CAR_Public/141124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 233


                             Headlines

317 AMSTERDAM: Faces "Meza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
4 RUNNERS INC: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
AMERICAN EQUITY: Posts $2.2MM Net Benefit From Class Suit Accord
AMERICAN REALTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports

ANCHOR DRILLING: Faces "Wolfe' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Brief in Response to Appeal
ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Del. Chancery Court Dismisses Class Action
BARRETT BUSINESS: Investors File Securities Class Action
BAYER INC: Court Certifies Ontario Class Suit Over Yasmin, YAZ

BP WEST: Read, Williamson to Introduce Class Suit Judgments Bill
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeding in "Marchese" Case
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Court Okays Class Notice Distribution Plan
CAREER EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Axis Insurance Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Six Individuals Won't Participate in Settlement

CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
CAREER EDUCATION: 97 Plaintiffs Not Within Purview of Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: Parties to Complete Fact Discovery by Jan. 30
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Plaintiff to Pursue Damages Action

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Juice Products, Action Claims
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Faces "Enslin" Suit Over Alleges Data Breach
CONSOLIDATION COAL: Faces Class Action Over 1968 Mine Explosion
COTY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athletes' Class Action for $40 Million

EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million From Class Action
FEDERAL SAVINGS: "McDermott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
FIRST STEP: Faces "Frank" Suit in Wis. Over Violation of FDCPA
FREDDIE MAC: Court Dismissed OPERS Class Action
FREDDIE MAC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims

GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Ignition Defect Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "McPherson" Suit Says
GYRODYNE COMPANY: Case Conference Adjourned Until March 2015
HANGER INC: Sued in W.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
HOME DEPOT: Faces Firefighters Credit Union Suit Over Data Breach

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case
KAFFE 2 INC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Fernandez" Suit Says
KENTUCKY: Teacher Retirement System Faces Class Action
LA CAIMANERA: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sacramento Bee Carriers Misclassified
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: First Phase of Fresno Bee Case to Begin in Q4
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
MEXICAN RADIO: Faces "Spiciarich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MOVE INC: Faces "Suprina" Stockholder Class Action

MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Class Action in Discovery Phase
MYLAN INC: Court Drops 775 Self-Funded Customers in Class Suit
MYLAN INC: $54.3MM in Settlement Payments Made
MYLAN INC: Discovery Now Closed in Modafinil Antitrust Litigation
MYLAN INC: No Longer Named as Defendant in Minocycline Complaint

MYLAN INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Pioglitazone Complaint
MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4 Million on Product Liability
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Settle Class Action Over Late Fees
NET 1: No Motion for Class Certification Filed in Securities Case
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Not Yet Established in Rand-Heart Case

NOVATION COMPANIES: Carpenters' Health Fund Suit in Early Stage
OCEAN ENTERPRISES: "Guido" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ORSID REALTY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
PACIFIC PREMIER: Mulls Filing of Summary Judgment Motion
PETRON INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

PNC FINANCIAL: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied
POWERSECURE INT'L: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due December 9
PNC FINANCIAL: Updates in Lender-Placed Insurance Litigation
RAPID CAPITAL: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RAYONIER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SENIOR HEALTH-TREASURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SNY INC: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPRINT CORPORATION: Files Petition to Appeal Certification Order
STATE AUTO: To Defend Against "Schumacher" Class Action

SWS GROUP: Stockholders Seek Expedited Proceedings in Class Suit
SUNEDISON INC: "Jones" Plaintiffs File Motion for Reconsideration
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rye Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORP: Destroyed Evidence of Air Bag Defects, Suit Alleges
UNION BANKSHARES: MOU in Suit Over StellarOne Merger Okayed

UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for June 2015 in Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Provides Updates in Class Action in Canada
UNITED PARCEL: Inks Agreement in Case Against Freight Forwarders
UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Files Motion to Launch Class Action
VIVUS INC: Appeals Court Sets Jan. 16 Oral Argument in "Kovtun"

W. P. CAREY: Judge Granted Motion to Dismiss "Gaines" Complaint
WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Completed
WEB.COM GROUP: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Hussin" Case
WELLS FARGO: Maryland Mortgage Lending Litigation Now Concluded
WELLS FARGO: "Petry" Class Action Now Concluded

WELLS FARGO: Appeals Ruling in "Order of Posting" Litigation
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms $203MM Judgment in "Gutierrez" Case
WELLS FARGO: Accord in Securities Lending Case Has Final Approval
WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Spill
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Continues in Meridian Funds Case


                            *********


317 AMSTERDAM: Faces "Meza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Meza and Abelino Meza, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. 317 Amsterdam Corp. d/b/a Tolani, Stanton Du
Toi, and Turgut Balikci, Case No. 1:14-cv-09007 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate Tolani restaurant located at 410
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arsenio David Rodriguez, Esq.
      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
      475 Park Avenue South 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      E-mail: arodriguez@fslawfirm.com
              bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              egitig@fslawfirm.com


4 RUNNERS INC: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Hernandez Gomez and Marina Velasquez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. 4 Runners, Inc. (d/b/a
Istanbul Grill), Dayakli Azman, Erol Doner, and Murat Ersen, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08998 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant
located at310 W. 14th Street, New York, New York 10014 under the
name Istanbul Grill.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42ndStreet, suite2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-162


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Gauquie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., William Marth, and
Michael Nolan, Case No. 1:14-cv-06637 (E.D.N.Y., November 12,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Albany Molecular Research, Inc. provides integrated drug
discovery, development, and manufacturing services primarily in
the United States, Europe, and Asia.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Albany
Molecular Research, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN EQUITY: Posts $2.2MM Net Benefit From Class Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in a
Financial Supplement dated September 30, 2014 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014 that:

     1) first quarter 2014 includes a net benefit of $2.2 million
from recognizing a decrease in an estimated class action
litigation reserve based upon developments in the claim process
for settlement of the class action and third party costs incurred
during the quarter associated with administration of the
settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of
deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs
and income taxes, decreased net loss and loss per common share --
assuming dilution by $0.9 million and $0.01 per share,
respectively.

     2) fourth quarter 2013 includes expense of $4.2 million from
recognizing an increase in an estimated class action litigation
reserve based upon developments in the claim process for
settlement of the class action litigation and third party costs
incurred during the quarter associated with administration of the
settlement, which after related adjustments to amortization of
deferred sales inducements and deferred policy acquisition costs
and income taxes, decreased net income and earnings per common
share -- assuming dilution by $1.9 million and $0.02 per share,
respectively.


AMERICAN REALTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Abadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Nicholas S.
Schorsch, David S. Kay, Peter M. Budko, Brian S. Block, Lisa E.
Beeson, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D.
Michelson, Edward G. Rendell, and Scott J. Bowman, Case No. 1:14-
cv-09006 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., owns and manages high-
quality real estate throughout the United States and Canada.

The individual defendants are officers and directors of American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq.
      WEISS & LURIE
      551 Fifth Ave,
      New York, NY 10176
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com


ANCHOR DRILLING: Faces "Wolfe' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Nathan Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-01545 (W.D. Pa., November 12, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours a week.

Anchor Drilling Fluids, USA, Inc. is one of the largest U.S.
independent drilling fluids companies and provides customized
fluid solutions and well-site services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Files Brief in Response to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed its answering brief in response
to the lead plaintiff's appeal in a class action lawsuit, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of
complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California against us and certain of our current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported
stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations
that we and certain of our current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program,
thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The
plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice.

On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the
second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all
parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the
action with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended
complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion
and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice.

On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate
brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to
the lead plaintiff's appeal. Due to the stage of these
proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the
ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims," the
Company said.

Arena is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering,
developing and commercializing novel drugs that target G protein-
coupled receptors to address unmet medical needs.


ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Del. Chancery Court Dismisses Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By order of the Delaware Court of Chancery dated November 5, 2014,
the following notice is being published.  Former stockholders of
Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are urged to review the following
notice.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.)   CONSOLIDATED

STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION                  )      C.A. No. 8917-VCL

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF CLASS ACTION AND AGREEMENT
TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES

TO:   All Persons who held shares of Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
at any time during the period from and including September 5, 2013
through October 11, 2013.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments
with respect to the above-captioned action (the "Action"),
including the benefits conferred on Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Astex") stockholders in connection therewith, the dismissal of
the above-captioned consolidated class action (the "Consolidated
Action"), an agreement to pay attorneys' fees and expenses to
counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and your right
to object to that fee agreement prior to the closure for all
purposes of the Consolidated Action.

By way of background, plaintiffs commenced the Consolidated Action
on behalf of themselves and a putative class of Astex stockholders
to challenge a series of transactions set forth in a September 5,
2013 merger agreement between Astex and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Otsuka"), pursuant to which Otsuka ultimately acquired,
through a tender offer (the "Tender Offer"), all outstanding
shares of Astex for $8.50 per share in cash (the "Transaction").

Related actions were commenced by other Astex stockholders in
state court in California (the "California Actions") to challenge
the Transaction on behalf of a similar putative class of Astex
stockholders (which were consolidated under Wagner v. Astex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. HG13695090 (Alameda Cnty. Sup. Ct.
Sept. 17, 2013)).

On September 13, 2013, Astex issued an initial Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "14D-9") that, among
other things, described the background of the Transaction, the
fairness opinion issued in connection with the Transaction, and
certain financial projections generated by Astex's management.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the plaintiffs in the
California Actions separately reviewed the 14D-9 and separately
filed amended complaints that identified various items that
plaintiffs contended should have been, but were not, disclosed to
Astex's stockholders in the 14D-9, thus allegedly depriving
Astex's stockholders of the ability to make an informed decision
whether (i) to tender their shares in support of the Transaction,
or (ii) exercise their appraisal rights.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and plaintiffs in the
California Actions reached an agreement to coordinate their
efforts in prosecuting the litigation arising out of the
Transaction.

Prior to the expiration of the Tender Offer, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action and plaintiffs in the California Actions
engaged in joint expedited discovery pursuant to which Astex and
defendants James S.J. Manuso, Charles J. Casamento, Thomas V.
Girardi, Allan R. Goldberg, Walter J. Lack, Harren Jhoti, Peter
Fellner, Timothy Haines, and Ismail Kola (collectively, the "Astex
Defendants") produced more than 50,000 pages of documents
concerning, among other things, the process leading up to the
Transaction, the financial analyses performed by Astex's financial
advisor, Astex's internal financial projections, and details of
its potential pipeline of pharmaceutical products throughout its
R&D and commercialization process.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and in the California
Actions demanded, among other things, that Astex make certain
supplemental disclosures concerning the Transaction, including
with respect to the sales process leading up to the Transaction,
the financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided in
support of the Transaction, and, most notably, product-level
information concerning Astex's financial projections.

On October 1, 2013, Astex issued a supplemental Schedule 14D-9/A
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Supplemental 14D-
9/A"), (accessible on Astex's website at http://www.astx.com,on
the website of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission1, or by
contacting Plaintiffs' Delaware Counsel by writing to the address
listed below or by phone at (302) 295-5310) which included the
additional disclosures regarding the Transaction identified above,
and which plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and in the
California Actions believe enabled Astex's stockholders to make a
more fully informed decision with respect to the Transaction.

The Transaction closed on October 11, 2013.  Also on October 11,
2013, Otsuka filed a motion and brief in support of judgment on
the pleadings and a Motion for Class Certification in the
Consolidated Action.  On October 17, 2013, Astex and the
individual defendants filed a motion and brief in support of
judgment on the pleadings in the Consolidated Action, and followed
up by filing a similar motion, as well as a renewed motion to
stay, in the California Actions.

