareholder class actions relating to the March 1, 2013
transaction through which Jefferies Group LLC became a wholly
owned subsidiary of Leucadia, creating a strategic combination
with over $9 billion in shareholders' equity.

Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction.  The class actions named
as defendants Leucadia, Jefferies Group, certain members of the
board of directors of Jefferies Group, certain members of
Leucadia's board of directors and, in certain of the actions,
certain merger-related subsidiaries.

"On October 31, 2014, we and the remaining defendants in the
Delaware litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in the Delaware litigation.  The terms of that
agreement, which are subject to court approval, provide for an
aggregate payment of $70 million to certain former stockholders of
Jefferies Group, other than the defendants and certain of their
affiliates, along with attorneys' fees to be determined and
approved by the court.  The agreement further provides that the
settlement will be paid, at Leucadia's option, in either cash or
Leucadia common shares.  If approved by the court, the settlement
will resolve all of the class-action claims in Delaware, and
release the claims brought in New York," Leucadia said.

"While we and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, we agreed to the
settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid the costs and
risks of further litigation and to avoid further distractions to
our management."


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Partially Indemnified by Former OneLink Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the former owners
of OneLink Communications have partially indemnified Liberty
Global for any losses it may incur in connection with the PRTC
Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the indemnity
does not cover any potential losses resulting from the Class
Action Claim.

The Company said, "In November 2012, we completed a business
combination that resulted in, among other matters, the combination
of our then operating subsidiary in Puerto Rico with San Juan
Cable, LLC dba OneLink Communications (OneLink). In connection
with this transaction (the OneLink Acquisition), Liberty Puerto
Rico, as the surviving entity, became a party to certain claims
asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against OneLink based
on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to the OneLink
Acquisition (the PRTC Claim), including a claim that OneLink acted
in an anticompetitive manner in connection with a series of legal
and regulatory proceedings it initiated against the incumbent
telephone operator in Puerto Rico beginning in 2009. In December
2013, an additional claim was asserted against OneLink alleging
harm to consumers based on the purported conduct of OneLink that
formed the basis for the PRTC Claim.  The claimant in the December
2013 action sought to join the PRTC Claim as a representative of
the entire class of consumers who are alleged to have suffered
harm as a result of the purported OneLink conduct."

"In February 2014, the court ruled that the December 2013 action
could not be joined with the PRTC Claim. The court ruling did not
preclude the claimant from pursuing a class action claim in a
separate action. In March 2014, the claimant in the December 2013
claim filed a separate class action claim in Puerto Rico (the
Class Action Claim) substantially similar to the claims asserted
in the December 2013 claim.

"The former owners of OneLink have partially indemnified us for
any losses we may incur in connection with the PRTC Claim up to a
specified maximum amount. However, the indemnity does not cover
any potential losses resulting from the Class Action Claim.
Liberty Puerto Rico has recorded a provision and a related
indemnification asset representing its best estimate of the net
loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC
Claim.

"While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount required to
satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ from the
estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be given that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have an adverse
impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial
position in any given period."

Liberty Global is an international provider of video, broadband
internet, fixed-line telephony and mobile services, with
consolidated operations at September 30, 2014 in 14 countries.


LINNCO LLC: Plaintiff Did Not Appeal Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the
federal class action did not appeal the Court's dismissal of the
case, and the appeals deadline has now passed.

In 2013, several class action complaints were filed and ultimately
consolidated in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (the "Federal Actions") against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, certain of their officers and directors and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering. These cases
collectively asserted claims based on allegations that LINN Energy
made false or misleading statements relating to its (i) hedging
strategy, (ii) the cash flow available for distribution to
unitholders, and (iii) LINN Energy's energy production in its
Exchange Act filings; and additional claims based on alleged
misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and
registration statement for LinnCo's initial public offering.
Several derivative actions were also filed in federal and state
court in Texas, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Derivative Actions") asserting derivative claims on behalf of
LINN Energy against the individual officers and directors for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets,
mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment based on
factual allegations similar to those in the Federal Actions.

In July 2014, the Court dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs in
the Federal Actions with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate any material misstatement or omission by
LINN Energy or LinnCo, or their officers and directors. The
plaintiffs in the Federal Action did not appeal the Court's
dismissal, and the appeals deadline has now passed. The plaintiffs
in the Derivative Actions subsequently have dismissed their claims
without prejudice.

LinnCo, LLC had no significant assets or operations other than
those related to its interest in LINN Energy. LINN Energy is an
independent oil and natural gas company that trades on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market under the symbol "LINE."


MERCK & CO: Manipulates Availability of Mumps Vaccine, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
George E. Nakashima, M.D. and Bellaflor A. Trompeta, M.D., a
Medical Corporation, on behalf of themselves and all others
Similar situated v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06447
(E.D. Pa., November 7, 2014), is brought for unlawfully
monopolizing the United States market for Mumps Vaccine,
specifically by engaging in a scheme to falsify, misrepresent, and
conceal the true efficacy of its vaccine.

Merck & Co., Inc. is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies
in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
      WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA
      90 Woodbridge Ctr Dr Ste 900, Box 10
      Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Telephone: (732) 855-6402
      E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com


NEW YORK, NY: Education Department Faces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Pei-Sze Cheng, writing for NBC New York, reports that a class
action lawsuit claims the city's education department systemically
failed to comply with state and federal laws requiring
transitional services for special education students.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
New York on Nov. 5.

One of the plaintiffs, 16-year-old Mohand Khattab, attends New
Utrecht High school in Brooklyn. The special needs student,
according to his parents, was never given a vocational assessment
or subsequent training to help him transition into life after high
school.

"The school system never even disclosed something like that to us
-- to let us know that he is entitled to vocational assessment or
vocational training," said his father, Hossam Khattab.  "We don't
know anything about that."

Mr. Khattab sought legal help once he obtained his son's
individualized education plan and realized there were no plans to
assist him with life after graduation.

"We have to make vocational assessments for him to know his
ability exactly or what his vocational interests," said Hossam
Khattab said.

According to the New York City Department of Education's website,
the District 75 Office of Transition Services "is committed to
insuring that every student receives the services needed to
achieve his or her desired post-secondary outcomes to become
productive members of the community."  This includes working to
make sure skills are developed and supports are provided so that
every individual can become as independent as possible.

Attorney Gary Mayerson, who filed the class action lawsuit, claims
the DOE has violated state and federal law by not providing this
assessment and training to potentially tens of thousands of
students.

"Parents are not informed by the city about what transition is,"
Mr. Mayerson said.  "In fact, most parents walk out of the IEP
meeting not knowing anything about transition."

The DOE said it's working with the school and Mr. Khattab's family
to ensure the boy gets the help he needs.

"The DOE is committed to providing the services our students need
to thrive in and out of the classroom, and we are working with
this school and the student's family to ensure that we provide the
student with appropriate services," the agency said in a
statement.

Meanwhile, Mr. Khattab's father hopes it's not too late.

"I don't want him to continue to fall through the cracks anymore,"
said Hossam Khattab.  "We are trying to give him a future, to be
independent, to be self-sufficient, to help himself."


NICAEA ACADEMY: "Scheall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Scheall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Nicaea Academy, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and Barton
McIntyre, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00653 (M.D. Fla.,
November 7, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Nicaea Academy, Inc. is a Christian school in Cape Coral, Lee
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      Facsimile: (239) 549-3331
      E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com


NOVA BENEFIT: Faces "Dix" Suit in Cal. Over RICO Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dix, Pamela Di, and Sci, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
Nova Benefit Plans, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Sickness, Accident Disability Indemnity Plan & Trust, Wayne H.
Bursey, an individual Edwards Wildman Palmer, LLP, a Delaware
limited liability partnership f/k/a Edwards & Angell, LLP, Case
No. 2:14-cv-08678 (C.D. Cal., November 7, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Defendants act as a multiple employer welfare benefit plan
with its principal place of business in Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Thompson, Esq.
      Bryan S. Owens, Esq.
      CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
      2601 Main Street, Suite 800
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone:  (949) 261-2872
      Facsimile: (949) 261-6060
      E-mail: rthompson@ctsclaw.com
              bowens@ctsclaw.com


NRG ENERGY: GenOn Files Opening Brief in Supreme Court Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy Inc. along with its co-defendants filed their Opening
Brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Natural Gas Litigation,
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting
FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase
natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The
lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy
companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, which is handling four of the
five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment
and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the
District Court. On August 26, 2013, GenOn along with the other
defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Court of
Appeal's decision. On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted
the petition for a writ of certiorari. On September 18, 2014,
GenOn along with its co-defendants filed their Opening Brief with
the U.S. Supreme Court.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs
in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one
of the five lawsuits. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint
against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

NRG Energy, Inc., is a competitive power company that produces,
sells and delivers energy and energy services in major competitive
power markets in the U.S. while positioning itself as a leader in
the way residential, industrial and commercial consumers think
about and use energy products and services.


NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Class Action Proceeding in District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheswick class action complaint is proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania after the
U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari,
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
GenOn Energy Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick
generating facility have damaged the property of neighboring
residents. The Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have
brought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims
seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class that consists of people who own property or live
within one mile of the Company's plant. In July 2012, the Company
removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012, the District Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On August 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of
the District Court. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a
petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was
subsequently denied. In February 2014, the Company filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
seeking review and reversal of the Court of Appeals decision. On
June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a
writ of certiorari. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

NRG Energy, Inc., is a competitive power company that produces,
sells and delivers energy and energy services in major competitive
power markets in the U.S. while positioning itself as a leader in
the way residential, industrial and commercial consumers think
about and use energy products and services.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that mortgage servicer
Ocwen Financial Corp. faced a lawsuit over accusations it
committed fraud by overcharging borrowers in order to drive up its
own profits, according to a court filing.

The case, filed on Nov. 5 in a California federal court, was
brought by a borrower who said Ocwen charged him fees for an
escrow account he never authorized.  It alleges several claims,
including civil racketeering, as well as unspecified damages and
seeks class action status.

A representative for Ocwen did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The Atlanta-based mortgage servicer has faced criticism over its
practices for months.  In February, New York state financial
regulator Benjamin Lawsky stopped Ocwen from buying servicing
rights on 184,000 home loans with a total principal balance of $39
billion from Wells Fargo & Co.  He then asked for information
about potential conflicts of interest that might encourage Ocwen
to push borrowers into foreclosure.

Last month Lawsky sparked a selloff in Ocwen shares when he said
the company may have harmed hundreds of thousands of borrowers by
sending backdated letters about loan modifications and
foreclosures.

