CAR_Public/141125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 234


                             Headlines

1382 DINER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
40-40 ELBERTSON: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Conn. Court Dismisses, Closes Lawsuit
ACURIAN INC: Faces "Wornicki" Class Action Suit in M.D. Florida
AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Reverses ERISA Class Action Dismissal

ALBANY MOLECULAR: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
APPLE INC: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Lost IPhone Messages
APRIA HEALTHCARE: March 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
ATLAS PIPELINE: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Pennsylvania

BARNEY'S NEW YORK: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Promote Employee
BARRETT BUSINESS: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Nevada Court Certifies Outback Employees Group
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: "Holly Gehl" Labor Suit in California Continues
BNSF RAILWAY: Expert's Conflict May Upend Certification Briefing

BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Subsidiary Still Faces Injury, Damage Suit
BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Refutes Allegations in Nursing Home Class Action
C&J ENERGY: Court to Hear Motion to Enjoin Meeting on NCPS Merger
CAFE LUNA: Servers Sue Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
CAPE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Maryland Over Merger

CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Enters MoU to Settle Securities Suit
CHRYSLER GROUP: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Suit Over Defective TIPM
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Fogarty" Suit Over Unscented Deodorant
COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action in Over Alleged Data Breach
COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Minute Maid Fruit Juice Blend

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Shareholder Suit Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Several Suits Over Cyber Attack
COMMUNITY HEALTH: HMA Stockholders Appeal Nixing of Suit in Fla.
CONDE NAST: Settles Interns' Wage Class Action for $5.85 Million
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Judge Trims Class Suit Over Kirkland Food Line

CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Tosses Libor Manipulation Class Action
DYNAMEX INC: Has Misclassified Delivery Drivers, Suit Claims
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Counts in Suit Over Exercise Options Dismissed

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Face City of Providence's Lawsuit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Still Faces American European Insurance's Suit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Not Named in Amended Stock Lawsuit in NY Court
EAST GREENHILL: Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Suits Consolidated Under Propane Tank MDL

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Labor Suit in Tenn. Court Remains in Discovery
FIRSTENERGY CORP: FG Faces Penn. Suit Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Brevard Extraditions Litigation Now Closed

FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FORE GOLF: Removes "Reyna" Suit to Central District of California
FUCCILLO AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Class Action Over Anti-Theft Package
GLOBAL CASH: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Multimedia Games Merger
GLOBAL CASH: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Gentium Acquisition Filed

HANGER INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Answers Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
HSBC USA: Florida Court Grants Final Okay to "Diaz" Settlement
HSBC USA: Amendment to Gold Price-Fixing Suit Expected in Dec.
I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Silsby" Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
ILLINOIS, USA: "Cochran" Suit Moved From Ohio to N.D. Illinois
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Faces Solodyn Antitrust Suit in Mass.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Faces Multiple Suits Over Opana ER
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settles Securities Suit Over RYTARY for $8MM

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Suit Over RYTARY in Calif.
ISOPURE COMPANY: Misrepresents Isopure Protein Product, Suit Says
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant Seeks to Junk "Sodhi" Suit
JOHNSON PREMIUM: "Williams" Suit Moved From California to N.J.
KBR INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Texas

LINN ENERGY: In Settlement Negotiations for Royalty Payments Suit
LINN ENERGY: May Distribute Settlement in Royalty Lawsuit by Q4
LINN ENERGY: No Appeal Filed v. Dismissal of Federal Case in N.Y.
MAJOR LEAGUE: Asks Second Circuit to Issue Writ of Mandamus
MAXWELL & MORGAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces Class Suit in Texas Alleging Retaliation
MERCADOLIBRE INC: Files Defense on Consumidores Financieros' Suit
MERIX FINANCIAL: January 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MESA PRODUCTION: Misclassified Workers as Contractors, Suit Says
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cert. Appeal in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit Denied

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC: Still Facing Polyurethane Suits in Canada
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Riggins & Gabriel Sue Over Use of Their Images
NCB MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Moose-Vehicle Class Action Hearing Jan. 21

NONGSHIM: Says US Class Action Over Noodles Baseless
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Court Conditionally Certifies OT Class Action
PARK'N FLY: Accused of Discriminating Against Haitian Employee
PLANET FITNESS: Gym Members File Privacy Class Action
PRICELINE GROUP: Faces 40 Lawsuits Over Travel Transaction Taxes

PRICELINE GROUP: Antitrust Suit Over Hotel Room Reservation Nixed
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
RAYONIER INC: Faces Securities Suit in Florida District Court
RAYONIER INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
RETROPHIN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

RICK'S CABARET: Judge Awards $10.9MM in Wage Class Action
SANDISK CORP: Dec. Hearing Set to Certify Ritz Camera Suit
SANDISK CORP: 9th Cir. Nixes Bid for Rehearing in Antitrust Case
SANDISK CORP: Court Refuses to Rehear Oliver v. SD-3C Suit
SANDISK CORP: Fusion-io Files Motion to Junk Stock Suit

SAPIENT CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Publicis, Suit Claims
SEMPRA ENERGY: Appeal v. Nixing of 2011 Power Outage Suit Pending
SKECHERS USA: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Shape-Up and Tone-Up Shoes
STARION ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch" Tactics
SUSHI YASUDA: Court Slashes Lawyers' Cut in Workers Settlement

TALLAHASSEE, FL: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
TARGA RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit by APL Unitholders Over Merger
UNIPIXEL INC: Enters Into MoU to Settle Securities Class Action
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Sale of Redline(R) Xtreme
VOCATION: Slater & Gordon Faces Second Class Action

WEATHERFORD US: "Vega" Suit Moved From N.D. to E.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
WEST BROM: Landlords Vow to Pursue Mortgage Rate Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMO Product Mislabeling
WHOLE FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of Homeopathy Class Action

WILLIAMS SONOMA: Violates Disabilities Act, California Suit Says

* Coupon Accords Survive in Post-CAFA World, Sidley Austin Says
* Smaller Law Firms in Class Action Industry Squeezed Out


                            *********


1382 DINER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Morelos, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 1382 Diner, Inc. d/b/a Trend Diner & Restaurant, John
Giavris, Michael Kambanis and Emanuel Kambanis, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-09002 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2014)
seeks to recover damages for the Plaintiff due to the Defendants'
alleged violations of federal and New York state law related to
unpaid minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked as a cleaner, dishwasher, food preparer and
delivery person for the Defendants at their restaurant known as
Trend Diner & Restaurant located in New York City.

1382 Diner, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation.  The
Individual Defendants are principals of Trend Diner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene G. Eisner, Esq.
          EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          113 University Place, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 473-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 473-8705


40-40 ELBERTSON: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Calvo v. 40-40 Elbertson Corporation, Joe Young Louie, and
Mabel Lem, Case No. 1:14-cv-06695-CBA-LB (E.D.N.Y., November 13,
2014) is brought to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

40-40 Elbertson Corporation is in the business of residential
building management and leasing in the New York City area.  The
Individual Defendants are the managers or owners of the Company.
The Defendants own, operate, and manage, located at 40-40
Elbertson Street, in Elmhurst, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1020
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101
          Facsimile: (212) 267-8115
          E-mail: rw@rwapc.com


ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS: Conn. Court Dismisses, Closes Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
approved a voluntary dismissal and closed a case filed against
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in that court, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On May 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action lawsuit originally filed in October 2013 against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
voluntarily dismissed all of their claims without prejudice. The
Court approved the voluntary dismissal and closed the case on May
6, 2014. A dismissal without prejudice does not prevent the
litigation of the same claims in a subsequent action.


ACURIAN INC: Faces "Wornicki" Class Action Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Wornicki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Acurian, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation,
Case No. 5:14-cv-00634-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., November 13, 2014)
asserts claims arising from restrictions on use of telephone
equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-9827
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Reverses ERISA Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an appeals
court has ruled that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
against Amgen Inc. sufficiently alleged violation of Amgen's
fiduciary duties.

In an earlier opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint.

"Applying Quan, we held that the presumption of prudence did not
apply," the Oct. 30 opinion states.  "We held, further, that, in
the absence of the presumption, plaintiffs had sufficiently
alleged violation of the defendants' fiduciary duties."

Circuit judges Jerome Farris and William A. Fletcher and Senior
District Judge Edward R. Korman made up a unanimous majority, with
Fletcher authoring the opinion

The court also held that Amgen was an adequately-alleged fiduciary
of the Amgen Plan.

The defendants petitioned for a writ of certiorari and the U.S.
Supreme Court deferred ruling on the petition while it considered
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, another Employee Retirement
Income Security Act case in which the presumption of prudence was
at issue.

"Overruling Quan and similar decisions by our sister circuits, the
Supreme Court held in Fifth Third that there was no presumption of
prudence for ESOP fiduciaries beyond the statutory exemption from
the otherwise applicable duty to diversify," the opinion states.
"After deciding Fifth Third, the court granted certiorari, and
vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of its decision.

On reconsideration in light of Fifth Third, the court, again,
reversed the district court's dismissal.

Steve Harris, Dennis F. Ramos, Donald Hanks, Jorge Torres and
Albert Cappa are current and former employees of Amgen and its
subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing.  They participated in two
employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing.

The plans were employee stock-ownership plans that qualified as
"eligible individual account plans" and all of the plaintiffs'
EIAPs included holdings in the Amgen common stock fund, one of the
investments available to plan participants.

After the value of Amgen common stock fell, the plaintiffs filed a
class action under the ERISA against Amgen, AML, Amgen's board of
directors and the Fiduciary Committees of the Plans, alleging that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The district court dismissed the complaint against Amgen on the
ground that Amgen was not a fiduciary.  It dismissed the complaint
against the other defendants, who were fiduciaries, after applying
the "presumption of prudence" articulated in Quan v. Computer
Sciences Corp.