By an Order dated November 1, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery
(the "Court") certified a class of Astex stockholders (the "Class"
as defined in that Order) and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in the Consolidated Action.

Through their review of the documents and discussions with their
financial experts, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and in
the California Actions jointly concluded that the claims asserted
in the Consolidated Action and the California Actions, for which
plaintiffs were primarily seeking equitable relief, were either
moot due to the supplemental disclosures in the Supplemental 14D-
9/A or did not have merit.  As such, Plaintiffs decided not to
respond to the Defendants motions for judgment on the pleadings.
On November 27, 2013, the parties in both the Consolidated Action
and the California Actions submitted stipulations to dismiss their
respective actions with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only
and without prejudice as to the remaining members of the Class.
The parties did not discuss fees at this time.

On November 29, 2013, the Court granted the Stipulation filed in
the Consolidated Action and thereby dismissed the Consolidated
Action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action but without prejudice as to any claims
belonging to the remaining members of the Class, and retained
jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining plaintiffs'
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.  On December 10, 2013, a similar order was entered in
the California Actions pursuant to the Stipulation filed
therewith, granting the parties' request to dismiss the California
Actions with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs but without
prejudice as to any claims belonging to the remaining members of
the Class.

Only after the Consolidated Action and the California Actions were
dismissed did the parties commence and engage in discussions to
resolve issues regarding plaintiffs' counsel's application for
fees and expenses and the amount thereof, based on the benefits
provided by the supplemental disclosures made on October 1, 2013.

After negotiations, defendants have agreed to make a global fee
and expense payment to counsel in both the Consolidated Action and
the California Actions in the amount of $640,000.00 in total in
recognition of the benefit conferred on Company stockholders
through the issuance of the Supplemental 14D-9/A, as detailed
above, and to resolve any application for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be made by counsel for plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action or the California Actions.  Plaintiffs intend
to seek an order closing the Consolidated Action (the "Closure
Order") after the expiration of the objection period (detailed
below) (the "Objection Process").

RIGHT TO OBJECT

If you are a Class member, you may object to the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses described above.  Every objection
must be in writing and contain: (i) your name, address, email
address, and telephone number; (ii) the number of shares of Astex
stock you held prior to the consummation of the Transaction,
together with third-party documentary evidence, such as the most
recent account statement, showing such share ownership; and (iii)
a detailed statement of your objections and all grounds therefore,
including any supporting documents to be considered by the Court.
Written objections must be received within 45 days of the date of
this Notice or NO LATER THAN December 26, 2014.  All such
objections must identify the case number (C.A. No. 8917-VCL) and
must be filed with the Court at:

Register in Chancery
500 N. King St. #1551
Wilmington, DE 19801

And copies of all such papers must also be sent to the following
Counsel in the Consolidated Action:

RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.        SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
Seth D. Rigrodsky             Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Brian D. Long                 Bradley R. Aronstam
Gina M. Serra                 Eric D. Selden
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120  100 S. West Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, Delaware 19803    Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Plaintiffs' Delaware Counsel  Counsel for Defendants James
                              S.J. Manuso, Harren Jhoti,
                              Charles J. Casamento, Peter Fellner,
                              Thomas V. Girardi, Ismail Kola,
                              Allan R. Goldberg, Timothy Haines,
                              Walter J. Lack, and Astex
                              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Edward B. Micheletti
Jenness E. Parker
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 636
Wilmington, Delaware 19899

Attorneys for Defendants

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and
Autumn Acquisition Corporation

If an objection is filed, and served, in conformity with the
procedures outlined in this Notice, a hearing will be held before
the Court, in the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, on Thursday, January 8, 2015,
at 2:00 p.m.

If you do not take the steps described above (or if you make
objections and those objections are rejected by the Court), you
will be bound by the Closure Order which the Court may enter
without further action by the parties or other stockholders
following the expiration of the objection period.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Investors File Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Corvin, writing for The Columbian, reports that investors in
Barrett Business Services have filed a class-action lawsuit
against the Vancouver-based provider of employment services,
alleging the company violated federal securities laws by
misleading shareholders about its market value.

The suit, filed on Nov. 6 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, seeks
an unspecified amount in compensatory damages, to be proved at
trial, and other costs such as attorney fees.  Three plaintiffs --
Mitchell Arciaga, Joseph Masseli and Vimal Mathimaran -- filed the
complaint on behalf of investors who bought stock in Barrett
between Feb. 12, 2013, and Oct. 29, 2014.

The suit names the company and two officers -- CEO Michael Elich
and Jim Miller, the company's chief financial officer -- as
defendants.  The company on Nov. 10 did not return phone calls
seeking comment.  Barrett, whose stock trades as BBSI on the
Nasdaq exchange, provides temporary staffing, and employee
recruitment and placement services.  It also acts as a co-employer
for clients, handling their human resources responsibilities.

Part of the class-action suit focuses on statements by Barrett
during the company's third-quarter earnings release on Oct. 28.
That's when the company said it showed a net loss of $37.8
million, largely because of an $80 million increase in its self-
insured workers' compensation reserve.

The company saw its stock price plummet nearly 60 percent, to
$18.28 per share.  The $80 million increase in the company's self-
insured workers' compensation reserve "effectively wiped out the
company's past five years of pretax earnings," according to the
suit filed by three law firms: Clifford A. Cantor Law Offices of
Sammamish; Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP of Los Angeles; and The
Wagner Firm of Los Angeles.

Among other accusations, the suit alleges Barrett made false or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose detrimental facts
about its "business, operations and prospects."  The company
"under-accrued" its self-insured workers' compensation reserves,
the suit asserts, and overstated its earnings.  Barrett also
"lacked adequate internal and financial controls," the suit
alleges.

As a result of the company's "wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value" of its securities,
according to the suit, shareholders have "suffered significant
losses and damages."

It's unclear how many shareholders could be involved in the class
action, according to the suit, but plaintiffs Arciaga, Masseli and
Mathimaran "believe that there are hundreds or thousands" of them.
"Millions of (Barrett's) shares were traded publicly" between
Feb. 12, 2013, and Oct. 29, 2014, according to the suit.

Since Barrett's third-quarter earnings release, four other law
firms have issued news releases announcing that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against the company and that they're
investigating potential violations on behalf of shareholders.

Barrett's stock closed down 95 cents on Nov. 10, at $24.28 per
share. The company's shares have traded between $18.25 and $102.20
in the past 52 weeks.

According to Zacks Equity Research, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and
Wolf Popper LLP also filed a class action against Barrett and some
of its officers on the same allegations.


BAYER INC: Court Certifies Ontario Class Suit Over Yasmin, YAZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP would like to inform residents of
Ontario that the Ontario class action against Bayer Inc. in
respect of its drospirenone-containing contraceptives, YAZ(R) and
Yasmin was certified on April 15, 2013.

The claim alleges that Bayer Inc. marketed and sold Yasmin(R) and
YAZ(R) without properly warning of the alleged increased risks of
suffering blood clots (including pulmonary embolism, deep vein
thrombosis), heart problems, stroke and gallbladder disease and/or
removal, compared to other available oral contraceptives.  The
class action seeks, among other things, damages for personal
injuries suffered relating to the use of Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R)
as well as consequential damages suffered by family members of
users.

The Court has not taken a position as to the likelihood of
recovery on the part of the plaintiffs or class, or as to the
merits of the claims or defences asserted by either side.

All Ontario residents who were prescribed and used Yasmin(R)
and/or YAZ(R) between December 10, 2004 and January 6, 2009,
respectively, and November 30, 2011, as well as family members of
those users are automatically included in the class action
lawsuit.  If someone who was prescribed Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R)
during the relevant timeframe in Ontario does not want to
participate in the class action lawsuit, they must opt-out.  Those
who opt out of the class action may be entitled to pursue a claim
in a separate proceeding. Anyone who wishes to opt-out and not
participate in the class action must send a written, signed
election, including their name, address and telephone number by
February 9, 2015 to:

McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP
c/o Yasmin/YAZ Class Action
140 Fullarton St. Suite 1800
London, ON N6A 5P2

To read the complete Yasmin/YAZ Class Action Notice of
Certification, please visit http://is.gd/kuqZz5


BP WEST: Read, Williamson to Introduce Class Suit Judgments Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Manning, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a possible
$400 million class-action jackpot from BP West Coast Products is,
for the second time, proving a powerful lure to Democratic
lawmakers in Salem.

Nearly 11 months have passed since a Multnomah County District
Court jury found that BP gas stations improperly charged millions
of dollars worth of debit card transaction fees.  Under the
verdict, an estimated 2 million people, most of them Oregonians,
are eligible to collect $200, making for a total award of
approximately $400 million.

With the BP case still open, state Rep. Tobias Read, D-Beaverton,
and state Rep. Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, confirmed they
intend to introduce legislation in the 2015 session that would use
any unclaimed share of class action judgments to fund legal
services for the poor.  Similar legislation failed in the 2014
Legislature.

"I've asked that a bill be drafted and I definitely plan to
introduce it," Mr. Read said.  "It's about the principle.
Whatever happens in that case, we should join the 48 other states
that don't return class-action money to the defendant."

In virtually every class action lawsuit, some of the payout is
never claimed by those damaged. Either the victims can't be found
or they don't submit the necessary paperwork.  Many states send
the unclaimed money to charity, including Legal Aid, a national
provider of legal services to low-income.

Oregon is one of the only states in the union in which unclaimed
money goes back to the defendant company.

With legal aid in Oregon already hamstrung by budget cuts and the
state's low-income population growing, proponents say new funding
is badly needed.  "If there is money left over I want it to go to
a deserving cause and I think legal aid is that cause,"
Ms. Williamson said.

BP argues it is unfair and possibly unconstitutional for the bill
to apply retroactively to this case.

"Retroactivity is our biggest problem, changing the rules in the
middle of a case," said Brian Doherty, a Portland lawyer who
lobbies for the Western Petroleum Association, of which BP is a
member.

There are plenty of ways to adequately fund low-income legal
services, Mr. Doherty said.  "Everyone is such a big fan of legal
aid," he said.  "But there are other options."

The bill envisioned by Williamson and Read will be substantially
the same as HB 4143, which stalled in the Oregon Senate in the
waning days of the 2014 short session.  It was divisive piece of
legislation that split Oregon's legal community as well as Senate
Democrats.

Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, the Oregon Trial Lawyers
Association and the Campaign for Equal Justice all backed the
bill.  Powerhouse corporate law firms like Stoel Rives and Harrang
Long, which both represent BP, argued against it.

State Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, joined with Senate
Republicans voting against the bill, resulting in a 15-15
stalemate that killed the measure.

The dominant performance by Oregon Democrats in the Nov. 4
election may have changed the political equation for the bill.
After gaining at least one seat in Senate -- making their
advantage over Republicans 17-13 vs. 16-14 -- the Democrats can
overcome Johnson's role.

The Democrats could make it 18-12 if Chuck Riley manages to beat
Bruce Starr for the District 15 seat.

"Picking up a seat in both the Senate and the House means the
politics have definitely changed," Ms. Williamson said.  She noted
that one of the new senators is Sara Gelser, the Corvallis
Democrat who on Nov. 4 beat Republican incumbent Betsy Close.
Gelser voted for HB 4143 last spring when she was in the House.

Oregonians will soon be hearing much more about the BP case.  The
firm hired to administer the claims process will in coming days
launch an ad campaign informing Oregonians who is eligible and how
the process will work.  Customers charged debit card fees at ARCO
or AM-PM stores between Jan. 1, 2011, and Aug. 30, 2013, are
eligible for the $200 payout.