The civil lawsuit filed this week said Ocwen's practices
"exemplify how America's lending industry has run off the rails."

The case in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California is
David Weiner vs. Ocwen Financial Corporation and Ocwen Loan
Servicing LLC, 14-2597.


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Pension
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Griffith and Jeanette Wenzl, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health
& Services Cash Balance Retirement Plan v. Providence Health &
Services, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01720 (W.D. Wash., November 7,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly
sponsors, operates, and maintains benefit pension plan for more
than 73,000 employees in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Providence Health & Services operates a chain of hospital and
healthcare facilities covering much of the western United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Erin M. Riley, Esq.
      Laura Gerber, Esq.
      Havila Unrein, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail:lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             eriley@kellerrohrback.com
             lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
             hunrein@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Ron Kilgard, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 248-0088
      Facsimile: (602) 248- 2822
      E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Karen Handorf, Esq.
      Michelle Yau, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC.
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
              myau@cohenmilstein.com


QEP RESOURCES: Louisiana Supreme Court Dismissed Claim in "Gatti"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claim without prejudice as originally
ordered by the District Court, in the case Gatti et al v. State of
Louisiana et al, 589,350, 19th JDC, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In this putative class action arising out of the unitization
practices and orders of the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation
(Commissioner), plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all
Haynesville Shale mineral owners (alleged to be over 50,000 in
number) against the Commissioner and all Haynesville Shale unit
operators. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 8, 2010, and
claim that the Commissioner exceeded his statutory authority in
creating and perpetuating units larger than the area that can be
efficiently and economically drained by a single well. They seek
declaratory relief that would nullify all such improper orders,
along with an unspecified amount of monetary damages from the unit
operators sufficient to compensate the putative class members for
the alleged dilution of their true interest in unit production as
a result of "oversized" units and the "cloud on title" caused by
having excessive and improperly sized units purport to hold their
mineral leases via unit operations. All defendants filed
exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition on the primary ground that
plaintiffs had failed to comply with the exclusive statutory
judicial review procedure (Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:12),
which the trial court granted, dismissing the action in its
entirety.

On January 15, 2014, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
reversed and reinstated plaintiffs' claims. Defendants asked for
review by the Louisiana Supreme Court and on August 25, 2014, the
Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the
plaintiffs' claim without prejudice as originally ordered by the
District Court.

QEP is a holding company with two major subsidiaries, QEP Energy
Company and QEP Marketing Company, which are engaged in two
primary lines of business: (i) oil and gas exploration and
production (QEP Energy)and (ii) oil and gas marketing, operation
of the Haynesville Gathering System and a underground gas storage
reservoir (QEP Marketing and Other).


QEP RESOURCES: Class Certification Hearings Ongoing in Gagne Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearings are ongoing in the Yannick Gagne and
others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., No. 480-06-1-
132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada, QEP Resources,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained
damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and
property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a
class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous
defendants. The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer
defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in
North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the
derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer
defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was
adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors,
knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors
or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate
well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of
the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for
the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was
properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the
train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to
adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to
the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but
specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification
hearings are ongoing.

QEP is a holding company with two major subsidiaries, QEP Energy
Company and QEP Marketing Company, which are engaged in two
primary lines of business: (i) oil and gas exploration and
production (QEP Energy)and (ii) oil and gas marketing, operation
of the Haynesville Gathering System and a underground gas storage
reservoir (QEP Marketing and Other).


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Settlement Talks in Class Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that settlement
discussions are ongoing in certain class action cases.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
were named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state
courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain
Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and stockholders
of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into class-actions
and stockholder derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end
Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment
Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management"). Regions
Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were
transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion")
in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by
Hyperion.

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs
have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.
Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee has granted
final approval of a settlement in the closed-end Funds class-
action and shareholder derivative case as well as preliminary
approval of a settlement in a consolidated class action under the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Certain of the
shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and
proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with
Raymond James.

Regions provides a full range of banking and bank-related services
to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiaries and
branch offices located primarily in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas and Virginia.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: 11th Circuit Vacates Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated certification in
part and remanded the 2010 Claim to District Court for further
review of the class certification issue, Regions Financial
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and
certain former officers of Regions (the "2010 Claim"). The 2010
Claim alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including
allegations that materially false and misleading statements were
included in filings made with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief
and unspecified monetary damages. In June 2011, the trial court
denied Regions' motion to dismiss the 2010 Claim. In June 2012,
the trial court granted class certification. The Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals on September 5, 2014, vacated certification in
part and remanded the 2010 Claim to District Court for further
review of the class certification issue.

Regions provides a full range of banking and bank-related services
to individual and corporate customers through its subsidiaries and
branch offices located primarily in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas and Virginia.


RISTORANTE SIENA: "Peralta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Peralta, Angel Peralta, Andrit Gashi, Arben Hasanramaj and
Neziri Kastriot, on behalf of themselves and FLSA Collective v.
Ristorante Siena Corp. d/b/a Siena Ristorante, 115 Wolfs Lane
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a La Fontanella, and Mark Lasala, Case No.
1:14-cv-08894 (S.D.N.Y., November 7, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant within New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


ROCK OHIO: Faces "McPherson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew McPherson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rock Ohio Caesars Cleveland, LLC d/b/a Horseshoe
Casino Cleveland, Rock Ohio Caesars Cincinnati, LLC d/b/a
Horseshoe Casino Cincinnati, and Caesars Entertainment
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02475 (N.D. Ohio, November 7, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a casino-entertainment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      LAZZARO LAW FIRM
      920 Rockefeller Bldg.
      614 Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Woburn Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Carolyn J.
Logan, and Adam C. Derbyshire, Case No. 1:14-cv-08925 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 7, 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.

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company that
focuses on treatments for digestive system diseases and disorders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      Email: ckeller@labaton.com
             mstocker@labaton.com
             ravan@labaton.com


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Nov. 7 disclosed that it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of Woburn Retirement
System in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who, between November 8, 2013 and November 6, 2014,
inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.

If you purchased or acquired Salix securities during the Class
Period as defined above, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than January 6, 2015.  A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709 or
via email at ravan@labaton.com

If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://labaton.com/en/cases/Salix-Pharmaceuticals-Inc.cfm

Salix, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, is a pharmaceutical
company that focuses on treatments for digestive system diseases
and disorders. Its top-selling drug, XIFAXAN(R) (rifaximin)
("Xifaxan"), is an antibiotic that is currently approved to treat
traveler's diarrhea and a liver disorder that impairs brain
function.  Salix primarily sells its products through wholesalers,
which then resell and distribute the Company's products to and
through pharmacies.

The complaint charges Salix and certain of its present and past
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and concealed material information regarding deteriorating demand
for Xifaxan and other Salix drugs and wholesaler inventory levels
of Xifaxan and other Salix drugs, which were significantly greater
and rising more rapidly than revealed to investors.  The complaint
also claims that Salix's reserves for outstanding inventory were
understated and, because of this understatement, its reported
quarterly and annual net revenue and earnings per share figures
were overstated, and that Salix's disclosure controls and
procedures and its internal controls over financial reporting and
accounting were subject to material weaknesses

The true state of the demand for Xifaxan and other Salix drugs and
the consequences for the Company's business were revealed on
November 6 and 7, 2014, when Salix disclosed that: (1) its
longstanding Chief Financial Officer, Adam C. Derbyshire, had
abruptly resigned; (2) its wholesaler inventory levels were three
times greater than previously reported and the Audit Committee of
Salix's Board of Directors had retained outside counsel as part of
an inquiry into the Company's reporting of wholesale inventory of
Xifaxan and other drugs; and (3) its previously issued guidance
for full-year 2014 revenues would not be met and needed to be
reduced by 12.5 percent.  In reaction to these revelations,
Salix's stock price fell $47.08 per share, or 33.98 percent, to
close at $91.47 per share on extraordinary trading volume.

Plaintiff Woburn Retirement System is represented by Labaton
Sucharow.  Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com--
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with collective assets under management of
more than $2 trillion.  With nearly 60 full-time attorneys,
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its in-house
team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic
accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications.  Labaton Sucharow's offices are
located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.


SCHUFF INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on Nov. 7 disclosed that the firm has filed a
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of Schuff International, Inc.
The lawsuit challenges the merger of Schuff with and into HC2
Holdings, Inc., alleging that the deal undervalues Schuff stock,
which has recently traded above the offer price of $31.50 per
share.

For more information, visit:
http://zlk.9nl.com/schuff-international-shfk

On August 20, 2014, Schuff and its corporate parent and
controlling shareholder HC2 Holdings, Inc. announced that HC2
would acquire all remaining shares of Schuff for $31.50 in cash
per share.  HC2 is run by Philip Falcone, an investor who was last
year accused by the SEC of manipulating the stock market, and was
banned from the securities industry for five years.

If you own shares of Schuff and wish to participate in the action
or obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-
7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/schuff-international-shfk/

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.  For more information, please
feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below.


SEQWATER: Trial Date Set for Flood Victims' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Skynews.au reports that victims of southeast Queensland's
devastating 2011 floods have a trial date set for the largest
class action in Australian history.

The class action for approximately 4500 flood victims will be
heard in court on July 18, 2016, according to lawyers representing
the victims.  The date was handed down on Nov. 6 at the Federal
Court of Australia to the relief of victims, who claim dam
operators were negligent during the 2011 flood.

As the rain pelted down and water backed up, operators were forced
to make large water releases to prevent Wivenhoe dam from
collapsing.  The result was unnecessary flooding in Brisbane and
Ipswich to the west, lawyers have claimed.  Previous estimates
have suggested a possible compensation claim of AU$1 billion.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini says the trial date
may seem distant, but it's sooner than expected and there is a lot
of work to do.

Many of the victims, he said, thought it would never happen.

The action was lodged in NSW because there's no class action
regime in Queensland.


SEQWATER: Hearing Held on Flood Class Action
--------------------------------------------
612 ABC Brisbane reports that in 2011 much of Queensland was
underwater.  78% of Queensland was flood affected. 33 people died.

In July of this year, a class action was filed in the Supreme
Court seeking compensation for financial loss and damage caused by
the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams.

Damian Scattini from Maurice Blackburn lawyers represents the
class action and was back in court on Nov. 6.

Maurice Blackburn's claim was stuck out in its entirety by Judge
Garling in the NSW Supreme Court on the November 7, 2014.  Judge
Garling will hand down a decision on costs on November 14 but it
is expected that full costs will be awarded to the three
defendants (Seqwater, SunWater and the State of Queensland). Judge
Garling also ruled that unless Maurice Blackburn lodge a valid
claim by February 13, 2015, that contains suitable expert
supporting evidence, then the proceedings will be dismissed.  If
this happens the claim cannot ever go to trial.