"Alternatively, even assuming the absence of the presumption, the
district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that
defendants had not violated their fiduciary duties," the opinion
states.

The class action lawsuit was initially filed on Aug. 20, 2007.  It
was appealed to the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 28, 2008, and remanded
back to federal court the first time on July 14, 2009.

In June 2010, the class action was again dismissed and appealed to
the Ninth Circuit.  The petition for rehearing was denied, the
defendants petitioned for a writ of certiorari and the U.S.
Supreme Court deferred ruling on the petition while it considered
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.

"The Supreme Court held in Fifth Third that there is no
presumption of prudence for employee stock ownership plan
fiduciaries beyond the statutory exemption from the otherwise
applicable duty to diversify," the opinion states.  "The panel
held, therefore, that the plaintiffs were not required to satisfy
the criteria of Quan v. Computer Sci. Corp. . . . in order to show
that no presumption of prudence applied."

The panel held that the plaintiffs stated a claim that the
defendants acted imprudently, and thereby violated their duty of
care, by continuing to provide Amgen common stock as an investment
alternative when they knew or should have known that the stock was
being sold at an artificially inflated price.

The panel held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the
defendants violated their duty of loyalty and care by failing to
provide material information to plan participants about investment
of the Amgen common stock fund.

The panel held that the defendants' preparation and distribution
of summary plan distributions, including their incorporation of
Amgen's SEC filings by reference, were acts performed in their
fiduciary capacity.

The panel also reversed the dismissal of derivative claims, as
well as a claim that the defendants caused the plans directly or
indirectly to sell or exchange property with a party-in-interest.

Because the Amgen plan contained no clear delegation of executive
authority, the panel reversed the district court's dismissal of
Amgen from the case as a non-fiduciary.  The panel remanded for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen J. Fearon Jr. and Garry
T. Stevens Jr. of Squitieri & Fearon LLP; Stephen M. Fishback ==
sfishback@kfjlegal.com -- and Daniel L. Keller --
dkeller@kfjlegal.com -- of Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP; Francis
M. Gregorek -- gregorek@whafh.com -- Betsy C. Manifold, Rachele R.
Rickert and Mark C. Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP; and Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com --
Gainey & McKenna.

The defendants are represented by Emily Seymour Costin, Steven
Oliver Kramer -- skramer@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jonathan David
Moss -- jmoss@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton; Jonathan Rose -- jonathan.rose@alston.com -- of Alston &
Bird; and John Nadolenco -- jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- David
Netter and Robert P. Davis  of Mayer Brown LLP.

Amgen Inc.; Amgen Manufacturing Limited; Frank J. Biondi Jr.;
Jerry D. Choate; Frank C. Herringer; Gilbert S. Omenn; David
Baltimore; Judith C. Pelham; Kevin W. Sharer; Frederick W. Gluck;
Leonard D. Schaeffer; Charles Bell; Jacqueline Allred; Amgen Plan
Fiduciary Committee; Raul Cermeno; Jackie Crouse; Fiduciary
Committee of the Amgen Manufacturing Limited Plan; Lori Johnston;
Michael Kelly, Dennis M. Fenton; Richard Nanula; the Fiduciary
Committee; Amgen Global Benefits Committee; Amgen Fiduciary
Committee were all named as defendants in the suit.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case number: 10-56014


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on Nov. 14 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors who acquired
Albany Molecular Research Inc. securities during the period from
August 5, 2014 to November 5, 2014.  Pursuant to applicable law,
investors have until January 12, 2015 to file a motion to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the investor lawsuit.

The lawsuit charges that during the class period the Company
touted its acquisition of pharmaceutical products manufacturer
OsoBio, and raised the Company's projected diluted earnings per
share and contract growth for 2014 in light of the acquisition.
However, the Company misled investors by omitting that the OsoBio
facility experienced a business interruption in July 2014, which
led to the loss of finished product, required remediation of one
of its suites, and meaningfully impaired the Company's outlook for
2014.

On November 5, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 8-K with the SEC revealing the interruption.  On this news,
the price of AMRI fell from $22.67 on November 4, 2015 to $16.59
on November 5, 2014, a loss of value of over 35%.

If you acquired Albany securities during this period and you are
interested in learning more about this matter and any rights you
might have with respect to these claims, contact Jess Kelley at
securitiescases@kmllp.com  by telephone at (212) 371-6600, or by
filling out this form.  Please bear in mind that some of these
rights may be time-sensitive.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, whistleblower,
antitrust and consumer litigation.  The firm has specialized in
complex litigation, including securities class actions, for
several decades.  Kirby McInerney LLP has repeatedly demonstrated
its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various
courts that have appointed the firm to major positions in
consolidated and multi-district litigation.  The firm's efforts on
behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in
recoveries totaling billions of dollars, and the firm's
achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in
numerous published decisions.


APPLE INC: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Lost IPhone Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Apple over missing text messages will
continue in Federal Court, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News
Service, citing a court ruling entered on November 10.

U.S. District Judge Leslie Koh granted in part and denied in part
a motion by Apple to dismiss a lawsuit stemming from a woman's
lost texts after she switched from an iPhone 4 to a Samsung Galaxy
S5.

In her May lawsuit, lead plaintiff Adrienne Moore claimed that
Apple did not warn users that using the iPhone's Messages
application would result in undelivered messages if a user
switched to different brand.  Moore said that if Apple had told
her this, she wouldn't have downloaded Apple's Messages service or
wouldn't have bought an Apple phone in the first place.

Apple filed a motion to dismiss in July, claiming the allegations
did not contain a clearly identifiable injury and did not meet
standards under California's Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

But Koh ruled that Moore sufficiently alleged an injury and has
standing to bring tort claims based on her contract with Verizon
Wireless.  Moore argued that the class is entitled to "send and
receive text messages in exchange for the monthly fee and charges
they pay to their wireless carrier."

Koh dismissed with prejudice claims under the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), and unfair competition predicated on the
CLRA.  She allowed to stand a tortious interference with contract
claim and unfair competition claims predicated on the tortious
interference claims.  She dismissed with prejudice an unfair
competition claim based on unfair business practices.

Adrienne Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02269-LHK, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: March 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE

If you received a call from or on behalf of Apria Healthcare,
you could be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

A proposed settlement of a class action entitled Carrie Couser v.
Apria Healthcare, Inc., No. SACV13-00035-JVS (RNBx), has been
reached in United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

Plaintiff claims, among other things, that Apria and its vendors
placed calls to cellular telephones in violation of federal law.
Apria denies any wrongdoing and has asserted defenses. In agreeing
to settle, Apria does not admit any wrongdoing.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Under the proposed settlement, Apria will provide payments,
vouchers, or debt forgiveness (as applicable), to certain members
of the proposed class.  It may also forgive certain debts owed by
other members of the proposed class.  For details regarding those
payments, please visit www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com
Class Members will also have the option to elect not to receive
calls from or on behalf of Apria.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?

If you remain a Class Member, and the Court approves the
settlement, you will be legally bound by its terms and will
release your claims relating to calls placed by or on  behalf of
Apria.

If you want to exclude yourself from this settlement, you must
send a written request specifically stating that you request
exclusion from the settlement to Couser v. Apria Healthcare, c/o
GCG, PO Box 10133, Dublin, OH 43017-3133, postmarked no later than
January 26, 2015.

If you remain a Class Member, you may object to the settlement by
writing to Class Counsel no later than January 26, 2015.  Full
details on how to object or exclude yourself can be found at
www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com

SETTLEMENT HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing on March 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider whether to approve the settlement, award attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $195,000, and award
Ms. Couser $5,000 for serving as Representative Plaintiff.

You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at your own
expense.  A more detailed Notice and a Claim Form are available at
www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com

The website also explains the Settlement terms in more detail.
You may write to Couser v. Apria Healthcare, c/o GCG, PO Box
10133, Dublin, OH 43017-3133 to request the more detailed Notice
and Claim Form.

TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT, VOUCHER, OR DEBT FORGIVENESS (AS
APPLICABLE), YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM.

YOU MAY COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ONLINE BY VISITING
WWW.COUSERTCPASETTLEMENT.COM

OR YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THE CLAIM FORM AVAILABLE AT
WWW.COUSERTCPASETTLEMENT.COM

COMPLETE IT, AND MAIL IT TO COUSER V. APRIA HEALTHCARE, C/O GCG,
PO BOX 10133, DUBLIN, OH 43017-3133 POSTMARKED

BY FEBRUARY 24, 2015.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-06542 (E.D.
Pa., November 13, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
          Land Title Bldg., 19th Floor
          100 S. Broad St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


ATLAS PIPELINE: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Directors are selling Atlas Pipeline Partners too cheaply through
an unfair process to Targa Resources, in a cash and stock swap
valued at $7.7 billion, shareholders say in a class action in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.


BARNEY'S NEW YORK: Sued Over Alleged Failure to Promote Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Foreman v. Barney's New York, Case No. 1:14-cv-09031
(S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) is brought for discrimination in
employment relating to race, color, gender, religion and national
origin, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The alleged
discriminatory conducts include failure to promote and unequal
terms and conditions of employment.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Nov. 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Barrett Business Services, Inc., and two of
its officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington (14-cv-05903), on behalf of all persons who
purchased Barrett securities on the open market during the period
February 12, 2013 through October 28, 2014.  This action alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than January 5, 2015 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of class
members in directing the litigation.

The Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements by understating its workers' compensation
reserves by at least $80 million, resulting in the overstatement
of the Company's earnings.  Moreover, the Company consistently
assured the investing public that its procedure for estimating
liability for workers' compensation claims included "an evaluation
of information provided by our internal claims adjusters and our
third-party claims administrators, coupled with management's use
of an independent actuary" and that the Company's workers'
compensation claims reserves were "reasonable and objective."