David Sugerman, the Portland attorney who launched the BP suit in
2011, was able to recover the names and addresses of the majority
of eligible consumers.  Under a somewhat unusual system authorized
by Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Jerome LaBarre, those
people will receive a $200 check without having to file a claim.

Ironically, the ease of that process could reduce the money
available for charity.  In any case, BP has vowed to appeal the
verdict and no one will receive a check until that process is
complete.

Mr. Sugerman argued successfully that BP's ARCO and AM-PM outlets
violated state consumer protection laws by charging a 35- to 45-
cent fee to customers who paid with a debit card.  The plaintiffs
argued the fee was illegal because it wasn't disclosed until
customers went to pay.

Mr. Sugerman presented evidence at trial that BP charged the fees
13,000 times a day in Oregon.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeding in "Marchese" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the case, Marchese, et al. v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, the
Companies said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.

Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.

Cablevision Systems, through its wholly-owned subsidiary CSC
Holdings, LLC, owns and operates cable television systems and owns
companies that provide regional news, local programming and
advertising sales services for the cable television industry,
provide Ethernet-based data, Internet, voice and video transport
and managed services to the business market, and operate a
newspaper publishing business.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Court Okays Class Notice Distribution Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court approved the class notice distribution plan in In re
Cablevision Consumer Litigation, Cablevision Systems Corporation
and CSC Holdings LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer was filed on
May 2, 2012.

On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.  On March 31, 2014, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

On May 5, 2014, the Court directed that expert discovery commence.
Expert discovery is proceeding.

On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and
on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

Cablevision Systems, through its wholly-owned subsidiary CSC
Holdings, LLC, owns and operates cable television systems and owns
companies that provide regional news, local programming and
advertising sales services for the cable television industry,
provide Ethernet-based data, Internet, voice and video transport
and managed services to the business market, and operate a
newspaper publishing business.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Dismisses Axis Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court has entered an order dismissing the action, Axis
Insurance Company v. Career Education Company, et al., with
prejudice, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory
judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery
Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants
in connection with coverage for the recently settled Ross, et al.
v. Career Education Corporation, et al. securities class action
and shareholder derivative actions that were previously disclosed.
Axis sought a declaration of no coverage. On September 29, 2014,
the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that
resolves the matter. On October 21, 2014, the Court entered an
order dismissing the action with prejudice.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Six Individuals Won't Participate in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that Abarca v.
California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115
plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc.,
et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v.
California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five
plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed
January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs) are pending in the San Francisco
County Superior Court and generally allege: fraud, constructive
fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of
contract and violation of the repealed California Education Code.
Plaintiffs contend that California Culinary Academy ("CCA") made a
variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the
admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate
generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education,
the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students'
employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of
statistics published by CCA. The plaintiffs in these actions seek
damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or
did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class
action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and
Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four
actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases
have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same
judge who handled the Amador case.

The parties participated in a mediation session on April 2, 2014.
At that time, there were 79 individual plaintiffs remaining who
had not previously settled or dismissed their claims. At the
mediation, the Company agreed to settle with 77 of the remaining
plaintiffs by paying approximately $2.2 million plus an as yet
undetermined amount of attorneys' fees.

Accordingly, for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, the Company
has a reserve of $3.2 million which is the current estimate of the
total amount of the settlement and based on its assessment that
the settlement is probable; of which $0.2 million was recorded
during the current quarter.

Since the mediation, four additional plaintiffs have dropped out
of the settlement. As a result, there are six individuals who
elected not to participate in the settlement. The Company has
settled three of the six cases for an immaterial amount. If the
remaining three cases cannot be settled, they will be set for
trial at a later date.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in
the future with respect to the three remaining cases, the outcome
in those cases is uncertain. Accordingly, we have not recognized
any future liability associated with these actions," the Company
said.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
The Court has stayed the case Enea, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation,
and Sallie Mae, Inc. pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal
from the Court's order with respect to the motion to strike the
class allegations, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27,
2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the
placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to
the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an
excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service
providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-
regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers
eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school
provided graduates with career placement services for life. The
plaintiffs or putative class members co-signed the loans for
students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members.
Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May
9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its
order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of
plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class
allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the
appeal.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
All proceedings with the trial court in the case, Surrett, et al.
v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education
Corporation, have been stayed pending the outcome of an appeal,
Career Education said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008.

On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting
class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims
purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest
of those claims and denying certification of the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012.

On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and
on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting
WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising
jurisdiction in the case.

The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and the
Company is awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the
trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: 97 Plaintiffs Not Within Purview of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs in the Vasquez class
action are not within the purview of the settlement arrangement.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action
(including, without limitation, the period following the filing of
the action)."

Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim
and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully
demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of
California's former Private Postsecondary and Vocational
Educational Reform Act of 1989 ("the Reform Act"). Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6,
2012.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related
"multiple plaintiff actions" originally involving a total of
approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of
Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et
al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California
School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of
Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are
essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action
case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory
and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition
monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All
of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class
action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is
presiding over the Vasquez case.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez
action consolidating all eight of the separate actions. The
complaint was thereafter amended to add additional plaintiffs. As
a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately
1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and
2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010).

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of plaintiffs' claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the
motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine
arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration
Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of
which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs' claims were settled
prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for
all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the
resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary
dismissal of certain claims, there were approximately 1,047
remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The Company and plaintiffs' counsel have executed an agreement
regarding the framework for individual settlements with
approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant
to this settlement arrangement, defendants paid $17.5 million to
fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys' fees and
administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain
excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible
for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff have
been determined by a third party. Of the 954 individuals who
participated in the settlement, 948 have accepted offers of
settlement as determined by the third party, or offers that are
not materially greater than the amounts determined by the third
party. Any liability to the six remaining plaintiffs is expected
to be an immaterial amount.

Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the
purview of the settlement arrangement. Because these plaintiffs
have not cooperated with their counsel, the Court entered orders
allowing their counsel to withdraw. Because they did not
thereafter retain new counsel or otherwise participate in the
prosecution of their claims, the Court has dismissed all of these
individual cases.

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CAREER EDUCATION: Parties to Complete Fact Discovery by Jan. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to
that issue by January 30, 2015, in the case, Wilson, et al. v.
Career Education Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions
representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-
count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment arising from the Company's decision to terminate its
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan.

The Company said, "On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our
motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this
action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court.
Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was
held on December 3, 2012."

"On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed
and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of
contract claim.  On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for
rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of
contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

"The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have
commenced fact discovery as to the issue of liability. The Court
has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to that
issue by January 30, 2015.

"Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range
of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have
not recognized any liability associated with this action."

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the
Career Education Corporation ("CEC") family offer high-quality
education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-
oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning
program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career
Education serves students from campuses throughout the United
States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master's,
bachelor's and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and
certificates.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Plaintiff to Pursue Damages Action
---------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit voluntarily withdrew its
application for a preliminary injunction and notified the court
that it will instead pursue a damages action.

On October 7, 2014, a purported shareholder of Chiquita filed a
putative class action in Federal Court in New Jersey challenging
the combination of Chiquita and Fyffes. The case is captioned City
of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension
System v. Chiquita Brands International Inc., et al., Case Number
14-6200-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.).  The action names as defendants Chiquita
and each of the members of the Chiquita board of directors. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Chiquita board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties in various respects
concerning the combination and the unsolicited Cutrale/Safra
proposal.

On October 16, 2014, the judge in the case entered an order that,
among other things, denied plaintiff's request for expedited
discovery and required the parties to appear for a show cause
hearing on October 23, 2014, on plaintiff's application for a
preliminary injunction regarding the combination.

On October 21, 2014, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew its
application for a preliminary injunction and notified the court
that it will instead pursue a damages action. Under the current
scheduling order the plaintiff has until November 21, 2014 to file
an amended complaint.  Chiquita and its board of directors believe
that the claims asserted against them by the plaintiff are without
merit and will defend this case vigorously.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Juice Products, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Browne, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02687 (S.D. Cal., November 12,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
representations of the Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry 100%
Fruit Juice Blend, that just 50 mg of algal DHA and four other
nutrients support the brain. When in fact the algal DHA found in
the Product have no causative link between DHA algal oil
supplementation and brain support.

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's leading owner and marketer of
nonalcoholic beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
              psyverson@bffb.com
              lgomez-gray@bffb.com

         - and -

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, California 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-7748
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com

         - and -

      Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
      STEWART M. WELTMAN, LLC
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-7748
      E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Faces "Enslin" Suit Over Alleges Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane K. Enslin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06476
(E.D. Pa., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to take reasonable precautions to protect and
safeguard costumers personal identifying and financial
information.

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's leading owner and marketer of
nonalcoholic beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald E. Haviland Jr., Esq.
      HAVILAND HUGHES LLC
      201 S. Maple Avenue, Suite 110
      Ambler, PA 19002
      Telephone: (215) 609-4661
      Facsimile: (215) 392-4400
      E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com


CONSOLIDATION COAL: Faces Class Action Over 1968 Mine Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Misty Poe, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed in Marion County, claiming that a former
(and now deceased) employee of Consolidation Coal and the company
itself covered up the actual cause of the 1968 Farmington No. 9
mine explosion.

In a suit filed on Nov. 6, plaintiffs Michael D. Michael and
Judith A. Kuhn, administrators of the estates of two miners killed
in the explosion, on behalf of themselves and the estates of 76
other miners, filed suit against Consol and the estate of Alex
Kovarbasich, the chief electrician at the No. 9 mine at the time
of the explosion.

The plaintiffs are asking for $110,000 per member of the class
action suit, interest and punitive damages "for the intentional,
grossly negligent and reprehensible actions on the part of the
defendants."  The suit is partially based on a 1970 memo, written
by federal mine inspector Larry Layne, which states that a
ventilation fan's safety alarm was disabled prior to the explosion
so "when the fan would stop or slow down, there was no way of
anyone knowing about it because the alarm signal was bypassed,"
the memo reads.  The suit claims that on June 9, 2014, the
identity of the person who intentionally made the fan alarm system
inoperable was discovered and that "Kovarbasich was acting under
the direction and control of defendant Consolidation Coal Co."

The Explosion

At about 5:30 a.m. on Nov. 20, 1968, there was an explosion at the
No. 9 mine, sending rolling smoke and flames about 150 feet in the
air -- the only visible sign of the devastation inside the mine
itself where only 21 of the 99 men working the "cateye" shift were
able to make it to the surface.  Three subsequent explosions
happened that day until about 10:00 p.m., though mine rescue teams
continued efforts to try to rescue the 78 men still trapped in the
mine.

But by Nov. 28, air samples showed there was no possible way to
sustain human life inside the mine, and by Nov. 30, concrete was
poured into the openings to seal off oxygen from the mine to stop
the raging fires.  That sealed the fate of the 78 men still
unaccounted for, and the hopes were dashed of friends and family
members holding only fleeting possibilities of rescue.

Though the shafts were opened in September 1969 to recover the
bodies of the mine disaster victims, after nine years of
searching, teams were unable to locate the remains of 19 miners
who are now forever entombed in the depths of the mine.


COTY INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint captioned In re
Coty Inc. Securities Litigation.

During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States Southern District of New York against
the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's IPO. The first complaint, filed on February 13,
2014, was captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the
"Stricker Action"), while the second complaint, filed February 21,
2014, was captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the
"Carey Action").