SEQWATER: Queensland Seeks Dismissal of Wivenhoe Dam Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Madigan, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a
legal battle over the validity of the Wivenhoe Dam class action
was set to resume in a Sydney court on Nov. 6 as the Queensland
Government pursues its attempts to have the case dismissed.  If
successful, the massive class action, representing more than 4000
victims of the 2011 January floods in the state's southeast, could
reap hundreds of millions of dollars for claimants.

But the State Government has tried to have the matter dismissed
before evidence is heard, alleging a lack of detail in the claim
brought by Maurice Blackburn lawyers and backed by litigation
funder IMF.

Seqwater, which had control of Wivenhoe during the floods, is
defending the claims that dam engineers followed a flawed strategy
that led to much of the flooding.  Chief Executive Officer Peter
Dennis said the application to throw the matter out was related to
a lack of specifics in the claim.

Seqwater had expected the class action to contain evidence from
international experts outlining an alternative water-release
strategy that would have better protected householders.

"There is no reference to this modelling in the current claim,"
Mr. Dennis said.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini was confident the
class action would go ahead.  He described the Government's
tactics as typical of the legal skirmishes accompanying such
cases.

"Applications such as this are routine in class actions,"
Mr. Scattini said.

"Usually, there are many applications by both sides along the way.
Whatever happens, the class action will continue and our clients
will get their day in court."


SEQWATER: Wivenhoe Dam Class Action Faces Legal Hurdle
------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that more than 4000 flood victims of
alleged negligence by operators of Brisbane's Wivenhoe Dam in 2011
face a legal hurdle on Nov. 5 as lawyers for the Newman government
try to terminate their class action.

State-owned Seqwater was set to argue in the Supreme Court in
Sydney that the class action should be struck out.  The legal bout
represents an early bid by the insurers of Wivenhoe Dam,
potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of a multi-
billion-dollar damages claim.

The flood victims from the January 2011 Brisbane River disaster
are represented by Maurice Blackburn, with funding from litigation
funder IMF.  Flood victims have been told by the law firm that the
Queensland government-owned entities "seek orders that the claim
be struck out in its entirety -- that we be, in effect, ordered to
start again with a whole new statement of claim.  We believe that
we have the better argument and we are confident."

Peter Denniss, the head of Seqwater, said the NSW Supreme Court
strike-out action was based on "the lack of detail in the (class
action) claim."

"The public has been told for some time by the solicitors and
funders for the class action that modelling by international
experts has been undertaken to support an alternative water-
release strategy during the January 2011 flood event that shows
little or no flooding would have occurred," Mr. Denniss said on
Nov. 4.  "There is no reference to this modelling in the current
claim.

"The solicitors and funders for the class action have had more
than 3 1/2 years to prepare the claim.  Seqwater considers the
absence of any alternative water-release strategy to be a
fundamental flaw in the claim."

Damian Scattini, who has been managing the class action for
Maurice Blackburn, rejected the criticisms, and said there were
"terabytes of data" and a huge volume of material.  "Whatever
happens, the class action will continue and our clients will get
their day in court.  This application is no doubt the first of
many such skirmishes we will go through."

Maurice Blackburn said in July that its international experts were
highly confident the flooding from Wivenhoe Dam would have been
almost completely avoided.

The closed-door multimillion-dollar evidence-testing program by a
team of US-based hydrologists retained by the law firm has been
withheld from preliminary filings.  The hydrologists who performed
the work have also been shielded from public scrutiny.

The total payout in the event of a success by the Maurice
Blackburn-IMF combination could be as much as AU$2 billion to
compensate South East Queensland families and businesses for their
significant losses.

Wrongdoing has been emphatically denied by the operators of
Wivenhoe Dam.


SOUTH CHICAGO AUTO: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valdez" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Valdez, Genaro Romero, Alberto Chavoya, Luis Fuentes, AND
Ernesto Palafox, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. South Chicago Auto Auction, LLC, First
Marshall Auto Sales, LLC, Nadia Huzein, individually, and Khaldoon
Shakir, Case No. 1:14-cv-08982 (N.D. Ill., November 8, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that sells used cars.

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


STATE FARM: Bailey & Glasser Files Class Action in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey & Glasser LLP on Nov. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company and Seattle Service Bureau d/b/a National Service Bureau,
Inc. for consumer protection violations associated with requests
of bogus "AMOUNTS DUE" on collection letters seeking to collect
unliquidated debts on behalf of State Farm.   The case is
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  For updated information about
Bailey & Glasser LLP and this lawsuit, visit
www.baileyandglasser.com

The class action lawsuit contends that misleading payment demand
letters violate consumer protection laws because the amount is not
liquidated, has not been adjudicated or otherwise reduced to a
judgment by any court of law.  The lawsuit also contends that the
attempt to collect a debt that is not yet due violates consumers'
rights and constitutes a deceptive and unlawful business practice.
Unfortunately, many consumers simply pay the mischaracterized
"amounts due" without regard to whether any money is really owed.

The law firm of Bailey & Glasser LLP seeks to protect your rights,
especially if you were duped into submitting payment on a
misleading payment demand letter.  If you have received a
collections letter from National Service Bureau, Seattle Service
Bureau, or State Farm claiming that you owe an "AMOUNT DUE" please
visit our website at www.baileyandglasser.com.  Bailey & Glasser
LLP continues to investigate these collection practices and our
attorneys are available to discuss this matter with you in a free,
no-obligation consultation.

Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston,
West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP has grown to include nearly 50
lawyers, with offices in seven states and the District of
Columbia. The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-
stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers,
insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants;
catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and
whistleblower lawsuits.  The firm has extensive experience in
energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy
courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts.  It has a major
corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from
assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to
the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial
transactions.

Contact:

James Kauffman
(202) 463-2101
Bailey & Glasser LLP
jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Heninger Garrison Files Class Action Over GMO Corn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heninger Garrison Davis on Nov. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of corn and DDGS exporters,
distributors and farmers against Syngenta over sales of the GMO
corn seed Agrisure Viptera MIR 162. MIR 162 is not approved for
sale in China.  The Foxtrap Planting Co., LLC. vs. Syngenta AG.
(No. 3:14-cv-858-TSL-RHW. So. Dist. Miss.) lawsuit claims that
Syngenta knew, or should have known, that releasing MIR 162 into
the marketplace would lead to the contamination of U.S. corn
shipments and prevent U.S. corn from being sold to major export
markets such as China.  The class action court documents allege
that the resulting harm to exporters, distributors and farmers is
a significant reduction in revenue due to falling grain prices,
governmentally destroyed crops, and a lack of confidence in U.S.
sourced corn.

According to the Viptera lawsuit court documents, in November
2013, after Syngenta represented that China would soon approve MIR
162 for import, China began enforcing a zero tolerance policy
which banned any corn imports that contained even a trace of
Syngenta's MIR 162.  The presence of MIR 162 in many shipments
shut U.S. corn farmers out of China's grain import market, which
previously had been almost exclusively supplied by the United
States.  From November 2013 to March 2014, it is estimated that
China has blocked or destroyed over 887,000 tons of MIR 162 GMO
corn as well as additional shipments of GMO corn, much of it due
to Syngenta's MIR 162 contaminates.

In an April 2014 report, The National Grain and Feed Association
estimated that China's ban on the Syngenta GMO Corn has cost $2.9
billion in economic losses to the U.S. grain value chain.  As a
result of China's enforcement of its ban on any shipment with a
trace of MIR 162, its import of U.S. corn has fallen by 85
percent, according to the Syngenta lawsuit court documents, and
helped to drive corn prices to a five-year low.

Farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
are alleged to have been misinformed by Syngenta about the
prospects for Chinese approval of MIR 162 corn, according to court
documents.  It is believed that rather than waiting for China to
approve Viptera corn, Syngenta encouraged farmers to plant the GMO
corn to enhance its profit margins at the expense of the U.S.
grain industry.

Even if farmers did not plant this type of seed, they may have
suffered losses and may be eligible to participate in this GMO
corn lawsuit due to falling corn prices and the potential cross-
pollination of their crops.

To learn more about the available legal options, our China GMO
corn lawyers may be contacted at Heninger Garrison Davis for a
free evaluation by calling 1-800-617-CORN or completing an online
form at http://www.gmocornlawyer.com

Heninger Garrison Davis -- http://www.hgdlawfirm.com-- is
headquartered in Birmingham with offices in Atlanta, Los Angeles,
New Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C. and is involved in
litigation nationwide.  The firm focuses on Business Litigation,
Class Actions and Mass Torts, Intellectual Property and Personal


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Hearing on Settlement Postponed to November 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the hearing
date for the final approval of the Securities Class Action
Settlement Payment was originally scheduled for October 7, 2014,
but has been postponed to November 18, 2014.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount.

On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants reached
a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action.
Under the settlement in principle, the Defendants shall cause to
be paid $11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the "Securities
Class Action Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases,
dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other
material and customary terms and conditions.

On March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the
District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class
Action Settlement Payment. The District Court granted preliminary
approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment on June
4, 2014. The hearing date for the final approval was originally
scheduled for October 7, 2014, but has been postponed to November
18, 2014.

Synovus expects that, subject to execution of an appropriate
release of the Defendants' insurance carriers and other customary
acknowledgments by the Defendants, the Securities Class Action
Settlement Payment will be fully covered by insurance. There can
be no assurance that the settlement-in-principle will be finally
approved by the District Court. In the event the settlement-in-
principle of the Securities Class Action is not approved by the
District Court and finally settled, Synovus and the individually
named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the Securities Class Action.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company and a registered financial holding company headquartered
in Columbus, Georgia.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Settles Posting Order Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
has reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs' counsel to
settle the Posting Order Litigation.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company, a division of Synovus Bank, were named as
defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the
manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers
(Posting Order Litigation). The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus
Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for
alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus
Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its
POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting
from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs'
accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to
a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida.
In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.

On August 23, 2014, Synovus reached a settlement in principle with
plaintiffs' counsel to settle the Posting Order Litigation. Under
the settlement in principle, Synovus shall cause to be paid $3.75
million plus payment of $150,000 in settlement expenses (the
"Posting Order Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad
releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Posting Order Litigation
and other material and customary terms and conditions. There can
be no assurance that the settlement in principle will be approved
by the District Court. In the event the settlement in principle of
the posting Order Litigation is not approved by the District Court
and finally settled, Synovus intends to vigorously defend itself
against the Posting Order Litigation.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company and a registered financial holding company headquartered
in Columbus, Georgia.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Paid All Amounts Due Under Griner Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that substantially
all amounts owed by Synovus pursuant to the Griner Settlement have
been paid.

Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a putative state-wide
class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees
charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus
Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts ("the Griner Overdraft Litigation"). Plaintiffs contend
that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore
subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such
overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under
both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia
usury limits.

On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of
Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement (the "Griner Settlement") by and among Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein
as "Synovus"), and the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft
Litigation. Under the terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has
agreed to (1) establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims
and (2) pay an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the
plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each
purported class member in the Griner Overdraft Litigation will
give Synovus a full and final general release of all claims
alleged or that could be alleged in the Griner Overdraft
Litigation. The final fairness hearing on the Griner Settlement
was held on May 20, 2014, and the Griner Settlement was approved
by the Court. Substantially all amounts owed by Synovus pursuant
to the Griner Settlement have been paid as of the date of Form
10-Q Report.

Synovus Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company and a registered financial holding company headquartered
in Columbus, Georgia.


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Klinger" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Klinger, Kaiulani Muna, Robin Spence, Suketu Dalal,
Anthony Palmieri, Lyle Moore, Kathryn Tillisch, and Robin Holt, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08677 (C.D. Cal., November
7, 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:

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


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Primeaux" Suit Over Defective Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mimi Primeaux and Annie Mcadam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-02551 (E.D. La., November 7, 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:

      James R. Dugan II, Esq.
      DUGAN LAW FIRM
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal St., Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Settled Class Action for Immaterial Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the fourth
quarter of 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the State
of California against a TeleTech subsidiary and Google Inc.
("Google"), as co-defendants. Pursuant to its contractual
commitments, the Company has agreed to indemnify Google for costs
and expenses related to the complaint. The Company settled the
matter for an immaterial amount during the first quarter of 2014.

TeleTech Holdings, Inc. is a provider of customer strategy,
analytics-driven and technology-enabled customer engagement
management solutions with 41,700 employees delivering services
across 25 countries from 59 delivery centers on six continents.


TERRA DIRECTIONAL: "Grimes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Austen P. Grimes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terra Directional Services, LLC, Case No.
4:14-cv-03197 (S.D. Tex., November 7, 2014), seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Terra Directional Services, LLC is a Texas 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


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Puerto Rico JUA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the Joint Underwriting Association
Litigation, Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 18 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations
under the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and the local statute against organized crime and money
laundering. JUA is a private association created by law to
administer a compulsory public liability insurance program for
motor vehicles in Puerto Rico ("CLI"). As required by its enabling
act, JUA is composed of all the insurers that underwrite private
motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum
underwriting percentage established in such act. TSP is a member
of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600 treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch
as a suit cannot be brought, even under RICO, to amend the
compulsory liability insurance rates that were approved by the
Puerto Rico Legislature and the Commissioner of Insurance of
Puerto Rico.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April
4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of our motion to dismiss,
which was denied by the court. On October 2, 2012, the court
issued an order certifying the class. On October 12, 2012, several
defendants, including TSP, filed an appeal before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First District, requesting the court to vacate
the District Court's certification order. The First Circuit denied
the authorization to file the writ of appeals. Discovery is
ongoing.

Triple-S Management is one of the most significant players in the
managed care industry in Puerto Rico and has over 50 years of
experience in this industry.  The Company offers a broad portfolio
of managed care and related products in the Commercial and
Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and the Part D stand-alone
prescription drug plan ("PDP")) markets.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Dentist Assoc. Case Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Dentists Association Litigation, the court entered an
amended judgment to indicate that dismissal of the case was with
prejudice, Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
("Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico," in Spanish)
filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance against 24 health
plans operating in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.
The Company and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc.
("TCI"), were included as defendants. This litigation purports to
be a class action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are
similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150,000. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto Rico
Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed. On February 8, 2011, the federal district court in Puerto
Rico decided to retain jurisdiction. The defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the case on the merits. On August 31, 2011, the
District Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except for its
breach of contract claim, and ordered the parties to brief the
issue of whether the court still has federal jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs moved
the court to reconsider its August 31, 2011 decision and the
defendants did the same, arguing that the breach of contract claim
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On May
2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On May 31, 2012,
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
complaint and the denial of plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On September 25,
2012 the District Court denied without prejudice the defendants'
motion for reconsideration. On October 10, 2012 the parties filed
their briefs with respect to class certification.

On March 13, 2013, the district court denied plaintiffs' request
for class certification and ordered the parties to brief the court
on whether jurisdiction still exists under CAFA following such
denial. On April 24, 2013, all parties briefed the court on this
issue. On September 6, 2013, the District Court dismissed the
Dentist Association for lack of associational standing, leaving
only the individual dentists as plaintiffs. The court also granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend, on or before September 23, 2013, their
complaint to address mediation or settlement negotiations and, to
cure deficiencies pertaining to the breach-of-contract claims. On
December 23, 2013, five plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC") seeking damages in the amount of $30 in which
the dentists alleged that defendants altered the coding of the
claims billed by the dentist, resulting in a lower payment. Only
one of the five plaintiffs presented a claim against the Company.
On January 31, 2014, the Company answered the complaint. On April
11, 2014, TSS filed a motion to compel arbitration, as provided by
the claimant's provider contract. Court's decision on this motion
is still pending. On April 24, 2014, the Company and the claimant
filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, TSS and TCI continuing
as defendants. On June 4, 2014, TSS, TCI, and the remaining
plaintiff filed a joint notice of settlement and a request for
dismissal. On June 6, 2014 the court dismissed the claim as
requested by the parties. On June 26, 2014, the court entered an
amended judgment to indicate that dismissal of the case was with
prejudice.

Triple-S Management is one of the most significant players in the
managed care industry in Puerto Rico and has over 50 years of
experience in this industry.  The Company offers a broad portfolio
of managed care and related products in the Commercial and
Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and the Part D stand-alone
prescription drug plan ("PDP")) markets.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Blue Cross Antitrust Case in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litigation, Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Triple-S Salud, Inc. ("TSS") is a co-defendant with multiple Blue
Plans and the BCBSA in a multi-district class action litigation
filed on July 24, 2012 that alleges that the exclusive service
area ("ESA") requirements of the Primary License Agreements with
Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in these suits
seek monetary awards and in some instances, injunctive relief
barring ESAs. Those cases have been centralized in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Prior
to centralization, motions to dismiss were filed by several plans,
including TSS. Plaintiffs opposed TSS' motion to dismiss. On April
9, 2014, the Court held an argumentative hearing to discuss the
motions to dismiss. During the hearing, the Court did not issue a
ruling on the motions to dismiss thus, decision on said motions
are still pending. On June 18, 2014, the court denied TSS' motion
to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing. The Company has joined BCBSA in
vigorously contesting these claims.

Triple-S Management is one of the most significant players in the
managed care industry in Puerto Rico and has over 50 years of
experience in this industry.  The Company offers a broad portfolio
of managed care and related products in the Commercial and
Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and the Part D stand-alone
prescription drug plan ("PDP")) markets.


UMW INC: Faces "Rivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yovany Rivas, Luis Zamora, Fernando Garcia, and Ivan Rivera,
individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated
v. UMW, Inc. and Armen Muradyan, Case No. 1:14-cv-08985 (N.D.
Ill., November 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile machine shop.

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


UNITED STATES: Social Security Administration Settles Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. disclosed that nearly a decade after
Ronald Jantz, a deaf employee of the Social Security
Administration, filed a class action claim against his employer
alleging discrimination in promotions of employees with
disabilities, the parties on Nov. 5 jointly announced that the
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has
preliminarily approved a class-wide settlement designed to make
sweeping improvements to policies and processes impacting the
careers of employees with disabilities at the Social Security
Administration.  The Social Security Administration, with
approximately 60,000 current employees, is one of the largest
federal employers of employees with disabilities.  The class
action settlement will also provide monetary relief to employees
with "targeted disabilities."  Targeted disabilities are a subset
of disabilities that the EEOC, as a matter of policy, has
identified for special emphasis, and include deafness, blindness,
missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, epilepsy,
severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and
dwarfism. With no finding of wrongdoing or discrimination, the
parties set aside their differences and devoted their energy to
creating a dynamic package of relief and enhancements for past and
current SSA employees.

Specifically, the Settlement Agreement includes a package of
extensive programmatic changes that are designed to retain and
support employees with disabilities and to broadly enhance the
opportunities for career success and advancement of such
employees.  These programmatic changes include major revisions to
SSA's reasonable accommodation processes, technology processes,
training content, and provision of assistive supports for Agency
employees with disabilities. The reasonable accommodation changes,
in particular, will create a new centralized office where a
multidisciplinary team of specialists will promptly and expertly
handle requests that do not lend themselves to ready approval by a
first-line manager.

In addition to the sweeping package of programmatic changes, the
Settlement Agreement also establishes a separate fund of $9.98
million for the payment of claims to eligible class members, as
well as Class Counsel's legal fees and expenses, and payments to
Mr. Jantz and the other class agents, as well as administrative
costs.

Prior to settlement, this case had a protracted history. In 2008,
the EEOC certified the matter for treatment on a class-wide basis,
approving the request by Mr. Jantz and four other proposed class
agents to represent all current and former Social Security
Administration employees with targeted disabilities who applied
for a promotion and made a "best qualified list" without being
selected on one or more occasions since August 23, 2003.  The
timeframe of the class definition gave the case an eleven-year
reach at the time of settlement.  The Office of Federal Operations
(the EEOC's appellate body) affirmed the Administrative Judge's
class certification ruling in 2010, and the Administrative Judge
subsequently denied the Agency's motion to decertify the case in
light of the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, a seminal ruling in class action employment law.
The parties then successfully mediated their dispute with the
assistance of retired United States Magistrate Judge Diane Welsh
in Philadelphia.  On October 30, 2014, the Administrative Judge
granted preliminary approval to the class action settlement.

Berger & Montague, P.C. partner Shanon J. Carson, who represents
Mr. Jantz and the other class members, expressed pleasure that
"SSA was willing to work with us to settle this case that has been
pending for many years."  He added that "we are especially proud
that through our intense negotiations, SSA has agreed to implement
extensive changes to its policies and procedures that are intended
to transform the way that U.S. federal agencies handle reasonable
accommodations and career training and development, and we are
pleased that many members of the class will be able to experience
those changes during their tenure at the Agency. Commissioner
Colvin is to be commended for her efforts toward making SSA a
model employer of people with disabilities."

Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin likewise
applauded the Settlement Agreement reached by the Agency and Class
Counsel, stating that "the resolution of this longstanding dispute
reaffirms our steadfast commitment to a talented, diverse
workforce.  By ensuring that our employees have a path to career
advancement, we strengthen our capacity to fulfill our mission and
meet the needs of the public we serve."

Social Security Administration is represented by its Office of the
General Counsel. In addition to being represented by Shanon Carson
and Sarah Schalman-Bergen of Berger & Montague, P.C., the
Settlement Class is also represented by Daniel Goldstein and
Brooke Lierman of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP; Larry Paradis and
Christine Chuang of Disability Rights Advocates; and Todd
Schneider and Joshua Konecky of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
& Wotkyns LLP.

For further information about the settlement visit
www.ssadisabilityclassaction.com or contact:

Shanon Carson
Daniel Goldstein
Berger & Montague, P.C.
Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
1622 Locust Street
120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (215) 875-4656
Tel: (410) 962-1030
Email: scarson@bm.net
Email: dfg@browngold.com


UNITED STATES: Foster Mom Files Class Action Against DSS
--------------------------------------------------------
Clark Fouraker, writing for WLTX, reports that a Midlands foster
mom has filed a class action lawsuit against DSS alleging the
agency charged with protecting children has not provided services
her foster child is entitled to.

"The system failed her. I mean she kind of fell through the gaps,"
said the child's foster mom. We've protected the identity of the
foster mother in order to protect the identity of the foster child
who is a minor and a victim of sexual assault.

"I contacted DSS over 80 times," the foster mom said.  "When I do
contact DSS I leave messages.  So over 80 messages, voice mails
were left with DSS and no one has yet return my phone call."

During the first 8 years of her life, before she was in her foster
mom's case, the class action lawsuit says the child was a victim
of incest, sexual abuse, and forced into drug trafficking.

Last week, the 12 year old attempted suicide for the second time.

"She should be getting absolutely number one health insurance,
she's entitled to medicaid," the foster mom said. "Also, she
should be getting a caseworker making contact with her every 30
days."

Attorneys say last month, DSS agreed to provide more services.

"Medication, counseling, and a caseworker that day," the foster
mom said.  "Nothing has happened yet."

DSS Foster Care Caseworkers are supposed to see foster care
children at least every 30 days.

The family, however, says prior to the suicide attempt, they
haven't seen a foster care worker in 9 months.

"Intensive sexual trauma therapy.  This is what this child needs,"
said Attorney Robert Butcher.  "We're asking the court to order
DSS to do their job and put them under supervision so they start
to do their job."

In the suit, it's alleged that DSS ignored recommendations about
the little girls needs and care.

"She says I need a foster care worker and I need a medicaid card.
Frankly, if she had that card, she herself would go get these
services.  She knows what to do," Mr. Butcher said.

In fact, in recent years the little girls foster mom was named
state foster parent of the year.

In regards to the lawsuit, DSS says, "they are in the process of
evaluating their claims.  The agency will respond at the
appropriate time in a court of law."


VARIABLE ANNUITY: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports
that a Kanawha Circuit Court judge has denied a motion for summary
judgment in a class action alleging fraud, misrepresentation and
more on the part of The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company,
its agents and the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement
Board.

In 2008, plaintiff Cheryl Dougherty initiated the lawsuit against
VALIC, its agents and the CPRB.  She claimed that she, and other
teachers, were duped into selecting the VALIC annuity over their
existing retirement plan by the agents.

The annuity produced less and had fewer benefits than the
teachers' traditional pension.

Among the plaintiffs' claims: fraud, misrepresentation, joint
venture, civil conspiracy and unconscionability.

The named defendants are Ramona Cerra, John Cook, Greg Garrett,
Clarence Burdette, Luther Cope, all VALIC agents; Texas-based
VALIC; and the state CPRB.

The CPRB, the plaintiffs claim, breached its fiduciary duty to
them.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in 2011;
Kanawha Circuit Judge Carrie Webster denied the motion on Oct. 16.

Summary judgment is only appropriate when a case contains no
genuine issue of material fact for a jury to decide, meaning that
even if everything the plaintiffs alleged was true, a jury still
could not return a verdict in their favor under the law.

The basis for the summary judgment motion was the defendants'
belief that the teachers' cases were past the two-year statute of
limitations for fraud claims.  They argued the teachers should
have discovered evidence of their claims against VALIC based on
several events that occurred between 1992 and 2006.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that if that were the case, the
statute of limitations would have expired long before the
plaintiffs filed their case in 2008, and the teachers' cases would
have to be dismissed as a matter of law.

In her 15-page order, Webster sided with the plaintiffs.  She said
the facts did not require her to find that the teachers' claims
were past the statute of limitations.

"In this case, the Court must continue to be cognizant, despite
the argument of Defendants' counsel, of the fact that this case
deals with teachers and school employees, not financial experts,"
the judge wrote.

"Thus, whether (Dougherty's) level of knowledge and
sophistication, or lack thereof, should have reasonably caused her
to know of the wrongdoing she alleges in her complaint on or
before any of the triggering dates identified by the Defendants,
is a material fact that is reasonably in dispute, and thus a
question of fact for a jury."

Dougherty is being represented by The Bell Law Firm in Charleston.

The firm has been investigating the VALIC scam for several years.

"Our research has concluded that VALIC engaged in a systematic
scheme of hiring agents, with whom the teachers, school service
personnel and professional staff were familiar with as former
colleagues, prominent local citizens and/or apparently-credible
retirement consultants whom they could trust," the firm said in a
statement.

"We stand behind Judge Webster's most recent ruling and look
forward to progressing with the remainder of the litigation."

Until 1991, public school employees in West Virginia participated
in the Teachers' Retirement System, a defined benefit pension plan
wholly managed by the state.

By the early 1990s, the TRS had unfunded liabilities of more than
$3 billion.  In 1992, state lawmakers passed legislation creating
the state Teachers' Defined Contribution Plan, which the CPRB
administers.

Pursuant to the statute, teachers who were employed as of July
1991 could either remain in the TRS or transfer to the DCP. Those
hired after July 1991, and before the DCP closed to new
participants on July 1, 2005, automatically became participants in
the DCP.

The DCP offered a number of investment options, including the
VALIC annuity.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Plaintiff's Reply in Appeal Due November 21
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's reply in the appeal by Vonage Holdings Corp. in the
class action by Merkin & Smith, et al. is due November 21, 2014,
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United
States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge. On November 26,
2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the Complaint.  On December 4,
2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.

On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
decision denying Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration.  On March
6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings
pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on
March 26, 2014.  Vonage filed its appellate brief on September 24,
2014. Plaintiff's Reply is due November 21, 2014.

Vonage is a provider of communications services connecting
consumers and businesses through cloud-connected devices
worldwide.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Dismissal Bid Objection in Actos Case Due Nov 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Plaintiffs'
oppositions to the motion to dismiss in the Actos(R) antitrust
litigation are due November 21, 2014.

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (United Food and Commercial Workers Local
1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltc. Et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9244 and
Crosby Tugs LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., et al.,
S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9250) against Actavis plc and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson"
now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with
Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone
hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several
additional complaints have been filed (Fraternal Order of Police,
Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0116;
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-0644; A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-
1493; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.
Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1661; Painters District Council
No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,
et al., N.D.Ill. Civ. No. 14-1601; City of Providence v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 14-125; Minnesota
and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund
and Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and
Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.
Civ. No. 14-1691; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1788; New
England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-2424; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 14-2378; Dennis Kreish v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2137; Man-U Service
Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare
Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2846).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed. Prior to the filing of
the Painters District Council and City of Providence complaints,
plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal court in New York filed
a consolidated class action complaint. Plaintiffs in the Painters
District Council and City of Providence cases subsequently
voluntarily dismissed their complaints in Illinois and Rhode
Island, respectively, and refiled their complaints in the Southern
District of New York where all the cases have been referred to the
same judge.

Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20,
2014 (In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 13-
9244). The amended complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative
class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges an
overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch
of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial
payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on July 11, 2014. Rather than oppose the motions to
dismiss, plaintiffs amended their complaint on August 22, 2014.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10,
2014. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motion are due November 21,
2014.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Seeks to Dismiss Androgel Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
has moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed by indirect
purchaser plaintiffs related to Androgel(R).

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the September 2006 patent
lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote Androgel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties.

On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging
similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs
purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated
claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No.
EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228).

On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private
cases to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California
voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Watson without
prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs
in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on
May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to
include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of
Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ.
No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et
al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed
Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et
al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240);
(Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No.
10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ.
No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).

On April 20, 2009, Watson was dismissed without prejudice from the
Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey.
On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.

On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the
consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted Watson's motions to dismiss the complaints, except
the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include
allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of
the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's
action on April 21, 2010.

On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On
June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that
the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which
include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor
must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and
ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court Androgel Decision").

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA's
"Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in
the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge
presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the
LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action
as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22,
2010 order on the motion to dismiss.

In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and
the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on
June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including
Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion
for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September
28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
the defendants on all outstanding claims.

The plaintiffs then appealed. On September 12 and 13, 2013,
respectively, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed motions with the district court, asking
the court for an indicative ruling that it would vacate its final
order on the parties' summary judgment motions and conduct further
proceedings in light of the Supreme Court Androgel Decision,
should the Court of Appeals remand the case to the district court.

On October 23, 2013, the district court granted the motions. The
court of appeals remanded the case back to the district court
which has granted plaintiffs relief under Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, vacating the ruling from which
plaintiffs appealed. On August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on September 15, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Responses to Amicus Briefs Filed in Cipro Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that amicus briefs
have been submitted in an appeal to the California Supreme Court
related to Cipro(R) Litigation and the parties have filed
responses to such briefs.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group,
Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 cases
were filed against Watson, Rugby and other Company entities. Many
of these actions have been dismissed. Actions remain pending in
various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and
Florida. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged
in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

The action pending in Kansas, which the court previously
terminated administratively, has been reopened.  Plaintiffs' in
that case moved for class certification on February 21, 2014;
defendants' filed opposition to the class certification motion on
May 23, 2014. Class discovery ended on July 25, 2014 and
plaintiffs filed reply briefs in support of certification on
August 22, 2014. A hearing was held on October 28, 2014 on
defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing on class discovery.

There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and
Tennessee since 2003.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On August 31, 2009,
the California Superior Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24,
2009. On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed
the Superior Court's judgment.