On September 16, 2014, Copperfield Research published a report,
revealing that Barrett's workers' compensation reserves have
systemically been under reserved which may force it to recognize
"a material charge to substantially increase its loss reserves."

On this news, Barrett common stock declined $8.95 per share or
more than 15%, to close at $48.69 per share on September 16, 2014.

On October 28, 2014, the Company acknowledged that initiatives
instituted in 2013 had caused a "disruption in the incurred and
paid trends in the claims data during 2014, making it difficult
for the Company's actuary to provide management with the best
estimate of probable liability."  Because of the previously
undisclosed difficulty in establishing the workers' compensation
reserves, the Company determined that the reserve was understated
and was required to be increased by an additional $80.0 million.
Thus, the Company revealed that its prior statements with respect
to its procedures for estimating the workers' compensation
reserves were false, and that in fact, the Company did not have a
reasonable basis for estimating its workers' compensation
reserves.

On this news, Barrett common stock plummeted $26.18 per share or
58%, to close at $18.28 per share on October 29, 2014.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Nevada Court Certifies Outback Employees Group
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada conditionally
certified a class for notice purposes consisting of all employees
that worked at Outback Steakhouse owned by Bloomin' Brands, Inc.
according to Bloomin's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2014.

On October 4, 2013, two then current employees (the "Nevada
Plaintiffs") filed a purported collective action lawsuit against
the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, and two of its
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Cardoza, et al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:13-
cv-01820-JAD-NJK). The complaint alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by requiring employees to work off the clock,
complete on-line training without pay, and attend meetings in the
restaurant without pay. The suit seeks to certify a nationwide
collective action that all hourly employees in all Outback
Steakhouse restaurants would be permitted to join. The suit seeks
an unspecified amount in back pay for the employees that join the
lawsuit, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs, expenses,
and attorney's fees. The Nevada Plaintiffs also filed a companion
lawsuit in Nevada state court alleging that the Company violated
the state break time rules. On October 27, 2014 the Court
conditionally certified a class for notice purposes consisting of
all employees that worked at a company-owned Outback Steakhouse
between October 27, 2011 and October 27, 2014. After notice and
discovery, the Company intends to move to decertify the class.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: "Holly Gehl" Labor Suit in California Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Holly Gehl, et al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case
No.: 4:13-cv-05961-KAW continues in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California in December 2013, according to
the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.

On November 8, 2013, three employees of the Company's franchisee
(collectively, the "California Plaintiffs") filed a purported
class action lawsuit against the Company, OSI Restaurant Partners,
LLC and OS Restaurant Services, LLC, two of its subsidiaries, and
T-Bird Restaurant Group, Inc. ("T-Bird"), one of its franchisees
in the California Superior Court, County of Alameda. The
defendants removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in December 2013 (Holly Gehl, et
al. v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., et al., Case No.: 4:13-cv-05961-
KAW). The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation, and violations
of California's Business and Professions Code. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate. The Company does not believe the California
Plaintiffs have any standing to bring claims against the Company
or its subsidiaries as all were employed by the Company's
franchisee.


BNSF RAILWAY: Expert's Conflict May Upend Certification Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An expert's undisclosed business interest in the outcome of a
freight price-fixing case against major railroads may upend class-
certification briefing, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Olin Corp. and seven other companies brought the action in
Washington, D.C., against BNSF Railway Co., Union Pacific Railroad
Co., CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Together,
the defendants control more than 90 percent of rail-freight
shipments in the United States.

The complaint accused the four railroads of conspiring at industry
meetings to fix fuel surcharges as a percentage of overall
transportation costs, rather than linking the charges to actual
fuel prices, over a four-year period.

Customers spent billions because of the scheme, Olin and the
others claimed.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted class certification in
June 2012, but the D.C. Circuit overturned that ruling a year
later based on the failure to scrutinize plaintiffs' evidence.

This year the parties learned that Gordon Rausser, an expert
witness for the plaintiffs, may have undisclosed business
interests implicating issues in this case.  Rausser, a professor
at the University of California at Berkeley, apparently kept these
interests secret even from plaintiffs' counsel.

Rausser's potential conflict of interest led the court to postpone
a hearing on the renewed bid for class certification.

Friedman was set to hear arguments on November 13 as to whether he
should set aside all prior briefing and expert reports on class
certification, a November 12 order states.

"The court is deeply concerned that, in light of recently
discovered evidence, issues relating to Dr. Rausser's credibility
would predominate the class certification hearing and be a time-
consuming distraction from resolving the ultimate issue of whether
the class should be certified," the judge said.

It is possible that the plaintiffs will replace Rausser with a new
economic expert.

"This alternative would require an entirely new expert or experts
on plaintiffs' side, new economic analyses from defendants'
experts, and briefing the class certification issues ab initio,"
Friedman said.  "But it would avoid the side-show or trial-within-
a-trial that plaintiffs' own filing suggests is virtually
inevitable."

Friedman unsealed the transcripts of the two closed hearings, held
Oct. 2 and Oct. 21, 2014, on November 7.

The multidistrict litigation is captioned In re Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Subsidiary Still Faces Injury, Damage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gulf South subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP
continues to face one purported class action suit filed in the
Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, seeking unspecified
damages for personal injury and property damage related to an
alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities
in Eight Mile, Alabama, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The Partnership's Gulf South subsidiary and several other
defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have
been named as defendants in nine lawsuits, including one purported
class action suit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs in the Circuit
Court of Mobile County, Alabama. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for personal injury and property damage related to an
alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler Junction facilities
in Eight Mile, Alabama. Gulf South delivers natural gas to MGSC,
the local distribution company for that region, at Whistler
Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas prior to delivery to end user
customers by injecting mercaptan into the gas stream, as required
by law. The cases are: Parker, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No.
CV-12-900711), Crum, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-
901057), Austin, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901133),
Moore, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et
al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901490),

Joel G. Reed, et al. v. MGSC, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-922265),
The Housing Authority of the City of Prichard, Alabama v. MGSC.,
et al. (Case No. CV-2013-901002), Robert Evans, et al. v. MGSC, et
al. (Case No. CV-2013-902627), and Devin Nobles, et al. v. MGSC,
et al. (Case No. CV-2013-902786). Gulf South has denied liability.
Gulf South has demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South against all
liability related to these matters pursuant to a right-of-way
agreement between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed cross-claims
against MGSC for any such liability. MGSC has also filed cross-
claims against Gulf South seeking indemnity and other relief from
Gulf South.

In May 2014, Gulf South and MGSC reached an agreement whereby MGSC
fully indemnified Gulf South against all liability related to this
matter and the cross-claims between Gulf South and MGSC were
settled.


BRIUS MANAGEMENT: Refutes Allegations in Nursing Home Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Nursing Home Blog reports that a class action lawsuit was
brought in Long Beach, California against the owner of 57 nursing
home facilities across the state.  This lawsuit has accused the
owner of violating nursing home residents' rights, of committing
fraud, and engaging in unfair business practices under state law.
The owner's name is Schlomo Rechnitz, and he owns Brius Management
and Brius LLC, which is the holding entity of the nursing
facilities that span the state, including in Los Angeles,
Pasadena, and elsewhere.  The lawsuit uses as its basis the
findings from a multiyear investigation that concluded the nursing
facilities routinely lacked adequate staff and was also
underfunded by its owner.

This is an unfortunately common thing to see across nursing homes.
Many facility owners seek to limit the number of staff and limit
as much of the expenses as possible in order to keep overhead low.
By spending less on staffing and other items, naturally their
profits go up.  Unfortunately the potential for fraud can creep
in, however, where a nursing home continues to bill insurance
companies, including public programs like Medicare and Medicaid,
for serves rendered that are either subpart of nonexistent.  And
most importantly, patients not tended to can be injured,
dehydrated, malnourished, experience infections, and wander and
fall, among other things.  Such incidents are even worse among
those with mental ailments like dementia.  The lawsuit in this
case accuses the owner of making misrepresentations as to the
level of care provided and by failing to inform patients or
potential patients about violations of nursing regulations.
The nursing home's owner has refuted the allegations and cites a
lack of record of actual harm or abuse against the nursing homes'
residents.  He furthermore cites a record of more than adequate
staffing at the various facilities and how those levels easily
meet state standards.  A Press Telegram article quotes the
executive director of the California Advocates for Nursing Home
Reform as stating that the state requirement of at least 3.2
nursing hours per patient per day is relatively low and that all
facilities should have little problem meeting that goal.  Thus for
homes to be accused of understaffing, they must be truly
understaffed based on that measure.

Naturally, this case has merely been filed and it remains to be
seen how the facts sort themselves out.  Nothing has been proven
and there remain only allegations.  But the nature of the
allegations rings like an echo for so many others we have seen
across the country of understaffing and false or dishonest
advertising by nursing homes.  In the rush for profit the care for
the patients, which should be paramount, can fall by the wayside.
This is not to say this is the case in the California class
action, but unfortunately is so at various facilities around the
nation.


C&J ENERGY: Court to Hear Motion to Enjoin Meeting on NCPS Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware scheduled a hearing
on November 24, 2014 to consider an anticipated motion by
plaintiffs in a suit by the City of Miami General Employees' and
Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. to enjoin a
stockholder meeting to decide on a proposed NCPS Combination,
according to C&J Energy Services, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, the company, the members of the company's board
of directors, including the company's management directors,
together with Nabors Industries, Ltd. and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Nabors Red Lion Limited, were sued in a putative
shareholder class action by the company's stockholders. The case
is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc.,
et al.; C.A. No. 9980-VCN; In the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
NCPS Combination, and that all of the named defendants aided and
abetted these alleged violations. The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the
transactions, together with attorney's fees and costs. The court
has scheduled a hearing on November 24, 2014 to consider
plaintiff's anticipated motion to enjoin the stockholder meeting.