The Stricker Action and the Carey Action have been consolidated
under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation
("Securities Litigation"), and following the court's appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.
The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its
directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
Class A Common Stock in the IPO, rescission, damages of an
unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. The
Securities Complaint alleges, inter alia, a failure to disclose a
negative trend in color cosmetics and nail products sales, the end
of a partnership with a retailer, and destocking activity by U.S.
mass retailers.

In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint captioned In re Coty Inc.
Securities Litigation. Additionally, in October 2014, the
plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation were permitted to file an
amended complaint and briefing on the motion to dismiss continues.
The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them.

Coty Inc. and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacturing,
marketing and distribution of fragrances, color cosmetics and skin
& body care related products in numerous countries throughout the
world.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athletes' Class Action for $40 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Electronic
Arts Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit against it
alleging it violated student athletes' rights.

EA, the Collegiate Licensing Company and the National Collegiate
Athletic Association denied the allegations but agreed to settle
the class action lawsuits to avoid the expense and uncertainty of
ongoing litigation.

EA has agreed to pay $40 million and the NCAA has agreed to pay
$20 million to resolve the allegations.  Payments to qualifying
class members will be determined on a case-by-case basis,
according to the Sept. 3 settlement order.

The factors that will be taken into consideration include how many
years the class member played and the way the player's likeness
was used in the NCAA video games, according to settlement
documents.

Each class member will be designated a certain number of points,
which will determine how much of the settlement fund he will be
entitled to receive.  If a class member does not qualify for any
points, he will be entitled to receive $100.

All current and former student-athletes residing in the United
States who competed on an NCAA Division I college or university
men's basketball team or on an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision
men's football team and whose images, likenesses and/or names
allegedly have been included or could have been included in or
used in connection with NCAA-branded videogames published or
distributed from July 21, 2005 until Sept. 3 are eligible to be
class members in the class action settlement.

All NCAA football and basketball players listed on the roster of a
school whose team was included in an NCAA-branded video game
originally published or distributed during the period May 4, 2003,
to May 4, 2007, and May 5, 2007, through Sept. 3 and whose
assigned jersey number appears on a virtual player in the
software, or whose likeness was otherwise included in the software
are also included as class members.

Class counsel will seek incentive payments for the class
representatives and the amount of each payment, according to the
settlement document.

Class counsel will seek payment of attorneys' fees not to exceed
33 percent and expenses not to exceed $2.5 million.

Edward O'Bannon and Samuel Keller filed separate class action
lawsuits in 2009 claiming the defendants unlawfully required
student athletes to sign away their publicity rights and then
profited by using their names and likenesses in popular NCAA video
games.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert B. Carey, Leonard W.
Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- and Steven W. Berman of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Stuart M. Paynter --
stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- and Celeste H.G. Boyd of the Paynter
Law Firm PLLC; Michael D. Hausfeld, Hilary K. Scherrer --
hscherrer@hausfeld.com -- Sathya S. Gosselin --
sgosselin@hausfeld.com -- Michael P. Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com -- and Arthur N. Bailey Jr. of Hausfeld
LLP; Keith McKenna of the McKenna Law Firm LLC; and Dennis J.
Drasco and Arthur M. Owens of Lum, Drasco & Positan LLC.

NCAA is represented by Juan Carlos Araneda and David P. Borovsky
-- david.borovsky@mbtlaw.com -- of Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick &
Pearson LLP ; Gregory L. Curtner, Frederick Richard Juckniess,
Kimberly K. Kefalas, Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, Rocky N. Unruh and
Suzanne Wahl of Schiff Hardin LLP; Jason Alex Geller --
jgeller@laborlawyers.com -- of Fisher & Phillips LLP; Raoul Dion
Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP; Kelly Max Klaus -- Kelly.Klaus@mto.com --
Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke -- Carolyn.Luedtke@mto.com -- Jeslyn A
Miller, Glenn D. Pomerantz, Thane Rehn and Rohit K. Singla of
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP; and Glen Robert Olson --
golson@longlevit.com -- of Long & Levit LLP.

CLC is represented by Peter M. Boyle --
Pboyle@kilpatricktownsend.com -- William Howard Brewster --
Bbrewster@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Christina E. Fahmy, Svetlana
S. Gans, Gregory S. Gilchrist, Cindy Dawn Hanson, R. Charles Henn
Jr., Constance K. Robinson and Sara M. Vanderhoff of Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP; Courtney Elizabeth Curtis of Gersh Derby
LLP, Attorneys of Law; James C. Potepan --
james.potepan@leclairryan.com -- of LeClairRyan LLP; Amber Melia
Trincado of King & Spalding LLP; and Matthew S. Weiler --
mweiler@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

EA is represented by Steven A. Hirsch -- shirsch@kvn.com -- Robert
Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@kvn.com -- Robert James Slaughter,
Matan Shacham and Robert Addy Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest LLP.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for May 14.

The case is assigned to District Judge Claudia Wilken.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 4:09-cv-01967


EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million From Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
ePlus inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed a claim in
a class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California which alleged that ten groups of
companies conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of
certain flat panels used in many flat screen televisions, monitors
and notebook computers.

"The Claims Administrator found that we had a valid claim, and on
August 6, 2014, issued to us a Notice of Claim Final
Determination. On October 20, 2014, the court issued an order
directing that approved claims be paid. On October 31, 2014, we
received payment in the amount of $6.2 million, which will be
recognized in our statement of operations as other income in our
third quarter of fiscal 2015," the Company said.

ePlus and its consolidated subsidiaries provide leading
information technology ("IT") products and services, flexible
leasing and financing solutions, and enterprise supply management
to enable the Company's customers to optimize their IT
infrastructure and supply chain processes.


FEDERAL SAVINGS: "McDermott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McDermott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Federal Savings Bank, Neil H. Greenberg,
John Calk, and Steve Calk, Case No. 2:14-cv-06657 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Federal Savings Bank is a federally chartered bank with
branches in Illinois and Kansas and loan production offices in New
York, Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada,
Texas, Ohio, and Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
      NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 214
      Westbury, NY 11590
      Telephone: (516) 228-5100
      Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
      E-mail: ngreenberg@nhglaw.com


FIRST STEP: Faces "Frank" Suit in Wis. Over Violation of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annmarie Frank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Step Group, LLC, and Cach, LLC, Case No. 2:14-
cv-01425 (E.D. Wis., November 12, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

First Step Group, LLC, and Cach, LLC are debt collection agencies
with its principal offices at 4900 Viking Drive, Edina, Minnesota
55435.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
            jblythin@ademilaw.com
            meldridge@ademilaw.com


FREDDIE MAC: Court Dismissed OPERS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed in
its entirety the case, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, et al. is a putative securities class action lawsuit filed
against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18,
2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac
stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later
intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint
on several occasions.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management, and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff
sought unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees."

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second and third amended
complaints, which the Court initially denied. On April 13, 2013,
the judge who had presided over the case since 2008 recused
himself, and the case was reassigned to a new judge. On August 23,
2013, the new judge granted defendants' motion to vacate the
previous judge's orders denying defendants' motions to dismiss.
Defendants filed new motions to dismiss the complaint on October
8, 2013.

On October 31, 2014, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice.


FREDDIE MAC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in the case In
re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations.

In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations is the result of the
consolidation of three putative class action lawsuits filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Cacciapelle and
Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013;
American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA,
filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA,
Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The
Marneu case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among
other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective
contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common
stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
such contracts. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.
FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and the other related cases (including the
Arrowood case described below) on January 17, 2014. Treasury filed
a motion to dismiss the same day.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court granted the motions and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's decision.


GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal of Ignition Defect Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Sandler, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
General Motors Co. told a judge that claims in a $10 billion
customer class-action over ignition flaws are "misleading" and
should be dismissed.

The 68 named plaintiffs in the group lawsuit argue that the design
defect and alleged concealment at the heart of the case are the
responsibility of the new GM, which was born after a 2009
bankruptcy.  Of those customers, the automaker argued, more than
44 own cars manufactured by the old GM, and they should be told to
file claims with that company.

"The majority of named plaintiffs are asserting economic loss
claims for old GM vehicles that were resold by dealers or third
parties (but not new GM)," the Detroit-based company said in a
Nov. 5 court filing in federal bankruptcy court in New York.

GM has recalled about 32 million cars this year, at a cost of $2.7
billion.  A report by lawyer Anton Valukas found that GM engineers
and lawyers knew about a switch defect for at least a decade
before those cars were recalled.  That led customers, who say
resale prices have tumbled since the cars were recalled for
repairs, to sue GM for exposing them to accidents and economic
loss.

Past Errors

GM's argument marks the start of a process that will help U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber decide whether rulings he made in
2009 are still valid.  The automaker argues that Judge Gerber
freed it from responsibility for past errors when he approved the
bankruptcy as part of a $49.5 billion U.S. bailout of GM.
Customers are scheduled to respond by Dec. 16.

Judge Gerber has said he'll schedule a hearing in January and
probably take more than a month to make a "difficult" decision on
GM's liability to car owners.

About 130 car-price lawsuits against GM have been combined in two
class actions in Manhattan federal court.  The smaller group suit
is over cars made before the bankruptcy, while the larger one,
which seeks $10 billion, is for automobiles purchased afterward.
Combined, the suits seek compensation for almost 30 million
recalled cars, of which 14.7 million were made pre-bankruptcy.

The automaker has denied that its cars have lost value since the
recalls.

Price Declines

Even so, GM says isn't at fault for any defects and price declines
in older cars, as it didn't make them.

Steve Berman, one of the lawyers leading the group suit,
disagreed.

"New GM sells a car in, let's say 2011, with a known bad part," he
said in an e-mail on Nov. 9.  "Even if made by old GM, it's new GM
lying to consumers at this point, and we don't believe they can
take refuge behind the bankruptcy of old GM."

The old GM creditor trust said that new GM had wrongly "tried to
inject it" into the legal battles.  It couldn't pay customers with
faulty switches without hurting existing creditors, including
lender JPMorgan Chase & Co., it told Gerber in a separate filing.

The suit's $10 billion demand is for penalties as well as money to
cover price declines in recalled cars.  The Old GM trust
calculates that plaintiffs want $7.4 billion of the total for
value losses alone.  Mr. Berman says that's accurate.

The car-price suits are In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch
Litigation, 14-md-02543, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).  The bankruptcy case is In re Motors
Liquidation Co., 09-bk-50026, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District of New York (Manhattan).


GOOGLE INC: Does Not Pay Workers Properly, "McPherson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob McPherson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Google, Inc., Odesk Corporation, and Elance-
Odesk, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09026 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014),
arises out of the systematic failure of the Defendants to properly
classify and pay their workforce.

Google, Inc. is one of the largest and most profitable providers
of software services.

Odesk Corporation provides a web based platform which enables
freelancers and employers to connect in real time.

Elance-Odesk, Inc. is the corporation that was formed by the
merger of oDesk and Elance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISSON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD
      110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07748
      Telephone: (888) 239-4410
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Julie Salwen, Esq.
      ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
      212 East 39th St.
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 889-3700
      Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
      E-mail: julie.salwen@optonline.com


GYRODYNE COMPANY: Case Conference Adjourned Until March 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary conference in a class action lawsuit against
Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. has been adjourned until March
3, 2015, 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 3, 2014, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of
its board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and against
GSD and Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the
"Court"), captioned Cashstream Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No.
065134/2014 (the "Action"). The plaintiff in the Action alleges
that (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
or aided and abetted the breach of those duties in connection with
the Merger and (ii) the Company and the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiff
in the Action seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining the Merger, requiring corrective disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, and interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On July 17, 2014, the Court signed an Order to Show Cause
submitted by the plaintiff setting a return date of August 5, 2014
on plaintiff's motion for an order (a) preliminarily enjoining
consummation of the Merger and (b) granting expedited discovery.
The plaintiff subsequently withdrew its motion without prejudice
and the Court scheduled a preliminary conference in the case for
October 20, 2014, which has been adjourned until March 3, 2015.
The Defendants believe the lawsuit is without merit.