On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
in the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the
California Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2012,
the California Supreme Court entered a stay of all proceedings in
the case pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court
in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving
Androgel. The California Supreme Court lifted the stay on June 26,
2013 following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that they have reached an agreement
to settle the claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been
dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue
claims against the generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby.
The remaining parties submitted letter briefs to the court
regarding the impact of the Supreme Court Androgel Decision.
Response briefs were submitted on February 14, 2014. Amicus briefs
were submitted on March 18, 2014 and the parties filed responses
to such briefs on April 24, 2014.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and
indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims
and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Jan. 7 Final Fairness Hearing in Doryx Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the final
fairness hearing on the indirect purchaser settlement in the Doryx
Litigation is scheduled for January 7, 2015.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne
prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner
Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective
economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. (Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., E.D.Pa. No. 12-cv-03824). In the complaint, Mylan seeks
unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported indirect purchasers, each
in the same court.

On December 5, 2013 an additional complaint was filed by the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund and on May 9, 2014, Laborers' Trust Fund for Northern
California filed a complaint each on behalf of additional groups
of purported indirect purchasers. Warner has moved to dismiss each
of these new complaints.

In each case the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices
for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner
Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying
generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief,
treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. The court consolidated the
purported class actions and the action filed by Mylan and ordered
that all the pending cases proceed on the same schedule.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne moved to dismiss the claims of Mylan,
the direct purchasers, the indirect purchasers and the retailers.
On November 21, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed with the
court an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' theory of
relief. On June 12, 2013, the court entered a denial, without
prejudice, of Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motions to dismiss. On
November 13, 2013, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement
in principle to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives for $15.0 million.

On February 18, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and held a hearing for final approval on June 9, 2014.
On April 18, 2014, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement
to settle the claims of the opt-out direct purchasers for $10.9
million. On May 29, 2014 Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an
agreement in principle to settle the claims of the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives for $8.0 million.

On July 11, 2014, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion
to approve the settlement with the court and on September 9, 2014
the court, after a hearing, issued an order preliminarily
approving this settlement. The final fairness hearing on the
indirect purchaser settlement is scheduled for January 7, 2015.

Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on
March 10, 2014. On June 2, 2014, the court vacated the trial date.
A new trial date has not been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation, and the Company can offer no
assurance as to when the lawsuits will be decided, whether the
Company will be successful in its defense and whether any
additional similar suits will be filed.

The plaintiffs collectively seek approximately $1.2 billion in
compensatory damages, which includes approximately $1.12 billion
in purported damages of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, opt-out
direct purchaser plaintiffs and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs with
whom the company has settled. The Company believes the damage
amounts are unfounded and without merit. However, any award of
compensatory damages could be subject to trebling. If the
remaining claims are successful such claims could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operation and
cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Retailers' Action Over Doryx Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four
retailers, including HEB Grocery, Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc.
and Walgreen Co., filed on February 5, 2013, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania a civil antitrust
complaint in their individual capacities against Warner Chilcott
and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). (Walgreen Co., Safeway, Inc.,
Supervalu, Inc. and HEB Grocery Co, LP. v. Warner Chilcott Public
Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-00658). On March 28, 2013,
another retailer, Rite Aid, filed a similar complaint in the same
court. (Rite Aid Corp. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et
al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-01644). Both retailer complaints recite
similar facts and assert similar legal claims for relief to those
asserted in the related cases filed by purported direct purchasers
and indirect purchasers and the action filed by Mylan. Both
retailer complaints have been consolidated in those related
actions.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Oral Argument Scheduled in Lidoderm Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that oral argument
on the motion to dismiss Lidoderm (R) Litigation was scheduled for
November 5, 2014.

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court (Drogueria Betances, Inc. v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-06542) against
Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's
2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches,
"Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of
putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges
that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo
Pharmaceuticals in violation of federal and state antitrust and
consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.

Additional lawsuits contain similar allegations have followed on
behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers (Rochester Drug
Cooperative, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa.
Civ. No. 13-7217; American Sales Co. LLC, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0022; Cesar Castillo, Inc. v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0569)
and suits filed on behalf of a putative class of end-payer
plaintiffs (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v.Teikoku Pharma
USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5257; Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Teikoku
Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5280; City of
Providence v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No.
13-771; Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers - Employees Health
and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., D.Minn.
Civ. No. 13-3399; Pirelli Armstrong Retiree Medical Benefits Trust
v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378;
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund
v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5938;
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0057;
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 Health &
Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ.
No. 14-0092; Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare
Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., C.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-
0289; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0503; Teamsters Local Union 115
Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0772; Roller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0792; Welfare Plan of the International
Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R v.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378;
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-1141; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund
v. Endo Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-
1548; Irene Kampanis v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1562).

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed. On December 23, 2013,
plaintiffs in the United Food and Commercial Workers action filed
a motion with the JPML to have all the Lidoderm(R) antitrust cases
consolidated in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in
several of the other actions filed objections and argued for
consolidation in districts where their suits were filed. The
motion was heard by the JPML at a hearing on March 27, 2014 and on
April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in the Northern
District of California. (In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, N.D.
Cal., MDL No. 14-2521).

An initial case conference was held on May 9, 2014 after which the
court issued a schedule order. Pursuant to that order, on June 13,
2014 the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed amended
and consolidated complaints. The defendants thereafter filed a
joint motion to dismiss on July 28, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the joint motion on September 8, 2014. Defendants
filed reply briefs on October 14, 2014. Oral argument on the
motion is scheduled for November 5, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Bid to Stay Loestrin(R) 24 Case Due Nov. 21
------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
has until November 21, 2014 to move to stay the opt-out direct
purchasers' action related to Loestrin(R) 24.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner
Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et
al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew
its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health
Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa.,
Civ. No. 13-02000).

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors (A.F.
of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et
al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale
Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co.,
et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014). Electrical Workers 242 and 294
Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al.,
E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott
Public Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307).

In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC
v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347
and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US),
LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476).

On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these
cases in one federal district court. After a hearing on September
26, 2013, the JPML issued an order conditionally transferring all
related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District
of Rhode Island. (In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation,
D.R.I. MDL No. 13-2472). A preliminary hearing was held on
November 4, 2013 after which an amended, consolidated complaint
was filed on December 6, 2013.

On February 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs'
filed oppositions to the motion on March 24, 2014 and the Company
filed its responses on April 23, 2014. A hearing was held on June
27, 2014 on the motion to dismiss and on September 4, 2014, the
court granted the motion.

On October 6, 2014, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal of the district court's opinion and on October 20, 2014,
they filed a motion for entry of a final judgment. Also, on
October 20, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the court's September 4, 2014 opinion and
the Company filed a motion for leave to move to stay the action
brought by a group of opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The Company has until November 21, 2014 to move to stay the opt-
out direct purchasers' action. The Company anticipates additional
claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Final Approval Granted for Celexa/Lexapro Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
granted final approval for the settlement in the Celexa
(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions.

Forest Laboratories Inc. and certain of its affiliates are
defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of
individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the
caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation." These actions, two of which were originally filed as
putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative
California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid
illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar
claims, including claims under the Missouri and California
consumer protection statutes, respectively, and state common laws.

On February 5, 2013, the district judge overseeing the MDL denied
all plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On February 18,
2013, the plaintiff in the California action filed a petition
seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit.

On April 16, 2013, the First Circuit denied the petition. On April
30, 2013, plaintiffs in the other two actions filed an Amended
Complaint seeking to certify state-wide class actions in Illinois,
Missouri, and New York under those states' consumer protection
statutes.

On January 13, 2014, the district judge denied plaintiffs' motion
with respect to the proposed Illinois and New York classes and
allowed it with respect to the proposed Missouri class.

The Company said, "We filed a petition seeking leave to appeal
this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
on January 27, 2014. On March 12, 2014, we reached agreement with
the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including
claim by both individuals and third party payors that purchased
Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December
31, 2013. In exchange for a release from class members, Forest
will pay $7.65 million into a fund that will cover (1) the
settlement benefits paid to class members, (2) administration
costs, (3) incentive awards to be paid to the representative
plaintiffs, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. If valid claims are
greater than $4.215 million, Forest will pay up to $2.7 million
more to pay for the additional valid claims (the total settlement
payment shall not exceed $10.35 million). The district court judge
preliminarily approved the settlement on March 14, 2014 and issued
an order enjoining all class members and other persons from
litigating claims relating to those covered by the settlement. On
September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the
settlement."


WARNER CHILCOTT: Forest Labs Files Opposition Brief in Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Forest
Laboratories Inc. filed its opposition brief in an appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of individuals who
purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that the
Company's promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has
been deceptive. This action was transferred to the Multi-District
Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and
Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation" and, on July 29,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. The district
court judge granted Forest Laboratories Inc.'s motion to dismiss
on March 5, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on March 17, 2014 and filed
its appeal brief on July 24, 2014. Forest filed its opposition
brief on August 25, 2014.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Minnesota Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a hearing was
held on October 1, 2014, on the Company's motin to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint filed in Minnesota by third-party payor
entities related to Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota seeking to certify a
nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was
transferred to the Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation", and the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on January 15, 2014.

On February 5, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
complaint and filed a First Amended Complaint, which, among other
things, added claims on behalf of a Minnesota class of entities
and consumers under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on
April 9, 2014. A motion hearing was held on October 1, 2014.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Hearing Held on Bid to Nix Massachusetts Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a hearing was
held on October 1, 2014, on the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint filed in Massachusetts by third-party payor entities
related to Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by two third-party payors
seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that
purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes,
and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-
label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

"We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 30, 2014. A
motion hearing was held on October 1, 2014," the Company said.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Washington Action Joined With Other Celexa Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that an action was
filed on August 28, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Civ. No. 14-1339) seeking to
certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of
Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims
under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme
and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions
of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). On October 14, 2014, the court
entered a conditional transfer order to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts where it has
been consolidated with the other actions pending in that court
relating to marketing of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).


WARNER CHILCOTT: Celexa and Lexapro Action in Missouri Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class
action related to Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) filed in Missouri is
stayed in light of the injunction contained in the MDL Preliminary
Approval Order.

Forest Laboratories Inc. and certain of its affiliates are named
as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or
individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri
Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, and arising from
similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions. The
first action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St.
Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "We have reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to resolve this action for payments that are not
material to our financial condition or results of operations. The
second action, filed on July 22, 2009 under the caption "Crawford
v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," and now known as "Luster v.
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on
behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the
court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who
purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the
date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim
for personal injury."

"On December 9, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was argued on January 8, 2014. On February 21, 2014, we
filed a motion to de-certify the class. Decisions on these motions
are pending. On March 12, 2014, we informed the judge of the MDL
Missouri class settlement, including that the federal class
encompasses the members of the certified Missouri class in Luster.
At a status conference on April 2, 2014 the parties agreed that
the action is stayed in light of the injunction contained in the
MDL Preliminary Approval Order. We intend to continue to
vigorously defend against this action. At this time, we do not
believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the
results of operations or financial position taken as a whole."