CAFE LUNA: Servers Sue Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Biller on her own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Cafe Luna of Naples, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Cafe Luna East, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Edward J. Barsamian, individually and Shannon Radosti,
individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00659-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla.,
November 12, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated
current and former "server" employees of the Defendants arising
from alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants are engaged in business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          Amanda E. Kayfus, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: akayfus@forthepeople.com
                  afrisch@forthepeople.com


CAPE BANCORP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in Maryland Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Financial Services, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland over its proposed merger,
according to Cape Bancorp, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On October 14, 2014, a complaint was filed against Colonial
Financial Services, Inc. ("Colonial") and the members of its Board
of Directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland,
seeking class action status and asserting that Colonial and the
members of its Board had violated their duties to Colonial's
shareholders in connection with the proposed merger with the
Company. The complaint alleges that Cape Bancorp, Inc. and Cape
Bank aided and abetted the Colonial directors' alleged violations
of their fiduciary duties. The litigation is in its early stages,
and Cape Bancorp and Cape Bank believe the complaint is without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend the complaint.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Enters MoU to Settle Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (Nasdaq:CPRX) (Catalyst
Pharmaceuticals or the Company), a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for
people with rare debilitating diseases, announced that it has
entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle its
pending class action securities lawsuit, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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


CHRYSLER GROUP: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Suit Over Defective TIPM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg on Nov. 13 announced the filing of a class
action lawsuit in federal court against Chrysler.  The nationally
respected personal injury and mass tort law firm said it seeks to
hold the Big Three automobile maker accountable for economic
losses suffered by owners and passengers of Chrysler cars and
trucks that stalled, caught fire or sustained other potentially
life-endangering malfunctions due to a faulty onboard computer.

The lawsuit alleges that Chrysler knew about and fraudulently
concealed the defectiveness of its Totally Integrated Power Module
-- TIPM, for short.

Chrysler sought as far back as 2005 to hide the magnitude of the
TIPM defect from consumers and initiated only limited vehicle
recalls, the complaint alleges.

Despite knowing about the defect, Chrysler continued installing
faulty TIPMs in vehicles until the 2014 model year, according to
the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The TIPM is an integral component of many Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep
models on the road today, Weitz & Luxenberg said.  The device
controls and distributes power to all of a vehicle's electrical
functions.

Prone to sudden failure, a vehicle's TIPM poses a serious safety
issue, placing the driver and passengers at risk of harm, the
complaint indicates.

A failed TIPM causes malfunctioning of airbags, headlights,
brakes, horns, wipers, windows, door locks and other components
that rely on electrical functions, Weitz & Luxenberg explained.

Worse, a failed TIPM can cause a vehicle's engine to shut down
unexpectedly while driving at high speeds, the firm said.

"Millions of consumers who have bought into this brand have
suffered harm because of Chrysler and its faulty Totally
Integrated Power Module," the complaint alleges.

Owners of defective TIPM-equipped Chrysler vehicles suffer
economic losses in part because the device is expensive to
replace, costing upward of $1,000, Weitz & Luxenberg said.

Also, because of the sheer number of vehicles requiring a new
TIPM, consumers are forced to make do without their vehicles for
many days and even weeks while their vehicles sit in the shop and
wait for a replacement TIPM to be shipped, the firm said.

Adding insult to injury, the defect caused many motorists to incur
unnecessary costs to replace non-defective parts that
malfunctioned because of the faulty TIPM, Weitz & Luxenberg noted.

Participating in the class-action with Weitz & Luxenberg is the
law firm of Baron & Budd.

                     About Weitz & Luxenberg:

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. -- http://www.weitzluxenberg.com/-- is a
personal injury law firm.  Weitz & Luxenberg's numerous litigation
areas include: mesothelioma, defective medicines and devices,
environmental pollutants, consumer protection, accidents, personal
injury and medical malpractice.  Victims of accidents are invited
to rely on Weitz & Luxenberg's more than 25 years of experience
handling such cases.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Fogarty" Suit Over Unscented Deodorant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Fogarty, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Church & Dwight, Inc.; The Procter & Gamble Company,
Inc.; Revlon, Inc.,; The Dial Corporation; and Henkel Corporation,
Case No. 3:14-cv-07086-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., November 12, 2014) is
brought to remedy the alleged unfair, deceptive and unlawful
business practices of the Defendants regarding their marketing and
sales of "unscented" deodorant products.

Ms. Fogarty contends that the products at issue have noticeable
and unmistakable scent detectible by any reasonable consumer.

The Defendants manufacture, market and sell deodorant that is
labeled as "unscented."

Church & Dwight, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in
Princeton, New Jersey.  Procter & Gamble Company is an Ohio
corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Revlon, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. The Dial
Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Scottsdale,
Arizona.  Kao USA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Rhoades, Esq.
          RHOADES LLC
          One Liberty Place, 36th Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-9002
          E-mail: rhoades@rhoadesllc.com


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action in Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Carbon County, Pa., man has filed a class action suit at the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
soft drink giant Coca-Cola and its regional distribution
subsidiaries on behalf of an estimated 70,000 people whose
information and identities have been allegedly compromised by the
theft of 55 laptops from the company's Atlanta headquarters over a
six year period.

Shane Enslin, of Albrightsville, Pa., has brought the action to
federal court seeking more than $5 million in damages for the
thousands of current and former employees that had their personal
information threatened by the thefts.  He claims that the
corporation failed to not only protect the data, but also
adequately notify the potential victims of the breach.

The thefts of the laptops had gone unnoticed until November 2013,
when they recovered the hardware.  After analyzing the contents,
the company realized that the employee information had been
accessible and sent out a letter in January 2014 warning those who
were compromised.  The information saved on the laptops included
social security numbers, drivers license records, physical
addresses, email addresses and other financial information.

The plaintiff had not worked for Coca-Cola since 2007, when he
served as a service technician based out of the company's
distribution plant, Keystone Coca-Cola, based in the Poconos.

Ms. Enslin claims that unknown parties have attempted to steal his
identity, make unauthorized purchases and open new credit
accounts. He says that if he had received proper notification,
Ms. Enslin could have put more security measures on his accounts.

According to the claim, within months after receiving the data
breach notification, Ms. Enslin's information was used to purchase
more than $950 in merchandise from Bloomingdale's, which was
shipped to an address in Staten Island, N.Y.  The action forced
Ms. Enslin to close his longtime accounts and open new ones.
Another attempt to purchase items from Fingerhut was made, then
the suspects tried to change the addresses for all of his accounts
to the Staten Island location.

In April 2014, the claim says, the data thieves took control of
his Capital One account and Best Buy account and attempted to use
his checking account to pay off the outstanding balances, then
issue a new card to the Staten Island address.  The suspects also
used a new, password protected credit card to make purchases in
Ireland. Finally, in July 2014, someone used Ms. Enslin's identity
to obtain a job with UPS.

The plaintiff says that Coca-Cola's security failures as forced
the victims to spend valuable time and money protecting themselves
from the breaches. The suit accuses the company if receiving
unjust enrichment by not covering the cost of superior data
protection software and practices.  Coca-Cola breached its
contract when it obtained the employee information and failed to
keep it secure, the claim says.

The class action is represented by Donald Haviland of Haviland
Hughes in Ambler, Pa.

The federal case ID is 2:14-cv-06476-JHS.


COCA-COLA: Faces Class Action Over Minute Maid Fruit Juice Blend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that The Coca-Cola Co.
was hit with a proposed class action lawsuit in California federal
court alleging that the labelling on its Minute Maid Pomegranate
Blueberry 100% Fruit Juice Blend falsely claims that the juice
boosts brain power.

The plaintiff, San Diego resident Tom Browne, said that Coca-Cola
violates California's unfair competition law and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act by claiming on the juice label that five nutrients in
the juice "support" the brain.  Mr. Browne said that there is
strong scientific evidence that one of the nutrients -- algal DHA,
a omega-3 fatty acid -- does not support the brain and even if it
did, the amount of DHA in the juice is too small to have an
effect.

Mr. Browne claims that he bought several bottles of the juice for
about $3.50 each between 2011 and 2014, relying on the product's
labels that its 50 mg of algal DHA, choline, Vitamin B12, Vitamin
C and Vitamin E support the brain.

"Had [Browne] known the truth about [Coca-Cola's]
misrepresentations, he would not have purchased the products," the
complaint said.  "Each and every consumer who purchases the
product is exposed to [Coca-Cola's] deceptive brain support
representation, which appears prominently and conspicuously on the
front of the product's packaging."

On the front of the juice's package, the label prominently says
"Omega-3/DHA & 4 nutrients to Support Brain & Body," according to
the complaint.

The back of the label also says, "DHA is a key building block in
the brain," in addition to claims that the four other nutrients
support the brain.

Coca-Cola also promises that the five nutrients in the juice
support the brain through a national marketing and advertising
campaign, according to the complaint.

Mr. Browne said that five randomized controlled trials involving
the same algal DHA in the juice found no causative link between
DHA algal supplementation and brain support.

The trials, funded by the manufacturer of the juice's DHA, found
there was no link to brain support even though much higher doses
of DHA were used, the complaint said.

Mr. Browne also said that the algal DHA in the juice is redundant,
since American children and adults already consume enough DHA from
other dietary sources.

"In fact, there is only one reported case of DHA deficiency in the
United States in the last thirty or so years and it involved a
girl on an intravenous diet," the complaint said.

In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published a final
rule rejecting DHA-maker Martek Bioscience Corp.'s request that
the agency recognize a daily requirement for DHA.