Gyrodyne Company of America is a self-managed and self-
administered real estate investment trust ("REIT") formed under
the laws of the State of New York.


HANGER INC: Sued in W.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
City Of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Hanger, Inc., Vinit
Asar, George McHenry, Case No. 1:14-cv-01026 (W.D. Tex., November
12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Hanger, Inc. is a provider of orthotic and prosthetic patient care
services and a major distributor of O&P devices in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald T. Drought, Esq.
      MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.
      Bank of America Plaza, 25th Floor
      300 Convent Street
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 227-7591
      Facsimile: (210) 227-7924
      E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
              avi@blbglaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces Firefighters Credit Union Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-03656 (N.D. Ga., November 12, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to secure and safeguard its customer's
personal financial data.

The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tom Withers, Esq.
      GILLEN, WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      Post Office Box 10164
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 447-8400
      Facsimile: (912) 629-6347
      E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Anthony C. Lake, Esq.
      GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC
      One Securities Centre, Suite 1050
      3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 842-9700
      Facsimile: (404) 842-9750
      E-mail: aclake@gwllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Joseph C. Bournem Esq.
      Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
              etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
      E-mail: nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com

        - and -

     Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     One Liberty Square
     Boston, MA 02109
     Telephone: (617) 542-8300
     Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
     E-mail: pegan@bermandevalerio.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Defendants File Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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 the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint in
the case styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc.

A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics,
Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in
the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the
Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute
concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab.

On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed
Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing
John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint on
September 22, 2014. The defendants believe that the allegations in
the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer, autoimmune and other serious diseases.


KAFFE 2 INC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Fernandez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosendo Leon Fernandez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Kaffe 2 Inc. (d/b/a Kaffe 1668), Mikael
Tjarnberg, Tomas Tjarnberg, and David Aaron Brask, Case No. :14-
cv-08996 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 401
Greenwich Street, New York, New York, NY 10013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200


KENTUCKY: Teacher Retirement System Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
WHAS11 reports that a duPont Manual High School teacher has filed
a class action lawsuit against the Kentucky Teacher Retirement
System.

Teachers say Kentucky has significantly underfunded the state
pension system for years.

Randolph Wieck, a teacher, has now filed a class action lawsuit in
Jefferson County.  He says teachers don't have access to social
security so their pension plan is it.

Mr. Wieck says he has filed this lawsuit to inform teachers across
the state of what's happening.  He says there could be more legal
action to come.


LA CAIMANERA: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Ruiz, and others similarly situated individuals v. La
Caimanera Futsal, LLC, Gustavo A Mittlemeyer Jimenez, Daniel Gil
Lopez, and Juan L. Acevedo Bueno, Case No. 1:14-cv-24291 (S.D.
Fla., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate bar and restaurant in Miami Dade
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Escaravage, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LM Restaurant Group LLC, East 54th Management LLC,
Disco Sushi Inc., Michael Sinensky, and Sean McGarr, Case No.
1:14-cv-09008 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant within New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              egitig@fslawfirm.com
              nmelito@fslawfirm.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Sacramento Bee Carriers Misclassified
--------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the court in the
Sacramento Bee class action case issued a tentative decision
following the first phase, finding that the carriers that
contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from
February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent
contractors.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported
class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned
Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the
carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking
mileage reimbursement.   In February 2009, a substantially similar
lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar
allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee
("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the
class in these cases.  The class consists of roughly 5,000
carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno
case.  The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
damages for mileage reimbursement.

With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage
and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim under the California Civil Code for mileage.  In
the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases:  the first phase addressed independent
contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if
any, and the third phase will address damages, if any.

On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We have asked for clarification of the tentative decision and the
decision is under review.   When a final decision is issued, we
will have an opportunity to object.  The court has not yet
established a date for the second and third phases of trial
concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in
the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any damages," the
Company said.


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: First Phase of Fresno Bee Case to Begin in Q4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the first phase of
the Fresno Bee class action case is expected to begin in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported
class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned
Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the
carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking
mileage reimbursement.   In February 2009, a substantially similar
lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar
allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee
("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the
class in these cases.  The class consists of roughly 5,000
carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno
case.  The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
damages for mileage reimbursement.

The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase will address independent
contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the
second phase will address damages, if any.  The first phase of the
Fresno case is expected to begin in the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2014.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott 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, that the motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit is still pending before the
District Court.

The Company said, "On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two
separate alleged purchasers of our common stock filed purported
class action complaints against us, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry
L. Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to represent a
class of purchasers of our stock between November 6, 2012 and
August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating
materially false and misleading information and failing to
disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project
bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project
management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each
complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory
damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs."

"By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated
the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
substantially the same claims as were made in the two original
complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports
to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks
relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award
for attorneys' fees and other costs.

"On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and MII and the other
defendants filed a reply in support of the defendants' motion to
dismiss on June 23, 2014. The motion to dismiss is still pending
before the District Court.

"We believe the substantive allegations contained in the
consolidated amended complaint are without merit, and we intend to
defend against these claims vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc. delivers fixed and floating
production facilities, pipeline installations and subsea systems
from concept to commissioning.


MEXICAN RADIO: Faces "Spiciarich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Spiciarich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mexican Radio Corp., Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC,
William Young, and Lori Selden, Case No. 1:14-cv-09009 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican Radio restaurants located
at 19 Cleveland Place, New York, New York 10012 and 537
Warren Street, Hudson, New York 12534.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              egitig@fslawfirm.com


MOVE INC: Faces "Suprina" Stockholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Move Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that Jamie Suprina filed on
October 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
Move stockholders in the Superior Court of the State of California
in the County of Santa Clara against Move's directors alleging,
among other things, that the Move directors breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly agreeing to sell Move at an unfair
and inadequate price and by allegedly failing to take steps to
maximize the sales price of Move.  The plaintiff further alleges
that Move has failed to make adequate disclosures relating to the
financial projections and analysis and the background of the
proposed transaction.  The complaint seeks to enjoin the merger
and other equitable relief.  The plaintiff also seeks attorneys'
and expert fees.  Each of Move and the directors believe that the
plaintiff's purported claims against the directors lack merit and
each of them intends to contest the respective claims against them
vigorously.

With realtor.com(R) as flagship web site and brand, Move, Inc. is
a real estate information marketplace connecting consumers with
the information and the expertise they need to make informed home
buying, selling, financing and renting decisions.


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Vo" Class Action in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, 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, the Company is
currently in the discovery phase of the case, Nhan T. Vo,
individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the
Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay
overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt
employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of
the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case.

MRV Communications, Inc. ("MRV" or the "Company"), a Delaware
corporation, is a global supplier of communications solutions to
telecommunications service providers, enterprises and governments
throughout the world.


MYLAN INC: Court Drops 775 Self-Funded Customers in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court granted both plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers in the class
action related to Lorazepam and Clorazepate, Mylan 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.

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, MPI,
and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the amount of
approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for by the
Company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully
violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust
laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into between
the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for
two drugs, Lorazepam and Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent
price increases on these drugs in 1998.

The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of
earlier class action settlements agreed to by the Company in 2001
and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to
Mylan's 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and Clorazepate.
Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two
of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict.

On December 20, 2006, the Company's motion for judgment as a
matter of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the
remaining motions were denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial
filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and
that request was granted on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008,
a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-defendants in the
total amount of approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case of
three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory
damages in the original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in
total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their
amount of the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict
plus doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages
assessed against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0
million in total), some or all of which may be subject to
indemnification obligations by Mylan.  Plaintiffs are also seeking
an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs in unspecified
amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million.

The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as
legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in
abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest,
which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with
the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its
appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit.

On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings
based on lack of diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On
June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of the D.C.
Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied.

The case is now proceeding before the District Court. On January
14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional
discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint
containing additional factual averments with respect to the
diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to
voluntarily dismiss 775 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose
presence would destroy the District Court's diversity
jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur
(reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages
award. Mylan's brief in response to the new factual averments in
the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. On July 29, 2014,
the court granted both plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint
and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers.

In connection with the Company's appeal of the judgment, the
Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party
insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million in February 2008.
On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the
surety bond reduced to $66.6 million.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: $54.3MM in Settlement Payments Made
----------------------------------------------
There were $54.3 million of settlement payments made during the
nine months ended September 30, 2014 related to Pricing and
Medicaid Litigation, Mylan 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.

Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI and/or Mylan Institutional
Inc. (formerly known as UDL Laboratories, Inc. and hereafter
"MII"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, together with
many other pharmaceutical companies, were named in civil lawsuits
filed by state attorneys general ("AGs") and municipal bodies
within the state of New York alleging generally that the
defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by allegedly
reporting Average Wholesale Prices ("AWP") and/or "Wholesale
Acquisition Costs" that exceeded the actual selling price of the
defendants' prescription drugs, causing state programs to overpay
pharmacies and other providers. Mylan, MPI and/or MII were named
as defendants in substantially similar civil lawsuits filed by the
AGs of Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and
Wisconsin, and also by the city of New York and approximately 40
counties across New York State. Several of these cases were
transferred to the AWP multi-district litigation proceedings
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts for pretrial proceedings.

Other cases have been litigated in the state courts in which they
were filed.  Each of the cases involved money damages, civil
penalties and/or double, treble or punitive damages, counsel fees
and costs, equitable relief and/or injunctive relief. Mylan and
its subsidiaries have denied liability and have defended each of
these actions vigorously.

In May 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by a private plaintiff on
behalf of the United States of America against Mylan, MPI, MII and
several other generic manufacturers. The original complaint was
filed under seal in April 2000, and Mylan, MPI and MII were added
as parties in February 2001. The claims against Mylan, MPI, MII
and the other generic manufacturers were severed from the April
2000 complaint (which remains under seal) as a result of the
federal government's decision not to intervene in the action as to
those defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the False
Claims Act and set forth allegations substantially similar to
those alleged in the state AG cases mentioned in the preceding
paragraph and purported to seek nationwide recovery of any and all
alleged overpayment of the "federal share" under the Medicaid
program, as well as treble damages and civil penalties.

In December 2010, the Company completed a settlement of this case
(except for the claims related to the California federal share)
and the Texas state action mentioned above. This settlement
resolved a significant portion of the damages claims asserted
against Mylan, MPI and MII in the various pending pricing
litigations. In addition, Mylan reached settlements of the
Alabama, Alaska, California (including the federal share),
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York state and county,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin state actions, which
comprise the balance of all such lawsuits that have been filed
against Mylan.

The Company had accrued approximately $56.0 million at December
31, 2013. There were $54.3 million of settlement payments made
during the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and herein as "Mylan
Specialty"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named
as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and
third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these
class actions, which was approved by the court and all claims have
been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by
a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against
Mylan Specialty in August 1997.

In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention
and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government
asserted that Mylan Specialty was jointly liable with a
codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together
with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan
Specialty completed a settlement of this action in December 2010.
These cases all have generally alleged that Mylan Specialty
falsely reported certain price information concerning certain
drugs marketed by Mylan Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused
false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that
Mylan Specialty caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments
on those claims.

Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan
is fully indemnified for the claims in the preceding paragraph and
Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company
realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing
litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for all
settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements had no
impact on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations.

At September 30, 2014, the Company has accrued approximately $63.3
million in other current liabilities, which represents its
estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax
benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty's
known claims with respect to this pricing litigation have been
settled.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Discovery Now Closed in Modafinil Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has now closed in the Modafinil Antitrust Litigation,
Mylan 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.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery
has now closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. Additional
motions remain pending.

In addition, by letter dated July 11, 2006, Mylan was notified by
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") of an investigation
relating to the settlement of the Modafinil patent litigation. In
its letter, the FTC requested certain information from Mylan, MPI
and Mylan Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the patent litigation
and the settlement thereof.

On March 29, 2007, the FTC issued a subpoena, and on April 26,
2007, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan,
requesting additional information from the Company relating to the
investigation. Mylan has cooperated fully with the government's
investigation and completed all requests for information.

On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Cephalon in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the case
has subsequently been transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2010, the FTC
issued a third party subpoena to Mylan, requesting documents in
connection with its lawsuit against Cephalon. Mylan has responded
to the subpoena. Mylan is not named as a defendant in the FTC's
lawsuit, although the complaint includes certain allegations
pertaining to Mylan's settlement with Cephalon.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: No Longer Named as Defendant in Minocycline Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan 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 Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2014 in the class
acton related to Minocycline, and Mylan and Mylan Laboratories
Limited are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended
complaint.

On May 1, 2012, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to
Mylan pertaining to an investigation being conducted to determine
whether Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Mylan, and/or other
generic companies engaged in unfair methods of competition with
regard to Medicis' branded Solodyn(R) products and generic
Solodyn(R) products, as well as the 2010 settlement of Medicis'
patent infringement claims against Mylan and Matrix Laboratories
Limited (now known as Mylan Laboratories Limited). Mylan is
cooperating with the FTC and has responded to the requests for
information.

Beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited,
along with other drug manufacturers, were originally named as
defendants in civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
the District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those
lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent
direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn(R),
and assert violations of federal and state laws, including
allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis
with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to
generic Solodyn(R). Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was
filed on September 12, 2014. Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited
are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended
complaint.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Pioglitazone Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Mylan 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 Mylan and the other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint related
to Pioglitazone on October 10, 2014.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan
and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 10, 2014.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


MYLAN INC: Accrued $13.4 Million on Product Liability
-----------------------------------------------------
Mylan 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 the Company is involved in a
number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged
personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured
and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to
its Fentanyl Transdermal System, Phenytoin, Propoxyphene and
Alendronate. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself
with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has
agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims
on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the
Company.  The Company had accrued approximately $13.4 million at
September 30, 2014 and $13.8 million at December 31, 2013.

"It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses
above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such
reasonably possible at this time. There are no assurances,
however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments
received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued," the Company
said.

Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops,
licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded
generic and specialty pharmaceuticals.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Settle Class Action Over Late Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Hudson, writing for Herald Sun, reports that one of the
nation's biggest banks is preparing to settle a class action over
unfair fees, which could see up to 30,000 customers share in up to
$40 million compensation.

National Australia Bank boss Andrew Thorburn has flagged to those
advising NAB on corporate responsibility that he wants to resolve
a long-running case over excessive credit card late fees and other
charges.

The NAB's surprise move towards a settlement will put pressure on
rival banks, fending off similar legal actions, to do likewise.

The unfair fees class actions are among the biggest in Australian
history.

If other major banks follow suit, hundreds of thousands of account
holders stand to collect compensation.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has estimated that the various class
actions affect up to 45,000 CBA customers, 38,000 ANZ customers
and 30,000 Westpac customers.

In a letter sent to members of the NAB's Advisory Council on
Corporate Responsibility on Nov. 11 -- seen by the Herald Sun --
NAB chief executive Andrew Thorburn revealed that court paperwork
was lodged paving the way to wrap up a case which had been running
since 2011.

The court application was "a first but significant step towards
reaching a potential settlement", he wrote.

"We are doing this because we believe this is the right thing to
do for our customers and our business," he wrote.

"Doing the right thing must be reflected not in our words, but in
our actions.

"This first step to resolve the Bank Fees Class Action
demonstrates we are committed to make things right."

An interlocutory hearing has been scheduled for November 18 before
Federal Court judge Peter Jacobson.

If the court approves a joint application by the bank and class
action lawyers Maurice Blackburn, NAB customers who haven't
already done so will be invited to join the case to get access to
any resulting settlement.

The Herald Sun understands a final settlement sum will then be
negotiated based on the total number of account holders deemed
eligible.

If the bank's settlement offer is accepted, it is anticipated NAB
could distribute payouts to its customers by mid next year.

The letter from Mr. Thorburn says the registration process will be
managed by IMF -- the company bankrolling bank fees class actions
against all of the major Australian financial institutions.

There are at least seven different class actions currently under
way against Australian banks over excessive fees.

The NAB's shock move comes ahead of an imminent ruling on an
appeal to the Full Federal Court over a similar case against the
ANZ bank over credit card late fees.

The appeal followed a ruling from Justice Michelle Gordon earlier
this year that ANZ fees of up to $35 were "extravagant and
unconscionable".


NET 1: No Motion for Class Certification Filed in Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Net 1 Ueps Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that no motion
for class certification has been filed in the class action
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

On December 24, 2013, Net1, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a
purported shareholder of Net1 and all other similarly situated
shareholders who purchased Net1's securities between August 27,
2009 and November 27, 2013.

On July 23, 2014, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On September 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint alleging that Net1 made materially false and
misleading statements in that it failed to disclose material
adverse information and misrepresented the truth about the
Company's finances and business prospects. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the lead plaintiff and all
other similarly situated shareholders who purchased Net1's
securities between January 18, 2012 and December 4, 2012, which is
a shorter class period than proposed in the original complaint. No
motion for class certification has been filed. The Company
believes this lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend it
vigorously.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Not Yet Established in Rand-Heart Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class had
not yet been established in the Federal Securities class action
lawsuit entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol
Technologies, Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri
was filed in Central District of California.

On July 25, 2014, a Federal Securities class action lawsuit
entitled Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies,
Inc., Najeeb Ghauri, Naeem Ghauri, and Salim Ghauri was filed in
Central District of California.  The action generally alleges the
Company violated certain federal securities laws by allegedly
issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
product and business prospect of that product.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges the next-generation product did not exist as of
November 8, 2011 and there was no reasonable basis for stating
that there was a growing interest or serious interest in the
product; the product had been gaining momentum or that it had been
well received. The plaintiff has alleged the class period to be
between November 12, 2009 and November 8, 2013.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be meritless and intends to
vigorously defend the action including but not limited to motions
to dismiss. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability
insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at
this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment
that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it
is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these
proceedings will or will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company. As of the date of the Form 10-Q filing, a class had not
yet been established.

The Company designs, develops, markets, and exports proprietary
software products to customers in the automobile financing and
leasing, banking, healthcare, and financial services industries
worldwide.  The Company also provides system integration,
consulting, and IT products and services in exchange for fees from
customers.

Netsol Technologies designs, develops, markets, and exports
proprietary software products to customers in the automobile
financing and leasing, banking, healthcare, and financial services
industries worldwide.  The Company also provides system
integration, consulting, and IT products and services in exchange
for fees from customers.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Carpenters' Health Fund Suit in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the purported
class action case filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is in the
early stage of the litigation.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which
the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and
the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court
reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the
case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower
court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a
class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities
in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court
remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested.

Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company cannot
provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes
that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the
case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.

Novation Companies acquires and operates technology-enabled
service businesses, with a focus on building and developing these
businesses to create long-term value.


OCEAN ENTERPRISES: "Guido" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Guido, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ocean Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation d/b/a
"Shuckers"; and Anthony P. Carpentier, individually, Case No.
2:14-cv-14455 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food service business within
Martin County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Charles Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND P.A.
      824 W Indiantown Rd
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 691-9048
      Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
      E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com


ORSID REALTY: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pjeter Gjoni, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Orsid Realty Corp., and 145 East 15th Street Tenants
Corp., and Gerardmounic, in his individual and professional
capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-08982 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service real estate
management firm in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq.
      Michael John Borrelli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com

         - and -

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORCHERT, GENOVESI, LASPINA & LANDICINO, P.C
      19-02 Whitestone Expressway, Suite 302
      Whitestone, NY 11357
      Telephone: (631) 786-3380
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


PACIFIC PREMIER: Mulls Filing of Summary Judgment Motion
--------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in
February 2004, Pacific Premier Bank was named in a class action
lawsuit titled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al," alleging
various violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by
charging and receiving fees and costs that were either wholly
prohibited by or in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to
origination fees, interest rates, and other charges.  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County,
Missouri.  The complaint seeks restitution of all improperly
collected charges, interest thereon, the right to rescind the
mortgage loans or a right to offset any illegal collected charges
and interest against the principal amounts due on the loans and
punitive damages.  In March 2005, the Bank's motion for dismissal
due to limitations was denied by the trial court without comment.
The Bank's "preemption" motion was denied in August 2006.  The
Bank has answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have
exchanged and answered initial discovery requests.  When the
record is more fully developed, the Bank intends to raise the
limitations issue again in the form of a motion for summary
judgment.

The Corporation is a California-based bank holding company
incorporated in the state of Delaware and registered as a bank
holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as
amended ("BHCA").  Its wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific Premier
Bank, is a California state-chartered commercial bank.


PETRON INDUSTRIES: Faces "Fox" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Fox, on behalf of himselfand others similarly situated v.
Petron Industries, Inc. d/b/a Offshore Corp. and Pason Systems USA
Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-03248 (S.D. Tex., November 12, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants provide data management systems for drilling rigs
world-wide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Marie Finch, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN, AXERAD, MEYER, STERN & WISE, P.C.
      3040 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1300
      Houston, TX 77056-6560
      Telephone: (713) 552-1234 ext. 108
      Facsimile: (713) 212-2790
      E-mail: afinch@zimmerlaw.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, 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 October 2014, in Dasher v. RBC Bank (10-cv-22190-
JLK), currently pending for pre-trial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
the caption In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (MDL No.
2036, Case No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK ), the United States Supreme
Court denied PNC's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking
review of the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly, the stay of the court of appeals'
ruling is no longer in effect.


POWERSECURE INT'L: Consolidated Amended Complaint Due December 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure 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 that a
consolidated amended complaint is due to be filed on or before
December 9, 2014 in the Securities Class Action.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina.

"On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased our common stock during a purported class period from
August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two
different purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation
lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint is due to be filed on
or before December 9, 2014.

"The action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants
during the applicable class period violated federal securities
laws. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount, and no
determination has been made on the status of the lawsuits proposed
as class actions. We believe that the claims asserted in this
class action litigation are without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend against all such allegations."