WARNER CHILCOTT: Dec. 8 Oral Argument in Columbia Lab Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the appeal in the Columbia Laboratories, Inc.
Securities Litigation likely will be held on December 8, 2014,
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On June 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories' stock
purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between
December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Watson and certain of its
officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its
officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the
likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of
Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories'
developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth. Watson
licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in
July 2010. The amended complaint further alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the
statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia
Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of
Prochieve(R). The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On August
14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims in the amended complaint, which the court granted on June
11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 11,
2013. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint on August 9, 2013.

On October 21, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the
court also ruled that if the plaintiffs seek to further amend the
complaint, they must file a motion within thirty days seeking
permission to do so. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on the district court's motion to dismiss ruling
and filed their opening appellate brief on March 20, 2014.

Respondents' briefs in the appeal were filed on April 9, 2014. The
oral argument on the appeal likely will be held on December 8,
2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
it intends to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company
maintains insurance to provide coverage for the claims alleged in
the action. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. The action,
if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient
coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Accord Reached in Forest Labs Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs
in the Forest Laboratories Securities Litigation in Delaware and
New York and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of
understanding, Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In February and March 2014, nine putative stockholder class
actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis
plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and have been consolidated under
the caption "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation" (the "Delaware Action"). Five actions were filed in
New York State Supreme Court and have been consolidated under the
caption "Turberg v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al." (the "New
York Action").

On April 4 and May 5, 2014, respectively, the Delaware and New
York plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in their
respective jurisdictions. The amended complaints seek, among other
remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or
damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails
to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction.
The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its
affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches.

On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and the New York Action
regarding a settlement of both Actions, and that agreement is
reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the
settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed transaction with Actavis, which are contained in a Form
8-K filed May 28, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction, the merger
agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
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.
At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would
have a material effect on the results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Settlement Reached in Furiex Securities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs
in the Delaware Actions and the North Carolina Actions in Furiex
Securities Litigation, Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought
against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and
Furiex's board of directors. Two actions were brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery under the captions "Steven Kollman v.
Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." and "Donald Powell v. Furiex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." (the "Delaware Actions"). Two
actions were brought in North Carolina state court under the
captions "Walter Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." and "Christopher Shinneman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al." (the "North Carolina Actions").

These actions alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Furiex Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate process. These actions also alleged that Forest
aided and abetted these alleged breaches. These actions sought
class certification, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex,
and an award of unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts'
fees, and other costs. The Kollman and Nakatsukasa actions also
sought recission of the acquisition and unspecified recissory
damages if the acquisition was completed.

On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions and the North Carolina
Actions regarding a settlement of all four actions, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Furiex agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed transaction with the Company,
which are contained in a Form DEFA14A filed June 23, 2014.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the North Carolina state court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all four actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that
will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the actions. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the North Carolina 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.


WARNER CHILCOTT: No Trial Date Yet on Cert. Motion in Mo. Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in the plaintiff's motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008, Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

The case is Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation - Medical
West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of
the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-
CC00257).

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, alleging conversion and alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and
Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In
April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda
as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by sending
unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the
class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be
willful. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third
parties.

In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint,
denying the allegations. In November 2009, the court granted
plaintiff's motion to expand the proposed class of plaintiffs from
individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission
or an established business relationship to "All persons who on or
after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent
telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and
products by or on behalf of Defendant."

In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs.

On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the
plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members
who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant,
or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending
resolution of Anda's petition to the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"). On April 11, 2011, the court denied the
motion.

On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed their motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008. The motion has been briefed. However, the
court granted Anda's motion to vacate the class certification
hearing until similar issues are resolved in either or both the
pending Nack litigation or with the FCC Petition. No trial date
has been set in the matter.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Court Reentered Stay in Physicians Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the class
action filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc., following the
expiration of the sixty day period, the court lifted the stay but
reentered it sua sponte.

On May 1, 2012, an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") was filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.,
purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax numbers in the
United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising
pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent." (Physicians
Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. S.D. Fla., Civ. No. 12-60798). On
July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The
parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition and the FCC's recently filed Public
Notice which the court granted, staying the action for sixty days.
On April 17, 2014 following the expiration of the sixty day
period, the court lifted the stay but reentered it sua sponte on
May 23, 2014.


WARNER CHILCOTT: St. Louis Heart Center Case Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the putative
class action brought by the St. Louis Heart Center ("SLHC")
remains stayed pending the administrative proceeding initiated by
the pending FCC Petitions.

In October 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates
were named as a defendant, along with The Peer Group, Inc.
("TPG"), in a putative class action brought by the St. Louis Heart
Center ("SLHC") under the caption "St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v.
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and The Peer Group, Inc." The action
is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri. On May 17, 2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint, alleging that Forest and TPG violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec.  227 ("TCPA"), on behalf of
a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years
prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile
messages of material advertising the commercial availability of
any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants,
which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain
regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC"). The Fourth Amended Complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the
violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, interest, and
injunctive and other relief. On July 17, 2013, the district court
granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the
administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petitions,
including any appeal therefrom.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," the Company said.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Forest Labs Files Answer to "Barrett" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories filed an answer to the complaint "Megan
Barrett et al. v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.", Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants in an action brought by Megan Barrett,
Lindsey Houser, Jennifer Jones, and Jennifer Seard, former Company
Sales Representatives, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption "Megan Barrett et al. v.
Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc." In
November 2012, Plaintiffs amended the complaint, adding six
additional plaintiffs: Kimberly Clinton, Erin Eckenrode, Julie
Smyth, Marie Avila, Andrea Harley, and Christy Lowder, all of whom
alleged that they were current or former Company Sales
Representatives or Specialty Sales Representatives. In March 2013,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding one additional
plaintiff: Tracy Le, a now-former Company Sales Representative.

The action is a putative class and collective action, and the
Second Amended Complaint alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII
gender class includes all current and former female Sales
Representatives (defined to include Territory Sales
Representatives, Field Sales Representatives, Medical Sales
Representatives, Professional Sales Representatives, Specialty
Sales Representatives, Field Sales Trainers, and Regional Sales
Trainers) employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to
the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-
class includes all current and former female Sales Representatives
who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the
Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The
proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current,
former, and future female Sales Representatives who were not
compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during
the applicable liability period.

The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act. We filed a motion to dismiss certain claims
on April 29, 2013, which was argued on January 16, 2014.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the motion
granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the
plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead limiting the
proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and
dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs' claims. Forest
filed an answer to the complaint on October 27, 2014.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
At this time, we do not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole," the Company said.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Defendant in 217 Actonel Product Liability Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Warner
Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 217 cases and a potential
defendant with respect to approximately 378 unfiled claims
involving a total of approximately 603 plaintiffs and potential
plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel(R) caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either
federal or state courts in the United States. Warner Chilcott is
in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations. The 378
unfiled claims involve potential plaintiffs that have agreed,
pursuant to a tolling agreement, to postpone the filing of their
claims against Warner Chilcott in exchange for Warner Chilcott's
agreement to suspend the statutes of limitations relating to their
potential claims.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product
liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott
in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification.

Of the approximately 607 total Actonel(R)-related claims,
approximately 76 include ONJ-related claims, approximately 514
include AFF-related claims and approximately four include both ONJ
and AFF-related claims. In some of the cases, manufacturers of
other bisphosphonate products are also named as defendants.
Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner Chilcott is
reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

Sanofi, which co-promoted Actonel(R) with Warner Chilcott in the
United States through the end of 2013 pursuant to a collaboration
agreement, is a defendant in some of Warner Chilcott's Actonel(R)
product liability cases. Sanofi and Warner Chilcott continue to
co-promote Actonel(R) in other countries pursuant to the
collaboration agreement. Under the collaboration agreement, Sanofi
has agreed to indemnify Warner Chilcott, subject to certain
limitations, for 50% of the losses from any product liability
claims in Canada relating to Actonel(R) and for 50% of the losses
from any product liability claims in the United States and Puerto
Rico relating to Actonel(R) brought prior to April 1, 2010, which
included approximately 90 claims relating to ONJ and other alleged
injuries that were pending as of March 31, 2010.

Pursuant to the April 2010 amendment to the collaboration
agreement, Warner Chilcott will be fully responsible for any
product liability claims in the United States and Puerto Rico
relating to Actonel(R) brought on or after April 1, 2010. Warner
Chilcott may be liable for product liability, warranty or similar
claims in relation to products acquired from The Procter & Gamble
Company ("P&G") in October 2009 in connection with Warner
Chilcott's acquisition (the "PGP Acquisition") of P&G's global
branded pharmaceutical's business ("PGP"), including ONJ-related
claims that were pending as of the closing of the PGP Acquisition.
Warner Chilcott's agreement with P&G provides that P&G will
indemnify Warner Chilcott, subject to certain limits, for 50% of
Warner Chilcott's losses from any such claims, including
approximately 88 claims relating to ONJ and other alleged
injuries, pending as of October 30, 2009.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Provides Updates on Alendronate Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
Alendronate Litigation.

Beginning in 2010, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate, for personal
injuries including femur fractures and ONJ allegedly arising out
of the use of alendronate.

Approximately 134 cases are pending against Actavis and/or its
affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing
claims by approximately 177 plaintiffs. These cases are generally
at their preliminary stages. Fifty-two lawsuits also name as a
defendant Cobalt Laboratories, which Watson acquired in 2009 as
part of its acquisition of the Arrow Group, in connection with
Cobalt's manufacture and sale of alendronate. Twenty cases naming
the Company and/or its affiliates were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) matter
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2243).

In 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss all of the cases
then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL. The Third
Circuit affirmed. Any cases filed against the Company in the
District of New Jersey MDL after the Court's January 2012
dismissal are subject to a case management order that calls for
their dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims
should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. To date, no
plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the District of
New Jersey against the Company has moved for such exemption and
all such cases have been dismissed.