"Thus, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is that DHA
supplementation does not support the brain," the complaint said.

Mr. Browne claims that Coca-Cola has reaped enormous profits from
its false marketing and sale of the juice, and seeks injunctive
and monetary relief for the proposed class.

Mr. Browne seeks to represent a class of consumers in California
who purchased the juice, or alternatively, consumers who bought
the juice in California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and
Washington, according to the complaint.

Mr. Browne is represented by Patricia N. Syverson, Elaine A. Ryan
and Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
PC and Stewart M. Weltman of Stewart M. Weltman LLC.

The case is Browne v. The Coca-Cola Co, case number 3:14-cv-02687
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Shareholder Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Community Health Systems, Inc. to dismiss a
shareholder suit has been fully briefed and is pending before the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Company's motion to
dismiss this case has been fully briefed and is pending before the
court.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Several Suits Over Cyber Attack
-------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. is facing multiple purported class
action lawsuits in which plaintiffs claim breach of contract and
other theories of recovery in relation to a 2014 Cyber Attack,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

As disclosed on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the company
on August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target
of an external, criminal cyber attack that the company believes
occurred in April and June, 2014. The company and Mandiant (a
FireEye Company), the forensic expert engaged by the company in
connection with this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign
"Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated
malware and technology to attack the company's systems. The
attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and
successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain non-
medical patient identification data (such as patient names,
addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security
numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or
clinical information. The company continues to work closely with
federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their
investigation and possible prosecution of those determined to be
responsible for this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough
investigation of this incident and continues to advise the Company
regarding remediation efforts. The company is providing
appropriate notification to affected patients and regulatory
agencies as required by federal and state law. It is offering
identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this
attack.

The company incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate
this matter, and expect to continue to incur expenses of this
nature in the foreseeable future. In addition, multiple purported
class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company. (Denise
B. Alverson, v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corporation, Riverview Regional
Medical Center, LLC, Gadsden Regional Medical Center, LLC, Foley
Hospital Corporation and Anniston HMA, LLC, (USDC, N.D., AL); Mary
Martin Glah and Charles William Stonestreet, et al. v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., Community Health Systems Professional
Services Corporation, et al., (USDC, S.D. WV); Roman v. Community
Health Systems, Inc. and Community Health Systems Professional
Services Corporation, (USDC, M.D. PA); Braquelle Lawson, et al. v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporation, River Oaks Hospital, LLC,
Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC D/B/A River Region Health System,
Brandon HMA, LLC D/B/A Crossgates River Oaks Hospital, LLC,
Madison HMA, LLC D/B/A Madison River Oaks Hospital, Central
Mississippi Medical Center, and Natchez Community Hospital, LLC,
(USDC, S.D. MS); Briana Brito v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Alta
Vista Regional Hospital, Carlsbad Medical Center, Eastern NM Med
Center, Mimbres Memorial Hospital, Mountainview Regional Medical
Center, Lea Regional Medical Center, (NM State Court, 4th Jud.
Dist. San Miguel County NM).) These lawsuits allege that sensitive
information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the
Company. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other
theories of recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as
restitution for any identity theft.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: HMA Stockholders Appeal Nixing of Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et
al. appealed to the Eleventh Circuit the dismissal of the case by
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against Health Management Associates, Inc. and certain of its then
executive officers, one of whom was at that time also a director,
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under the caption In Re: Health Management
Associates, Inc., et al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were
appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint purportedly on
behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012. The amended
consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made false and
misleading statements in certain public disclosures regarding its
business and financial results and (ii) asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. Among other things, the plaintiffs claim
that HMA inflated its earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare
billing practices that entailed admitting patients to observation
status when they should not have been admitted at all and to
inpatient status when they should have been admitted to
observation status. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages. On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint. On December 15,
2012, the court entered an order approving the stipulation and
providing a schedule for briefing with respect to the proposed
amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint, which asserted
substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated
complaint. As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim
and plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act was fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision. On
May 22, 2014, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on June
20, 2014 the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.


CONDE NAST: Settles Interns' Wage Class Action for $5.85 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that Conde Nast
Publications agreed to pay $5.85 million to resolve a putative
class action brought by two former interns at the New Yorker and W
magazine who claimed they were unlawfully denied minimum wage, the
plaintiffs told a New York federal court on Nov. 13.

Named plaintiffs Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Lieb filed a motion
for preliminary approval of a class action deal that would resolve
both federal and state wage claims, pointing out that there was an
inherent risk in pursuing the case because what legal test should
apply to intern wage claims is still being mulled by the Second
Circuit.

In intern cases against Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Hearst
Corp., New York federal courts adopted different tests for
ascertaining whether an intern qualifies as an employee under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Conde Nast plaintiffs said.  Those
cases, part of a rash of intern wage cases against big-name
employers, are on appeal.

"Two very different outcomes resulted in these cases -- in one,
the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs; in the
other, the court denied summary judgment," the interns said in a
memorandum supporting their preliminary approval bid.  "These very
different outcomes demonstrate the uncertainty that the parties
face. The proposed settlement alleviates this uncertainty."

The suit was filed in June 2013, invoking the FLSA and the New
York Labor Law.  The parties reached an agreement on key terms,
including the settlement amount, in March. The class covers an
estimated 7,500 people, the agreement said.

Ms. Ballinger, who interned at W magazine in 2009, claimed she was
paid $12 per day no matter how long she worked.  She and others
said they regularly performed productive work that benefited Conde
Nast and saved it money, yet the company not only underpaid them
but also provided them no educational experience.

Mr. Lieb was an intern for the New Yorker during the summers of
2009 and 2010, when he reviewed submissions, answered reader
emails, proofread copy and relayed documents between writers,
cartoonists and editors. He was paid a few hundred dollars for his
work, the lawsuit claims.

The proposed settlement, under which Conde Nast will pay up to
$5.85 million to cover payments to class members, plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs, service payments and claims
administration fees, covers two overlapping groups of class
members.

The FLSA collective group covers all people who had Conde Nast
internships since June 13, 2010, and the New York class covers
those with Conde Nast internships in New York state since June 13,
2007.

Class counsel Outten & Golden LLP will seek about $650,000 from
the settlement amount to cover attorneys fees and no more than
$10,000 for lawsuit costs.  The plaintiffs will seek service
payments of up to $10,000 each on top of their payouts under the
settlement's allocation formula.

"While we continue to believe the internships that were offered at
Conde Nast provided experiences that were among the best in the
media business, we determined that settling the lawsuit is the
right business decision for Conde Nast, as it allows us to focus
our time and resources on developing meaningful, new opportunities
to support future up-and-coming talent," said an internal note
from Conde Nast CEO Chuck Townsend, which the company said on
Nov. 13 would serve as its statement.

Defendant Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. dba Conde Nast
Publications is represented by Elise Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Rachel Bien, Juno Turner and
Michael Litrownik of Outten & Golden LLP.

The case is Ballinger et al v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.,
case number 1:13-cv-04036, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Judge Trims Class Suit Over Kirkland Food Line
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Nov. 12 further trimmed a proposed class action
accusing Costco Wholesale Corp. of misleading consumers about the
nutrient content of products in its Kirkland Signature food line,
slashing claims that the company sold food it knew had illegal
labeling and made negligent misrepresentations to consumers.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman determined that plaintiff
Lisa Liddle's couldn't show that the foods named in her complaint,
such as Kirkland Signature Whole Dried Blueberries and Bolthouse
Farms Organic 100% Carrot Juice, were so deficient in quality that
they wouldn't have been safe for human consumption, as would have
been required to plead a violation of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

Instead, Ms. Liddle had alleged that the products were misbranded
because they misled consumers about qualities like sugar content
and preservatives, and as a result "could not be legally sold or
held" because they violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations.

Nor could Ms. Liddle demonstrate that Costco's alleged
misrepresentation of added sugar as evaporated cane juice in its
Kirkland Signature Organic Chocolate Reduced Fat Milk, or its
labeling of supposedly non-natural products as natural, amounted
to negligent misrepresentation.  For that claim to succeed,
Ms. Liddle would have had to show that Costco had positively
asserted its alleged misrepresentations, not simply that it hadn't
told consumers its products didn't comply with FDA regulations,
Judge Freeman said.

Judge Freeman granted Costco's motion to dismiss the two causes of
action, which had been added to a third amended complaint after
previous iterations of the suit had been pared or dismissed
earlier this year and in 2013.

"She was not . . . able to cite in her opposition to defendant's
motion a single specific paragraph that included any such
affirmative misrepresentation," Judge Freeman wrote.  "It is not
the court's job to look through the incredibly lengthy TAC to find
plaintiff's misrepresentations for her -- that, plainly, is the
job of the party opposing the motion to dismiss."

The judge agreed to stay the claims relating to the use of the
phrase "evaporated cane juice" on the label for Kirkland Signature
Organic Chocolate Reduced Fat Milk in light of the FDA's decision
to reopen the comment period on its 2009 draft guidance governing
the use of the term.

Originally filed by plaintiff Karen Thomas in June 2012, the
complaint alleged that Costco had mislabeled its Kirkland
Signature Kettle Brand Potato Chips as containing zero grams trans
fat even though it contained high levels of other fats.  A second
amended complaint filed in September 2012 by Ms. Thomas and
Ms. Liddle added allegations relating to eight other products that
were allegedly misleadingly labeled as containing "evaporated cane
juice" instead of sugar, having no preservatives when they did,
and other claims.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila tossed the complaint without
prejudice in April 2013.  Then in March, Judge Davila dismissed
Thomas' claim relating to the Kettle Brand potato chips after
finding she hadn't alleged that the claims about zero transfat
were untruthful or misleading, and gave Ms. Liddle leave to amend
her claim regarding evaporated cane juice.  Ms. Liddle filed her
third amended complaint in April.