PNC FINANCIAL: Updates in Lender-Placed Insurance Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, 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 August 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part
PNC's motion to dismiss in Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et
al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM). Specifically, the court
dismissed the breach of contract, Florida deceptive and unfair
trade practices, and federal TILA and RICO claims, although it
allowed the RICO claims to be re-pled. The remaining claims are
state claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, unjust
enrichment, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of
fiduciary duty. Thereafter, in September 2014, on plaintiffs'
uncontested motions, the plaintiff in Lauren vs. PNC Bank, N.A.,
et al. (Case No. 2:14-cv-00230), pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit and a third amended complaint in Montoya was
filed adding Lauren as a plaintiff there. In October 2014, PNC
moved to partially dismiss the third amended complaint. The motion
to dismiss seeks dismissal of the re-pleaded RICO claims and
plaintiff Lauren's state law claims for breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. At the
same time, PNC also moved to strike the plaintiffs' nationwide
class allegations with respect to the state law claims. Shortly
thereafter, the plaintiffs stipulated to this relief, as a result
of which the plaintiffs' state law claims are now being brought
solely as statewide class action claims in the three states in
which the plaintiffs reside.


RAPID CAPITAL: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Adam Eckstein and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Rapid Capital Funding II, LLC, Craig I. Hecker,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24295 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Rapid Capital Funding II, LLC offers business loan alternatives in
the form of business cash advances primarily for small businesses
and restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAYONIER INC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rayonier, Inc., David Nunes, Paul G. Boynton, Hans E.
Vanden Noort, and H. Edwin Kiker, Case No. 1:14-cv-08986
(S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.

Rayonier, Inc. is a real estate investment trust and engages in
the sale and development of real estate and timberland management
as well as produces and sells cellulose fibers throughout the
U.S., New Zealand, and Australia.

The individual defendants are officers and directors of Rayonier,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Grignon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Carolyn J.
Logan, and Adam C. Derbyshire, Case No. 5:14-cv-00804 (E.D.N.C.,
November 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. is a
Delaware corporation, acquires, develops, and commercializes
prescription drugs and medical devices to treat various
gastrointestinal diseases in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
      RABON LAW FIRM, PLLC
      225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 100
      Charlotte, NC 28203
      Telephone: (704) 247-3247
      Facsimile: (704) 208-4645
      E-mail: gjackson@ncadvocates.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ, LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184


SENIOR HEALTH-TREASURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Cadeau, and other similarly situated individuals v. Senior
Health-Treasure Isle, LLC d/b/a Treasure Isle Care Center, Case
No. 1:14-cv-24285 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Senior Health-Treasure Isle, LLC is a nonresidential building
operator located in Miami-Dade Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SNY INC: "Soto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Soto, and other similarly situated individuals v. SNY, Inc.,
a Florida profit corporation and Alexandra Papageorgiou,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24288 (S.D. Fla., November 12,
2014), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full-service, casual dining
restaurant & sports bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPRINT CORPORATION: Files Petition to Appeal Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company filed
a petition to appeal a certification order to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff seeks class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008.

On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  The
Company said, "Subsequently, our motion to certify the January 6,
2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied, and discovery
is continuing. The plaintiff moved to certify a class of
bondholders as well as owners of common stock, and on March 27,
2014, the court certified a class including bondholders as well as
stockholders."

"On April 11, 2014, we filed a petition to appeal that
certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition was denied on May 23, 2014. Sprint Communications
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to continue to
defend the matter vigorously.  We do not expect the resolution of
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
position or results of operations."

Sprint Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is a
communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless
and wireline communications products and services that are
designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses,
government subscribers, and resellers.


STATE AUTO: To Defend Against "Schumacher" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
State Auto 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 a
putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs. State Automobile
Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed in April 2013 against
State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C in
Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claim that in
connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto
companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly
increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of that
which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss.
Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court. The Company
intends to deny any and all liability to plaintiffs or the alleged
class and to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


SWS GROUP: Stockholders Seek Expedited Proceedings in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SWS Group 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 plaintiffs in a
Merger Litigation filed a motion for expedited proceedings.

Two putative class actions on behalf of purported stockholders of
the Company challenging the proposed merger of the Company and
Peruna are pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  Both lawsuits name as defendants the Company, the
members of the BOD, Hilltop, and Peruna, (Joseph Arceri v. SWS
Group, Inc. et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc. et al
filed April 8, 2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively). On May 13,
2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes. On June 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the BOD
breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take
steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale
process before approving the merger, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the BOD labored under conflicts
of interest, and that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement
unduly restrict the Company's ability to negotiate with other
potential bidders, and that the Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed by Hilltop on May 29, 2014 omits or misstates certain
material information.  The complaint seeks relief that includes,
among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of
the merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have already
been implemented, damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the merger, and for expedited
proceedings in connection therewith.  Pursuant to negotiations
between the parties to the lawsuit, plaintiffs subsequently
withdrew those motions.  On October 27, 2014 plaintiffs again
filed a motion for expedited proceedings.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend against them vigorously.  There can be no assurance,
however, with regard to the outcome of this lawsuit.  Currently, a
loss resulting from these claims is not considered probable or
reasonably estimable in amount.


SUNEDISON INC: "Jones" Plaintiffs File Motion for Reconsideration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, 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 the plaintiffs in
the case Jerry Jones v. SunEdison, Inc., et al. filed a motion for
reconsideration with the district court, based on a Supreme Court
decision.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the
"Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008,
inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and
certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed
fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleged that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleged
that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raised substantially the same claims and was based
on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changed the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the
present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses. On March 17, 2010, the court denied the
motion to dismiss. The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of
June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of
supplemental authority and corresponding responses.

On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants'
motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the
SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it would
revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments. Both parties filed briefs
supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010. On June 28,
2011, Mr. Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal from the
action, and the court subsequently entered an order withdrawing
Mr. Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. The parties
each have continued to file additional notices of supplemental
authority and responses thereto. On September 27, 2012, the
SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their pending
motion to dismiss, and Mr. Acosta joined in the SunEdison
defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012. On March
24, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss but the
plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a motion to
stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court decision in a
case that could have implications in this matter. That Supreme
Court case was decided in June 2014, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration with the district court, based on that
Supreme Court decision.

"We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal
and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said.

SunEdison is a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energy
solutions, an owner and operator of clean power generation assets,
and a global leader in the development, manufacture and sale of
silicon wafers to the semiconductor industry.


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Rye Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn
-----------------------------------------------------
Rye Farms Partnership and Steve Rye, individually and on behalf of
a Class of others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-03240 (W.D. La., November 12, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to
farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting,
transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera
corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.R. Whaley, Esq.
      WHALEY LAW FIRM
      3112 Valley Creek Drive, Suite D
      Baton Rouge, LA 70808
      Telephone: (225) 302-8810
      E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com

         - and -

      Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
      Will T. Crowder, Esq.
      Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
      EMERSON POYNTER LLP
      The Rozelle-Murphy House
      1301 Scott Street
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com
              wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com
              cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com

         - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON POYNTER LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com


TAKATA CORP: Destroyed Evidence of Air Bag Defects, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that car owners slapped
Takata Corp. with a California federal class action on Nov. 10
alleging it ordered technicians to destroy data including video
and computer backups containing evidence of air bag defects that
led to the recall of millions of vehicles in the U.S.

The new suit -- which also names Honda Motor Co. Ltd., American
Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Takata subsidiaries as defendants -- is
the latest in a slew of complaints over the defects but is
believed to be the first to accuse Takata of a coverup campaign in
which it also allegedly withheld information from federal
regulators.

The new allegations stem from a Nov. 7 report by the New York
Times in which former employees of Takata said the company told
lab technicians to eliminate testing data that showed cracks in
the steel casings that house their air bag inflators.  The company
also allegedly ordered technicians to throw the air bag inflators
away in the trash to cover up the results of the previously
undisclosed secret tests, according to the report.

The suit was filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which in
late October filed a separate class action in California federal
court that contained similar allegations but not the new
accusations that Takata destroyed evidence.

"In 2004, Takata and Honda were made aware of a dangerous
propensity for air bag inflator explosion in vehicles equipped
with Takata air bags -- a driver in Alabama was severely injured
from metal shrapnel during an accident," said Hagens Berman
Managing Partner Steve Berman, who is also co-lead counsel in the
General Motors Inc. ignition switches litigation.  "When the two
companies were faced with making a decision, they instead decided
the issue was 'an anomaly' and ignored it, endangering the lives
of vehicle owners across the country."

The new class action comes after car owners suing Takata, Chrysler
Group LLC, General Motors LLC, Toyota Motor Corp. and others asked
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate
recently filed class actions -- including Hagens Berman's
previously filed class action -- in Florida federal court.

In two motions for transfer of actions to the Southern District of
Florida, Miami, attorneys said the cases -- two of which were
filed in that court; two others that were filed in the Central
District of California, Western Division, Los Angeles; and one
that was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit --
similarly accused defendants of not fixing the allegedly defective
air bags quickly enough.

More than 14 million vehicles with Takata air bags have been
recalled worldwide because of a defect that causes the air bags to
explode in humid conditions, with most of those recalls coming
just in the past year, according to court papers.

But the automakers allegedly knew of the defect as early as 2008,
when Honda first notified regulators of a problem with its Takata
air bags.  Instead, the automakers and Takata opted to not address
the issue, leading to deaths stemming from the defect, court
documents said.

The new suit has eight named plaintiffs from California, Florida,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Virginia and Washington.

Similar to previously filed complaints, the newly proposed class
action accuses Takata of making cheap air bags that "blew up like
hand-grenades, sending lethal metal and plastic shrapnel into the
vehicle cockpit and into the bodies of the drivers and
passengers," causing multiple injuries and fatalities.

The suit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased or leased a Honda vehicle with a defective Takata air
bag and that has been subject to an air bag-related warning or
recall.

Honda North America Inc. spokesman Chris Martin told Law360 on on
Nov. 10 that they haven't been served with a copy of the new class
action and can't comment on its claims.

"Our focus is on continuing the actions already underway to
address the needs and concerns of our customers," he said.

Plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman and Thomas E. Loeser
-- toml@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The case is Richard Klinger et al. v. Takata Corp. et al., case
number 2:14-cv-08677, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


UNION BANKSHARES: MOU in Suit Over StellarOne Merger Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Union Bankshares 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 the
District Court has approved the memorandum of understanding and
the class action settlement in the case relating to the StellarOne
acquisition.

In a press release issued on June 10, 2013, the Company announced
the signing of a definitive merger agreement for the acquisition
of StellarOne. The Company closed the acquisition of StellarOne on
January 1, 2014.

On June 14, 2013, in response to the initial announcement of the
definitive merger agreement, Jaclyn Crescente, individually and on
behalf of all other StellarOne shareholders, filed a class action
complaint against StellarOne, its current directors, StellarOne
Bank, and the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division (the "District
Court") (Case No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM). The complaint alleged that
the StellarOne directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger with the Company and that the Company aided
and abetted in such breaches of duty. The complaint sought, among
other things, money damages.

StellarOne and the Company believed that the claims were without
merit; however, in order to eliminate the expense and
uncertainties of further litigation, all the defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in order to
settle the litigation prior to the merger. Under the terms of the
memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the
lawsuit and release the defendants from all claims, subject to
approval by the District Court.

On May 19, 2014, the District Court approved the memorandum of
understanding and the class action settlement in the case.


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for June 2015 in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that UPS and
its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v.
The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles Superior
Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees
who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS
Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store,
Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the
market tests that were conducted before offering the class the
choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. The trial is
scheduled for June 2015.


UNITED PARCEL: Provides Updates in Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Canada,
four purported class-action cases were filed against the Company
in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Qu‚bec (2006 and
2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the
existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the Company
under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and
infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal
Code of Canada.

The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for
certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was
upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010,
which ended the case in the Company's favor.

The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial
summary judgment was granted to the Company and the plaintiffs by
the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code
was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The
allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and the Company
is appealing that decision.