Eleven other cases were part of an MDL in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the
Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in
part, that motion to dismiss, which has resulted in the dismissal
of eight cases. The Company has also been served with nine cases
that are part of consolidated litigation in the California
Superior Court (Orange County). The Orange County Court partially
granted a similar motion to dismiss, but the Company has not yet
been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed
against and served on it. Generic drug manufacturers similarly
situated to the Company have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for
review of the California decision. All cases pending in state
courts in Kentucky and Missouri have been discontinued against the
Company. The remaining 122 active cases are part of a mass tort
coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Atlantic County. In that state court proceeding, the Court
granted, in part, a motion to dismiss. As a result, the Company
has obtained the stipulated dismissal of 297 cases. Due to a
recent reorganization of the mass tort docket in the State of New
Jersey, the coordinated alendronate proceedings will be
transferred to Middlesex County some time before the end of 2014.
The Company has not yet determined what affect, if any, the
transfer of venue will have on the New Jersey state court
litigation. The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our
indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: 7 Trials Set in 2015 Related to Celexa & Lexapro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there are no
trials presently scheduled in 2014 and seven trials are scheduled
in 2015 related to the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Litigation.

Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants in 12
actions involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused
or contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or
caused a violent event. The Multi-District Litigation that was
established for the federal suicidality-related litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has
concluded and the remaining cases have been remanded to the
federal district courts in which they were filed originally. The
Company was granted summary judgment in the first case set for
trial. There are no trials presently scheduled in 2014 and seven
trials are scheduled in these actions in 2015.

Approximately 200 of the actions against Forest and its affiliates
involve allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various
birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-
plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated
in Cole County Circuit Court in Missouri. One action is set for
trial in Cole County in November 2015. Multiple actions also were
filed in New Jersey and at present there are 10 actions pending in
Hudson County, New Jersey. One action is pending in Orange County,
California and is set for trial in June 2015. Of the actions
pending in other jurisdictions none are set for trial.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Discovery Ongoing in 4 Fentanyl Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there are
approximately four cases involving Fentanyl Transdermal System
that remain pending against the Company in state and federal
courts that have not been resolved. Discovery is ongoing.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Actavis and other Company affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of fentanyl transdermal system
products, for personal injuries or deaths allegedly arising out of
the use of the fentanyl transdermal system products. Actavis
settled the majority of these cases in November 2012. Since that
time, additional cases have been resolved individually and/or are
in the process of being resolved. There are approximately four
cases that remain pending against the Company in state and federal
courts that have not been resolved. Discovery is ongoing.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flow


WARNER CHILCOTT: 1,180 Metoclopramide Cases Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that approximately
1,180 cases remain pending related to Metoclopramide.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,180 cases remain
pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and
federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs.
Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the
Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either
initiating or defending appeals on such motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company
believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these
cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do
not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: 9th Circuit Not Yet Ruled on Rehearing of Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the
rehearing of defendants' appeal related to the Propoxyphene
Litigation.

Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,385
plaintiffs. Approximately 77 of the cases naming Watson were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district
litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (In re: Darvocet,
Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2226). Four of the MDL cases were voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiffs with prejudice.

On June 22, 2012, the court hearing the MDL cases granted the
generic defendants' joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL
cases. Approximately 34 of the dismissed cases were appealed by
the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit issued its opinion affirming
the District Court's dismissal of the generic defendants in all
respects.

It is anticipated that the plaintiffs will seek further review by
the United States Supreme Court. They have 90 days from the
issuance of the Sixth Circuit's decision within which to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court.  Plaintiffs have not filed such petition to date.

In addition to the 77 consolidated cases, the MDL court remanded
seven additional cases to California state court. Defendants
jointly filed a petition with the Sixth Circuit to appeal that
remand, which petition was denied, as was the subsequently filed
petition for rehearing on the petition to appeal. The Sixth
Circuit's Order denying Defendants' petition for rehearing was
recently vacated due to the Ninth Circuit's granting of a petition
for en banc rehearing on the same issue. The Ninth Circuit case
involves remand by a federal court in California to state court in
a propoxyphene case involving the same defendants. The Sixth
Circuit has now stayed these 7 cases pending the ruling of the
Ninth Circuit on the issue. Approximately 35 of the cases naming
Watson or its affiliates have been consolidated in a state court
proceeding pending in the Superior Court of California in Los
Angeles.

After the consolidation, the defendants jointly removed all of the
cases to various US District Courts in California after which
counsel for the plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state
court. The various US district Court Judges granted the motions.
The defendants jointly appealed the remand of these cases to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
granting of the motions to remand. The defendants then jointly
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the
defendants' appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the defendants'
Petition and oral argument was heard on June 26, 2014. The Ninth
Circuit has not yet ruled on the rehearing of defendants' appeal.

Depending on the Ninth Circuit's ruling, these cases will either
be sent back to the MDL court (which is expected to dismiss them
on the same basis on which it dismissed the other cases against
the generic defendants) or they will be remanded to the California
state court to be litigated in that forum. If the cases return to
state court, they will be in their preliminary stages and the
Company intends to file demurrers and/or motions to dismiss. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Claims Over Testosterone Products Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the federal
actions related to injury claims from testosterone products have
been consolidated into MDL 2545.

Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R). Actavis,
Inc. and one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in 18
currently pending federal court actions.

On June 6, 2014 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered all federal actions claiming injury from testosterone
products be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (In re
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation,
MDL 2545). Accordingly, the federal actions have been consolidated
into MDL 2545.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. These
cases are in the initial stages and discovery has not yet
commenced. The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance
does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


WARNER CHILCOTT: 8 Zarah Product Liability Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a number of
product liability suits, eight (8) in total, are pending against
the Company and/or certain of its affiliates as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of oral contraceptive products for
personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of the generic
oral contraceptive, Zarah(R).  All of the actions are consolidated
in the Yaz/Yasmin Multidistrict Litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The injuries alleged include, but are not limited to, pulmonary
emboli, deep vein thrombosis, and gallbladder disease. These cases
are in the initial stages and discovery has not yet commenced. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if our insurance does not provide sufficient
coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: December 2014 Hearing to Approve Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing seeking the Court's final approval of the settlement in
the case Jeri Connolly et al. v. Weight Watchers North America,
Inc., is scheduled for December 2014, Weight Watchers
International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In August 2013, the Company was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel
in the previously filed and settled Sabatino v. Weight Watchers
North America, Inc. case, threatening to file a new class action
on behalf of the Company's current and former service providers in
California asserting various wage and hour claims, including but
not limited to claims for unpaid overtime and minimum wage
violations, which allegedly accrued after the effective date of
the Sabatino settlement.  On March 17, 2014, the parties came to
an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class-wide
basis for $1,688.

On April 29, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding to document the terms and conditions of settlement
and, the following day, plaintiffs filed a complaint regarding the
claims at issue in the Northern District of California. On June
11, 2014, the parties filed a formal settlement agreement and
other required documents for the Court's preliminary approval. On
July 21, 2014, the parties received the Court's preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement.  On August 11, 2014, notices
of settlement were sent out to the class members advising them of
the settlement and their right to object or opt-out of the
settlement; no class members did so by the deadline of September
22, 2014.

A hearing seeking the Court's final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for December 2014, and on October 15, 2014 the parties
filed a joint motion for the Court's final approval in
anticipation of that hearing.  The Company believes that its
previously recorded reserve is adequate with respect to this
matter.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss In re Weight Watchers
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012
and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages on behalf of the class members.

In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the
Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013
and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously
named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. The Company continues to believe that the suits
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


WILKINS REBUILDERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Cano-Oliva and Luz Estrada-Munoz, individually and on behalf
of other employees similarly situated v. Wilkins Rebuilders
Supply, Inc., and Peter Wilkins, Case No. 1:14-cv-08983 (N.D.
Ill., November 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of supplying used truck
and auto parts.

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


WORLD WRESTLING: Stoll Berne Files Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kish, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports that
Portland law firm Stoll Berne has filed a class action lawsuit
against World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. that alleges the
company knowingly subjects wrestlers to concussions and brain
damage.

"Under the guise of providing 'entertainment,' WWE has, for
decades, subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality
that it knew, or should have known, caused long-term irreversible
bodily damage, including brain damage," Stoll Berne attorneys
Steven Larson and Joshua Ross wrote in the lawsuit.  "For most of
its history, WWE has engaged in a campaign of misinformation and
deception to prevent its wrestlers from understanding the true
nature and consequences of the injuries they have sustained."
The lawsuit was filed last month in federal court in Oregon.  It
seeks to prove damages at trial.

The plaintiff is Portland resident William Albert Haynes III, who
wrestled with the stage name Billy Jack Haynes.  The lawsuit notes
numerous examples of wrestlers with serious head injuries,
including Chris Benoit, who killed his wife, son and himself in
2007.  A doctor who examined Mr. Benoit's brain post-mortem said
it "resembled the brain of an 85-year-old Alzheimer's patient,"
according to the lawsuit.

"Billy Jack Haynes' lawsuit against WWE is an example of 'throwing
everything against the wall to see if anything could possibly
stick," the company said in a statement.

In its most recently quarterly filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the company also acknowledged the lawsuit and
said it "believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself."

Stoll Berne is known for high-profile lawsuits.  It played a key
role in lawsuits related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill that
resulted in a $2.5 billion initial settlement and spanned two
decades.

The lawsuit comes as similar concussion litigation against the NFL
nears an end.  The settlement will cost the league more than $870
million.

World Wrestling Entertainment is based in Stamford, Conn.  It had
$508 million in 2013 revenue.


ZAGG INC: 10th Cir. Appeal in Consolidated Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in a consolidated class action against Zagg Inc. is now
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

On September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company,
Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as well as
Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and CEO, and
Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of the
Company's Board of Directors.  The cases are James H. Apple, et
al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah,
2:12-cv-00852; Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859.

These lawsuits were subsequently amended by a complaint filed on
May 6, 2013. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between October 15, 2010 and
August 17, 2012.  The plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr.
Pedersen's alleged December 2011 margin account sales, the
defendants initiated a succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as
the Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either
the succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in
violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5
and 14a-9, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
(the "Court") consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and
assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and
on May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July
5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On June
17, 2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief appealing
the Courts decision with respect to some of their claims. The
appeal is now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

ZAGG Inc is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has an
international office located in Shannon, Ireland. The Company
designs, produces, and distributes professional and premium
creative product solutions such as InvisibleShield(R) screen
protection, keyboards for tablet computers and mobile devices,
keyboard cases, earbuds, mobile power solutions, cables, cases,
Bluetooth speakers, and cleaning accessories for mobile devices
under the ZAGG and InvisibleShield family of brands. In addition,
the Company designs, produces, and distributes earbuds,
headphones, Bluetooth speakers, Near-Field Audio amplifying
speakers, cases, and cables for mobile devices under the iFrogz
brand family in the fashion and youth oriented lifestyle sector.


                              *********

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  * * *