In the Nov. 12 ruling, Judge Freeman delayed ruling on Costco's
motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims
involving six products for which the company received vendor
guarantees regarding quality and compliance, saying the motion was
premature because additional discovery was needed. Costco had
argued that the claims were barred under the safe harbor
provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Sherman Law.

Other products that the suit alleges are mislabeled include Whole
Dried Blueberries, Cashew Clusters with Almonds and Pumpkin Seeds,
Canola Oil Cooking Spray, Newman's Own 100% Grape Juice, Real
Sliced Fruit -- Fuji Apple, Strawberry Banana, and Fuji Apple with
Cinnamon, and Ancient Grains Granola with Almonds.

The plaintiff is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates, David Malcolm McMullan Jr. of Don Barrett PA, and Guy
Gladstone Fisher.

Costco is represented by Amanda L. Groves, Luciona Johnson, and
Sean D. Meenan of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, case number
5:12-cv-02908 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Dick, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc. d/b/a Chase
Receivables, Case No. 1:14-cv-06680 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014)
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yisroel Perelson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control Services, Inc. dba Credit
Collection Services, Case No. 1:14-cv-06660 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEUTSCHE BANK: Judge Tosses Libor Manipulation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Nov. 14 tossed a borrower's putative class action
claims alleging Deutsche Bank AG manipulated the London Interbank
Offered Rate to drive up mortgages, saying the plaintiff failed to
show the bank was subject to personal jurisdiction in the court.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney also threw out plaintiff
Helen Galope's claims alleging Deutsche Bank subsidiary Deutsche
Bank National Trust Co. had wrongfully foreclosed on her Los
Angeles home, saying the claims were preempted by bankruptcy law
or weren't subject to the court's jurisdiction.

"The [operating complaint] contains no allegation that Deutsche
Bank AG expressly aimed any of its alleged wrongful acts at
California or had any contact with Ms. Galope, much less knowledge
that she was a resident of California," Judge Carney wrote in his
order.

The decision comes months after the Ninth Circuit revived the
putative class action alleging that Deutsche Bank AG subsidiary
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and Barclay's Bank PLC
manipulated Libor to drive up mortgages, ruling the plaintiffs
were injured when they bought mortgages without knowing about the
manipulation.

Ms. Galope sued in March 2012, alleging DBNTC and loan trustee
Western Progressive LLC had violated the Truth In Lending Act and
unfair competition laws in foreclosing on her home.

In July 2012, Galope amended her complaint to add antitrust claims
against loan servicers Barclays and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC in
the wake of Barclays agreeing to pay regulators in the U.K. and
U.S. more than $450 million to settle allegations that it had
helped manipulate Libor.

In September 2012, Judge Carney granted summary judgment to DBNTC,
Western Progressive and Ocwen, ruling that because Ms. Galope had
entered into an adjustment agreement for the loan in April 2008,
which fixed her interest rate for five years and avoided a Libor-
based interest mechanism being triggered, her interest rate was
never affected by Libor.  The judge ruled that because Ms.
Galope's payments were never affected by the Libor manipulation,
she couldn't prove she had suffered any injury from it.

Judge Carney granted Barclays' motion for summary judgment in
October 2012 on similar grounds.

But the appeals court ruled that Ms. Galope's injury was triggered
when she bought her loan, not when she would have had to pay
interest altered by the Libor manipulation.

The court also reversed the lower court's ruling that Ms. Galope's
wrongful foreclosure and unfair competition claims were moot.  Ms.
Galope claimed that DBNTC had violated a bankruptcy court's
automatic stay, but the trial court said the claims were not
justiciable because the sale underwent rescission almost seven
months after the violation.  The appeals court ruled that while
Ms. Galope's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were
mooted, she could still recover damages.

In March, the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court's order
granting summary judgment to Barclays on the grounds that
plaintiff Helen Galope could not prove she had suffered any injury
from the conspiracy to manipulate Libor, a benchmark used to set
interest rates for borrowing between banks.  But the panel also
affirmed the dismissal of Libor-related claims against DBNTC,
ruling Ms. Galope failed to prove it had control over the Libor
manipulation.

The panel's decision reversed the district court's decision to
grant summary judgment on Ms. Galope's breach of good faith and
fair dealing claims over the alleged violation of the automatic
stay.  There was enough evidence to support Ms. Galope's
allegation that DBNTC had notice of the stay when it refused to
rescind the house's sale.

Ms. Galope filed a new complaint in August that for the first time
leveled claims against DBNTC's parent Deutsche Bank AG.  The
claims against Deutsche Bank included alleged violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and California's unfair competition law.
DBNTC faced claims of unfair competition, breach of good faith and
fair dealing and foreclosure in violation of an automatic stay
after Ms. Galope filed for bankruptcy.

The Nov. 14 order dismissed all of those claims.

Ms. Galope is represented by Lenore L. Albert of the Law Offices
of Lenore Albert.

The case is Helen Galope v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
et al., case number 8:12-cv-00323, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.


DYNAMEX INC: Has Misclassified Delivery Drivers, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Saravia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dynamex, Inc., Dynamex Fleet Services, Inc., Dynmaex
Operations East, Inc., Dynamex Operations West, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-05003-KAW (N.D. Cal., November 12, 2014) is a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising out of the
Defendants' alleged misclassification of their delivery drivers as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees."

Dynamex, Inc., and Dynamex Operations West, Inc. operate a "same
day delivery" service.  Dynamex employs thousands of Drivers
across the United States.  The Drivers make home deliveries to the
customers of Dynamex's retail clients, an integral part of
Dynamex's self-described business of "same day delivery."

Dynamex is incorporated in Delaware and is a wholly owned entity
of Transforce, Inc. Dynamex owns and operates under a number of
different names and entities, which are headquartered in Dallas,
Texas, including Dynamex Inc., Dynamex Fleet Services, Inc.,
Dynamex Operations East, Inc. and Dynamex Operations West, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Counts in Suit Over Exercise Options Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California dismisses counts in a consumer
lawsuit filed against E*Trade Financial Corporation alleging it
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options, according to the company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed
on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to
strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On
October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer,
dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with
prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs have
until November 10, 2014 to file a third amended complaint. The
Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Face City of Providence's Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation continues to face a securities
lawsuit filed by the City of Providence, Rhode Island in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

On April 18, 2014, a putative class action was filed by the City
of Providence, Rhode Island against forty-one high frequency
trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-
dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the high
frequency trading firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark
pools, and the exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets,
and that numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in
that manipulation by doing business with the high frequency
traders. As to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Still Faces American European Insurance's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation continues to face a securities
lawsuit filed by American European Insurance Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's September, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2014.

On May 2, 2014, a similar putative class action was filed by
American European Insurance Company against 42 high frequency
trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-
dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action filed by American
European Insurance Company made allegations substantially similar
to the allegations in the City of Providence complaint.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Not Named in Amended Stock Lawsuit in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint that made allegations
substantially similar to the allegations in the City of Providence
Complaint does not identify E*Trade Financial Corporation as a
defendant, according to E*Trade's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On June 13, 2014, a putative class action was filed by James J.
Flynn and Dominic Morelli against twenty-six firms including the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The Flynn Complaint made allegations
substantially similar to the allegations in the City of Providence
Complaint. While there can be no assurances, based on the advice
of the Company's external legal counsel, the Company believes that
the claims against it have no merit and the Company will
ultimately prevail. The consolidated amended complaint does not
identify the Company as a defendant or make any allegations
regarding the Company. The Company will defend itself vigorously
in these matters.


EAST GREENHILL: Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Estrada, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. East Greenhill, LLC t/a Bestway Supermarket, Daniel B. Choi,
Pyoung R. Choi, Michael K. Choi and Gwang Jik Kim, Case No. 8:14-
cv-03552 (D. Md., November 12, 2014) is brought for alleged unpaid
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

East Greenhill is a Maryland limited liability company
headquartered in Maryland.  The Company operates a grocery store
located in Adelphi, Maryland.  The Individual Defendants are
residents of Virginia and are officers or owners of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
          Alvaro A. Llosa, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC
          11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Suite 700
          Wheaton, MD 20902
          Telephone: (301) 861-0202
          Facsimile: (410) 864-8895
          E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Suits Consolidated Under Propane Tank MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several lawsuits are transferred from various courts to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City):

   -- American Auto Repair, et al. v. Ferrellgas Partners L.P.,
      et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02344, from the U.S. District
      Court for the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District
      Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00972 to the
      proceeding;

   -- Tuckerton Lumber Company v. Ferrellgas, LP, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02353, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00975-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Zarco USA, Inc. v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02381, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00981-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Yocum Oil Company, Inc. v. Ferrellgas Partners LP, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02453, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00984-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- RC Gasoline v. Ferrellgas, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-
      02371, from the U.S. District Court for the District of
      Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 4:14-cv-00979-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Dunmore Oil Co., Inc., et al. v. AmeriGas Partners, L.P.,
      et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02393, from the U.S. District
      Court for the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District
      Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00982-GAF to the
      proceeding;

   -- Speed Stop 32, Inc. v. Ferrellgas, LP, et al., Case No.
      2:14-cv-02379, from the U.S. District Court for the
      District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00980-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Cedar Holly Investments, LLC v. Ferrellgas, LP, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02350, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00974-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Ace High Auto Repair & Propane v. Ferrellgas, LP, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02354, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00976-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Lochraven Sunoco, Inc. v. Ferrellgas, L.P., et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02336, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00971-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Johnson Auto Electric, Inc. v. Ferrellgas, L.P., et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02345, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00973-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- CEFO Enterprise Corp. v. Ferrellgas, L.P., et al., Case No.
      2:14-cv-02362, from the U.S. District Court for the
      District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00977-GAF to the proceeding;

   -- Alex Chernavsky, et al. v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.,
      et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06781, from the U.S. District
      Court for the Central District of California.  The Missouri
      District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00967-GAF to
      the proceeding;

   -- JonWall, Inc. v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02370, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00978-GAF to the proceeding; and

   -- Ekonomy Enterprises, Inc. v. Ferrellgas, LP, et al.,
      Case No. 2:14-cv-02432, from the U.S. District Court for
      the District  of Kansas.  The Missouri District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00983-GAF to the proceeding.