The motion to authorize the 2006 Qu‚bec litigation as a class
action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there
was no appeal, which ended that case in the Company's favor.

The 2013 Qu‚bec litigation also has been dismissed.

"We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one
outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that
prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously
defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of
meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions
of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution
of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to
estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from
this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity," the Company said.


UNITED PARCEL: Inks Agreement in Case Against Freight Forwarders
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. entered into an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs in a class action against numerous global freight
forwarders to settle the remaining claims asserted against UPS for
an immaterial amount.  The agreement in principle is subject to
the negotiation of final settlement documents and court approval
of the settlement, the Company said said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint in October 2010, which the Company moved to dismiss.

"In August 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss all
claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with leave
to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in
November 2012. We filed another motion to dismiss," the Company
said.

In January 2014, the Court dismissed UPS from one of the claims in
the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice, but denied UPS's
motion to dismiss with respect to the other claims asserted
against UPS.  In June 2014, UPS entered into an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims
asserted against UPS for an immaterial amount. This agreement in
principle is subject to the negotiation of final settlement
documents and court approval of the settlement.


UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copibec Files Motion to Launch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Copibec on Nov. 10 disclosed that it has filed a motion in
Quebec Superior Court for authorization to launch a class action
on behalf of thousands of authors and publishers from Quebec, the
rest of Canada and other countries around the world because their
copyright protected works have been copied without permission by
Universite Laval.

On an annual basis, the Quebec City-based university copies more
than 11 million pages from 7,000 different works published in
Quebec, the rest of Canada or abroad and includes them in
coursepacks sold to students or distributes them online via its
secure internal computer network.

Until May 2014, Universite Laval, like all other Quebec
universities, held a comprehensive license issued by Copibec
allowing it to make those copies legally.  However, the
university's board of directors decided not to renew its licence
and on May 21, 2014 put into effect a policy concerning the use of
third-party works for teaching, learning, research and private
study purposes ("Politique et directives relatives a l'utilisation
de l'oeuvre d'autrui aux fins des activites d'enseignement,
d'apprentissage, de recherche et d'etude privee a l'Universite
Laval").  That policy now lets professors, lecturers, instructors
and researchers make copies of copyright protected works and
excerpts from those works without the university having to obtain
permission from each author and publisher or pay the required
royalties.  Universite Laval is the only educational institution
in Quebec acting in that way.

Copibec, whose official name is the Societe quebecoise de gestion
collective des droits de reproduction, is a not-for-profit created
in 1998 by the Union des ecrivaines et ecrivains quebecois (UNEQ)
and the Association nationale des editeurs de livres (ANEL) to
manage the reproduction rights for copyright protected works in
print and digital formats.  It has the authority to manage the
reproduction rights of 2,330 publishers and 24,295 authors from
Quebec as well as the authors and publishers represented by
reproduction rights organizations in 32 countries, including
France, Belgium and the United States.

On behalf of the authors and publishers whose works were copied
without permission by Universite Laval, Copibec intends to ask the
Superior Court to issue orders so that the illegal copying can be
stopped and the illegally copied material can be seized.  It also
intends to ask the Court to sentence Universite Laval to pay those
authors and publishers approximately $2 million in unpaid
royalties, $1 million in moral damages and $1 million in punitive
damages in addition to the profits earned on the sale of
coursepacks to students.

Since the case is before the courts, Copibec's representatives
will not be giving interviews about the class action.

CONTACT INFORMATION
For more information, please contact Copibec's legal
counsel in this case

Daniel Payette
418-837-2521


VIVUS INC: Appeals Court Sets Jan. 16 Oral Argument in "Kovtun"
---------------------------------------------------------------
VIVUS 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 the Court of Appeals has set
oral argument for January 16, 2015 in a Securities Related Class
Action.

The Company, a current officer and a former officer were
defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in
November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
false or misleading statements made by the defendants in
connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug
Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The
Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action
Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal
was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants
the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Briefing of the appeal is complete, and the Court of Appeals has
set oral argument for January 16, 2015.

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company with two therapies approved
by the FDA: Qsymia for chronic weight management and STENDRA for
erectile dysfunction. STENDRA is also approved by the European
Commission, or EC, under a trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatment
of erectile dysfunction in the EU.


W. P. CAREY: Judge Granted Motion to Dismiss "Gaines" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the judge granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety in the case, Ira Gaines, et al. v. Corporate Property
Associates 16 - Global Incorporated.

On December 31, 2013, Ira Gaines and entities affiliated with him
commenced a purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al. v.
Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated, Index. No.
650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) against the Company, WPC
REIT Merger Sub Inc., CPA(R):16 - Global, and the directors of
CPA(R):16 - Global.  On April 11, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, and on October 15,
2014, the judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety.

W. P. Carey Inc., is, together with its consolidated subsidiaries
and predecessors, a real estate investment trust, or REIT, that
provides long-term financing via sale-leaseback and build-to-suit
transactions for companies worldwide and manages a global
investment portfolio.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Completed
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
briefing on the motions to dismiss a putative shareholder class
action complaint was completed on September 24, 2014.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint alleges that between May 9, 2012 and
February 26, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made
material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's
internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and
procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal
requirements by Green Tree Servicing (including certain of the
Company's business practices that are being reviewed by the FTC
and the CFPB), the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS and RMS's internal controls.

The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount
of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014. On August
11, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on September 24,
2014.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the
putative shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not
have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business,
prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition.

Walter Investment Management is a fee-based services provider to
the residential mortgage industry focused primarily on providing
specialty servicing for credit-sensitive forward residential
mortgages, as well as reverse mortgages and higher credit-quality
performing forward residential mortgages.


WEB.COM GROUP: Discovery Has Not Yet Commenced in "Hussin" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Web.com Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class
action was filed on October 31, 2014, in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (Tammy Hussin, et al. v.
Web.com Group, Inc.). The lawsuit complains that the Company
allegedly contacted the plaintiff and putative class (which
plaintiff alleges may "number in the thousands, if not more") on
their cellular telephones via an automatic telephone dialing
system without their prior express consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.
("TCPA").  Plaintiff is seeking for each alleged TCPA violation
$500 in statutory damages or $1,500 if a willful violation is
shown.  In addition to statutory damages and damages for willful
violations, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.

"We have not yet responded to the Complaint and discovery has not
yet commenced but we intend to vigorously defend ourself," the
Company said.

Web.com Group, Inc. provides a full range of Internet services to
small businesses to help them compete and succeed online.


WELLS FARGO: Maryland Mortgage Lending Litigation Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury
verdict on August 5, 2014 and the Maryland Mortgage Lending
Litigation case is now concluded, Wells Fargo & 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 December 26, 2007, a class action complaint captioned Denise
Minter, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The
complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated provisions
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and other laws by
conducting mortgage lending business improperly through a general
partnership, Prosperity Mortgage Company. The complaint asserts
that Prosperity Mortgage Company was not a legitimate affiliated
business and instead operated to conceal Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s
role in the loans at issue. A plaintiff class of borrowers who
received a mortgage loan from Prosperity Mortgage Company that was
funded by Prosperity Mortgage Company's line of credit with Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. from 1993 to May 31, 2012, had been certified.
Prior to trial, the Court narrowed the class action to borrowers
who were referred to Prosperity Mortgage Company by Wells Fargo's
partner and whose loans were transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
from 1993 to May 31, 2012. On May 6, 2013, the case went to trial.
On June 6, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of all
defendants, including Wells Fargo. The plaintiffs appealed. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury
verdict on August 5, 2014 and the case is now concluded.


WELLS FARGO: "Petry" Class Action Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------
No further appeal has been taken in the class action complaint
captioned Stacey and Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., et al., and the case is now concluded, Wells Fargo & 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 8, 2008, a class action complaint captioned Stacey and
Bradley Petry, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., was
filed. The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo and others violated
the Maryland Finder's Fee Act in the closing of mortgage loans in
Maryland. On March 13, 2013, the Court held the plaintiff class
did not have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, which was
previously set for March 18, 2013. On June 20, 2013, the Court
entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs
appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants on July 10, 2014.
No further appeal has been taken and the case is now concluded.


WELLS FARGO: Appeals Ruling in "Order of Posting" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company has appealed the decision in the Order of
Posting Litigation to the Eleventh 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.

A series of putative class actions have been filed against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There
are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank
(including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo
succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these
cases to arbitration under recent Supreme Court authority. On
November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank
defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo
renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District
Court denied the motion. Wells Fargo has appealed the decision to
the Eleventh Circuit.


WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms $203MM Judgment in "Gutierrez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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, that on October 29,
2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a trial court's judgment against
Wells Fargo for approximately $203 million, but limited the
injunction to debit card transactions. Wells Fargo is presently
considering its options.

On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district
proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting
method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff
class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a
different posting methodology and ordering remediation of
approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment
was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated
the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately
$203 million on the grounds of federal pre-emption. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo
violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent
representations and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against
Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together
with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and,
effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or
disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of
posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed
the judgment to the Ninth Circuit.

On October 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's
judgment against Wells Fargo for approximately $203 million, but
limited the injunction to debit card transactions. Wells Fargo is
presently considering its options.


WELLS FARGO: Accord in Securities Lending Case Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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, that the Court granted
final approval of the settlement in the Securities Lending
Litigation.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is involved in five separate pending
actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and
Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases
alleges that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties
by investing collateral for loaned securities in investments that
suffered losses. One of the cases, filed on March 27, 2012, is
composed of a class of Wells Fargo securities lending customers in
a case captioned City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement
System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The class action was pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April
12, 2014, the parties reached a settlement. The Court granted
final approval of the settlement on August 14, 2014.


WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Huntingtonnews.net, multiple sources have reported
that environmental activist, Erin Brockovich, the subject of a
previous film concerning her environmental legal pursuits in
California, told a Charleston, WV public forum that a class action
suit will be filed against West Virginia American Water.  The
action follows the January 2014 spill in which the chemical MCHM
leaked from Freedom Industries into the Elk River.

Mr. Brockovich speculated that each of the company's 100,000
customers in the affected nine counties which receive water from
the Kanawha Valley plant could receive $5,000 in damages.

WVAWC released the following statement on Nov. 10:

"West Virginia American Water is vigorously contesting all
lawsuits filed against the company as a result of the spill caused
by Freedom Industries.  The company did not cause the spill,
responded swiftly and appropriately to the spill given the
circumstances, and worked diligently to restore full water service
to its customers and the community.  West Virginia American Water
will also contest any new lawsuits filed."


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Completed in "Reyes" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that current putative
class actions and similar claims include a complaint relating to
the Company's banking relationships with customers that allegedly
engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices in which the plaintiff
seeks a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act, Reyes
v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., brought in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case. In
the third quarter of 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
heard an appeal by the plaintiff of the District Court decision.

Discovery has been completed in the Reyes case.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Continues in Meridian Funds Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that current putative
class actions and similar claims include a complaint arising from
the Company's banking relationships with Frederick Berg and a
number of investment funds controlled by him using the "Meridian"
brand name, in which the liquidating trustee for the funds seeks
an award from the Company, on the basis of aiding and abetting and
other claims, for monetary damages suffered by victims of a fraud
allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re Consolidated Meridian Funds
a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark Calvert as Liquidating
Trustee, et. al. vs. Zions Bancorporation and The Commerce Bank of
Washington, N.A., pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Washington.

Discovery continues in the Meridian Funds case.


                              *********

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  * * *