The lawsuits are transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
re: Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:14-
md-02567-GAF.

The actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
the Defendants unlawfully conspired to fix the price per pound of
propane sold in exchange tanks.

Plaintiffs American Auto Repair, et al., are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com
                  acohen@lfsblaw.com
                  kverrier@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                  kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          McLafferty & associates, p.c.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 940-4000
          E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com

Plaintiff Tuckerton Lumber Company is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Warren Rubin, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Tina Moukoulis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000
          Facsimile: (207) 791-3111
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  msmith@preti.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com

Plaintiff Zarco USA, Inc., is represented by:

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1177
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
                  thudson@wcllp.com

Plaintiff Yocum Oil Company is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Erin C. Burns, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: DNast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: KAW@wexlerwallace.com
                  KAE@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4340
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO KARON & PENNY, P.C.
          101 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 204
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          Facsimile: (484) 580-8729
          E-mail: goldman@gskplaw.com
                  penny@gskplaw.com

Plaintiff RC Gasoline is represented by:

          Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
                  jgittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          E-mail: sward@barrack.com

Plaintiffs Dunmore Oil Co., Inc., et al., are represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Simon Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

Plaintiffs Speed Stop 32, Inc., and Ekonomy Enterprises, Inc. are
represented by:

          Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
          MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHARTERED
          Old Town Square
          300 North Mead, Suite 200
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 262-2671
          Facsimile: (316) 262-5991
          E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com

               - and -

          Barry S. Taus, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
                  atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
                  klandau@tcllaw.com

Plaintiff Cedar Holly Investments, LLC is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  dperelman@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          David A. Balto, Esq.
          Bradley A. Wasser, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO
          1325 G Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 789-5424
          E-mail: david.balto@dcantitrustlaw.com
                  brad.wasser@dcantitrustlaw.com

Plaintiffs Ace High Auto Repair & Propane and Johnson Auto
Electric, Inc. are represented by:

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com
                  tbright@gbcslaw.com

Plaintiff Lochraven Sunoco, Inc. is represented by:

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  ccoslett@bm.net

Plaintiff CEFO Enterprise Corp. is represented by:

          James P. Frickleton, Esq.
          Edward D. Robertson, III, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY
          11150 Overbrook Drive, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: jimf@bflawfirm.com
                  krobertson@bflawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-7700
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 205-2803
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: mpearson@pswlaw.com
                  bpouya@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Hart, Esq.
          Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq.
          Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
          Kyle Pozan, Esq.
          SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 645-7800
          Facsimile: (312) 645-7711
          E-mail: shart@smsm.com
                  adravillas@smsm.com
                  beldridge@smsm.com
                  kpozan@smsm.com

Plaintiffs Alex Chernavsky and Michael Verdugo are represented by:

          Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
          Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET AND PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: tchase@audetlaw.com
                  jezrin@audetlaw.com
                  waudet@audetlaw.com

Plaintiff JonWall, Inc., is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          GRIES LENHARDT MICHENFELDER ALLEN, PLLP
          12725 43rd Street NE, Suite 201
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Telephone: (763) 497-3099
          Facsimile: (763) 497-3639
          E-mail: Pat@GLMALaw.com

Plaintiff Ekonomy Enterprises, Inc. is represented by:

          Ross Schmierer, Esq.
          PARIS, ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

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

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          ROUSE, HENDRICKS, GERMAN, MAY, PC
          1201 Walnut St., 20th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 471-7700
          Facsimile: (816) 471-2221
          E-mail: brandonb@rhgm.com

               - and -

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

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

          Catesby Ann Major, Esq.
          Craig S. O'Dear, Esq.
          Tracy R. Hancock, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE, LLP
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 374-3200
          Facsimile: (816) 374-3300
          E-mail: catesby.major@bryancave.com
                  csodear@bryancave.com
                  tracy.hancock@bryancave.com

               - and -

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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Lebovits, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Financial Recovery Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
06683 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy Carrasquillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-07088-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., November 12, 2014) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Labor Suit in Tenn. Court Remains in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The labor case against First Acceptance Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee remains in its
early stages of discovery after the conditional certification of
the case in April, according to the company's September, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

In January 2014, one current and three former employees filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case is styled
Lykins, et al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al. The suit
alleges the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying its insurance agents as exempt employees.
Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company answered the plaintiffs' Complaint and denied all of
the allegations contained therein. In April 2014, the case was
conditionally certified as a class action, and a notice regarding
the case was sent to all potential class members. Approximately
200 individuals chose to participate in the case during the opt-in
period which closed on July 15, 2014. The Company strongly
disagrees with the allegations and will put forth a vigorous
defense. The case is still in its early stages of discovery. This
litigation will likely have a lengthy duration.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: FG Faces Penn. Suit Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation, LLC is facing a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
seeking damages based on air emissions from a coal-fired Bruce
Mansfield Plant, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Nov. 4, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In June 2005, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut and Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE
and WP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that AE performed major
modifications in violation of the NSR provisions of the CAA and
the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the coal-fired
Hatfield's Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. A
non-jury trial on liability only was held in September 2010. On
February 6, 2014, the Court entered judgment for AE, AE Supply,
MP, PE and WP finding they had not violated the CAA or the
Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act. On March 10, 2014, New
York, Connecticut, and Maryland filed an appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This decision does not
change the status of these plants which remain deactivated.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions
from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints
also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating
except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner." One
complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the
other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a class
with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives.


FLEETMATICS GROUP: Brevard Extraditions Litigation Now Closed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner
Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al. is now closed
after a settlement, according to Fleetmatics Group PLC's Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20. The company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-CV-2079. The company moved to
dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and changed the case caption
to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et
al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al. The company moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 18, 2012. The Court denied the
company's motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part on
September 27, 2013, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
October 11, 2013. The second amended complaint alleges essentially
the same claims as previously alleged. On January 21, 2014, the
parties executed an agreement to a settlement with class members
for an aggregate of $525,000, which was subject to Court approval.
On June 27, 2014, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. All claims have
now been paid pursuant to this settlement, and the case is now
closed.


FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Jacobowitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-06685 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FORE GOLF: Removes "Reyna" Suit to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Marcela Reyna v. Fore Golf
Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-02014-00722384, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Santa Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 8:14-cv-01818-DOC-RNB to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges seven causes of action, including failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide vested
vacation pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP APC
          1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
          Torrance, CA 90501
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com

The Fore Golf Defendants are represented by:

          Wendell F. Hall, Esq.
          Jenny Lynn Burke, Esq.
          Fontaine Yuk, Esq.
          THOMPSON COE AND O'MEARA, LLP
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 954-2400
          Facsimile: (310) 954-2345
          E-mail: wendellhall@thompsoncoe.com
                  jburke@thompsoncoe.com
                  fontaine.yuk@thompsoncoe.com


FUCCILLO AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Class Action Over Anti-Theft Package
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that an
automobile dealer whose advertisements are a staple on upstate
media outlets has reached a federal class action settlement
calling for partial reimbursement to 5,320 customers who paid for
an anti-theft protection package.

Under the settlement, $160 will be paid to each customer of
Fuccillo Automotive Group dealerships who bought auto theft
security discount certificates from 2003 to July 2014.  They
typically paid $295 for the certificates and were promised a
discount of up to $2,000 from Fuccillo toward a new car if their
old vehicle was stolen or destroyed.

In the Northern District class action, Seekamp v. It's Huge, 09-
cv-00018, the plaintiffs claimed the discount certificates
conveyed no actual benefit while representing the unlawful sale of
insurance under New York law. Fuccillo agreed to stop marketing or
selling the discounts or related products, but denied engaging in
any illegal activities.

In addition to paying class members, the settlement provides
$750,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers, Sergei
Lemberg and Stephen Taylor of Lemberg Law and Martin Mushkin,
based in Stamford, Conn.

No objections were raised to the settlement, which received
preliminary approval this summer by Judge Lawrence Kahn, during a
brief fairness hearing on Nov. 12 in Albany.

Robert Scalione -- rscalione@melvinlaw.com -- a partner at Melvin
& Melvin in Syracuse; Matthew Kelly - mkelly@rwgmlaw.com -- a
partner at Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux in Albany; and Arthur
Liederman, a partner at Morrison Mahoney in Manhattan, are
representing Fuccillo.

Fuccillo operates more than two dozen dealerships. His
advertisements, with their tag line "It's huge!," run frequently
on television and radio stations in upstate New York.
Related Decisions:

Heidi Seekamp, on behalf of herself and all others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. It's Huge, Inc. also known as Fuccillo
Automotive Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, 09-cv-00018-LEK-CFH


GLOBAL CASH: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Multimedia Games Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in
connection with its acquisition of Multimedia Games Holding
Company, Inc., according to Global's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In October 2014, four complaints were filed by purported
stockholders of Multimedia Games naming as defendants, among
others, Holdings, and Movie Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdings ("Merger Sub").  The following three
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas: Daniel Fumia, David Eykyn, and Mike
Eykyn v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Global Cash
Access Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No 1:14-cv-00922; Maciel v.
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Global Cash Access
Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00964; and Coffman v.
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Global Cash Access
Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00966.  One of these
complaints is a putative class action, another is an individual
suit with respect to certain claims and a putative class action
with respect to other claims, and the other complaint is both a
putative class action and derivative litigation, all purportedly
on behalf of Multimedia Games shareholders.  The fourth complaint,
Gregory Lewis v. Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., et. al, Case
No. D-1-GN-14-004324, was filed in the District Court of Travis
County, Texas, 201st Judicial District as both a putative class
action and derivative shareholder litigation purportedly on behalf
of Multimedia Games shareholders.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
Multimedia Games breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the acquisition of MGAM by Holdings and Merger Sub by
approving a transaction that would purportedly provide certain
shareholders and directors with preferential treatment at the
expense of Multimedia Games' other shareholders and also thereby
allegedly violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The claim against Holdings and Merger Sub
is for allegedly aiding and abetting the Multimedia Games
directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaints
seek an injunction to prevent Multimedia Games and Holdings from
completing the acquisition unless Multimedia Games' directors
adopt procedures or a process that purportedly complies with their
fiduciary duties to Multimedia Games shareholders.  The complaints
also seek other declaratory relief and rescission, to the extent
already implemented, from the merger agreement between Multimedia
Games and Holdings and an award to plaintiff of costs and
attorney's fees, among other things.


GLOBAL CASH: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Gentium Acquisition Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant in a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in connection with the Gentium
S.P.A. Acquisition has moved to dismiss the suit, according to
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In January 2014, the company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in connection with the Gentium Acquisition.
The lawsuit, captioned Xavion Jyles, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Gentium S.P.A. et al., names
Gentium, each of the Gentium's directors, the company and the
company's Italian subsidiary as defendants. The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that Gentium's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Gentium's shareholders in connection with the
Gentium tender offer agreement that Gentium entered into with the
company and the company's Italian subsidiary valuing Gentium
ordinary shares and ADSs at $57.00 per share, and that the company
and the company's Italian subsidiary violated Sections 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
allegedly overseeing Gentium's preparation of an allegedly false
and misleading Section 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, class action
status, rescission, and unspecified costs, attorneys' fees and
other expenses. Since the initial filing, a lead plaintiff was
named for the class, and the case has been recaptioned Adjit
Sodhi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Gentium S.P.A. et al. Only one individual defendant has been
served, and the defendant has moved to dismiss the suit.


HANGER INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Nov. 12 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System against
certain of the executive officers of Hanger, Inc.  The action,
which was filed in the Western District of Texas, asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors
in Hanger securities during the period of August 1, 2013 August 7,
2014, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
misrepresented and/or concealed the effect that an increase in
Medicare audits had on Hanger's business, including on its
reserves for bad debt and accounts receivable.  On August 7, 2014,
the Company announced a shocking 23% decline in its earnings per
share due to the pressure it experienced from Medicare audits.  On
this news, the price of Hanger stock declined 25% from $29.87 per
share to $22.48 per share.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
November 12, 2014.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is January 12, 2015.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
has built an international reputation for excellence and
integrity.  Specializing in securities fraud, corporate
governance, shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and
civil rights litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G
prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of institutional
and individual clients worldwide. Unique among its peers, BLB&G
has obtained several of the largest and most significant
securities recoveries in history, recovering billions of dollars
on behalf of defrauded investors.


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Answers Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Crush Partners LP and the remaining defendants in the lawsuit
In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-
8557 (CM) have filed answers to the complaint, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In May 2012, Hi-Crush Operating LLC, a subsidiary of the
Partnership, entered into a supply agreement for frac sand with
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. ("Baker Hughes"). On
September 19, 2012, Baker Hughes provided notice that it was
terminating the contract and on November 12, 2012, Hi-Crush
Operating LLC formally terminated the supply agreement and filed
suit in the State District Court of Harris County, Texas. On
October 8, 2013, Hi-Crush Operating LLC entered into a settlement
agreement with Baker Hughes pursuant to which Hi-Crush Operating
LLC and Baker Hughes agreed to jointly dismiss the lawsuit between
the parties and, in connection with the settlement, the parties
entered into a six-year supply agreement that requires Baker
Hughes to purchase minimum volumes of frac sand each month.

Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement
by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, the company's General Partner,
certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were
named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits
brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February
11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled
In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-
8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February
15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims under sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in
connection with the Partnership's Registration Statement and a
subsequent presentation. Among other things, the consolidated
amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to
the market certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes'
repudiation of the supply agreement. On March 22, 2013, the
Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December
2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the claims relating
to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but did not dismiss
the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the
Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after the
Partnership's initial public offering. The Partnership and the
remaining defendants in the lawsuit have filed answers to the
complaint.


HSBC USA: Florida Court Grants Final Okay to "Diaz" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval has been granted by the Southern District of
Florida on the class settlement in the case Diaz v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., et al. (S.D. Fla 13-CV-21104) action, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The Southern District of Florida granted final approval of the
class settlement in the Diaz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.
Fla 13-CV-21104) action (formerly known as Lopez v. HSBC Bank,
USA, N.A., et al.) on October 29, 2014. The settlement pays claims
of class members, on a claims made basis, based on a formula, as
well as class plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of
administration, with an overall cap of $32 million for all
payments. This settlement does not include claims related to
lender-placed flood insurance, such as those asserted in the
Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D.
Pa. No. 11-CV-4074) and Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services,
Inc., et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185) actions.


HSBC USA: Amendment to Gold Price-Fixing Suit Expected in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated class action complaint is expected in
December 2014 for a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to manipulate
the price of gold and gold derivatives as well as silver and
silver derivatives, according to HSBC USA, Inc.'s Nov. 3, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The putative class actions alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the
price of gold and gold derivatives have been transferred to and
centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. An amended consolidated class action complaint is
expected in December 2014. The putative class actions alleging a
conspiracy to manipulate the price of physical silver and silver
derivatives, also have been transferred to and centralized in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


I.C. SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Moskowitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06682
(E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) is brought over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: "Silsby" Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal by the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York of the case Silsby
v. Icahn et. al. is pending, according to Icahn Enterprises L.P.'s
Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

On March 28, 2012, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entitled Silsby v.
Icahn et. al. Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of
Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") and certain of its directors. As initially
filed, the action purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between
September 2011 and March 2012.  The complaint alleges violations
of the federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making
false and misleading statements in securities filings which
statements artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock. The
individual defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons
of Dynegy. Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.
Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization. Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has
filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.  The company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion
to dismiss on July 19, 2013. On April 30, 2014, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and the case was dismissed with
prejudice.  On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, which
is currently pending.


ILLINOIS, USA: "Cochran" Suit Moved From Ohio to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cochran v. Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00608, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-09145 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of civil rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George W. Cochran, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN
          1385 Russell Drive
          Streetsboro, OH 44241
          Telephone: (330) 607-2187
          Facsimile: (330) 230-6136
          E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Max E. Dehn, Esq.
          Alexander E. Goetsch, Esq.
          CAVITCH FAMILO & DURKIN
          1300 East Ninth Street, 20th Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-7860
          Facsimile: (216) 621-3415
          E-mail: mdehn@cfdf.com
                  agoetsch@cavitch.com

               - and -

          Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
          3500 BP Tower
          200 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 241-2838
          Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
          E-mail: rholman@taftlaw.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Faces Solodyn Antitrust Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. continues to face In Re Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation in the US
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

From July 2013 to March 2014, 15 class action complaints were
filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn and its
generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Faces Multiple Suits Over Opana ER
------------------------------------------------------------
Eight purported class action complaints were filed against
manufacturers of the brand drug Opana ER and Impax Laboratories,
Inc., according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2014.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settles Securities Suit Over RYTARY for $8MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. agreed to settle a consolidated
securities suit filed on behalf of Haverhill Retirement System,
wherein it will pay $8.0 million for a full and complete release
of all claims, according to the company's September, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class
Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and
directors violated the federal securities law by making materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing
deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility,
including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would
have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for
the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY and its generic
version of Concerta. These two Securities Class Actions were
subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead
plaintiff chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint
was filed on September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013.
On April 18, 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed
to settle this consolidated securities class action, without any
admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company
or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company
will pay $8.0 million for a full and complete release of all
claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company
or other defendants in this action. The Company will not be taking
any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount will be
paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policy. The
settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval
and certain other conditions and does not resolve the related
shareholder derivative litigations.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Suit Over RYTARY in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California over
its RYTARY product, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleged
that the Company and those named officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies
at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing facility, including but not
limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's
ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded
product candidate, RYTARY.


ISOPURE COMPANY: Misrepresents Isopure Protein Product, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Tocci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Isopure Company, LLC, d/b/a Nature's Best, General
Nutrition Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-09097 (S.D.N.Y., November 14,
2014) accuses the Defendants of misrepresenting Isopure Zero-Carb
and Low-Carb Protein Powder as:

   -- being "100% Whey Protein Isolate";

   -- having "50 Grams Of Protein From 100% Whey Protein
      Isolate"; and

   -- having "50 Grams [Of] Protein Per Serving."

In reality, the Plaintiff alleges, IsopureProduct Powder is
"spiked" with additional and unnecessary free-form amino acids,
non-protein amino acids, and a litany of other non-whey
ingredients.  As a result of Defendants' practices, the Plaintiff
argues, the Product is not "100% Whey Protein Isolate," and
actually contains significantly less whey protein than
represented.

Whey is a complete protein source, in that it contains all the
essential amino acids the human body needs to build protein-based
compounds, including muscle tissue, skin, fingernails, hair, and
enzymes.

The Isopure Company, LLC, doing business as Nature's Best is a
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business located in Hauppauge, New York.  Isopure designed,
manufactured, promoted, marketed, distributed, and sold Isopure
Protein Powder across the United States, including to hundreds of
thousands of consumers in New York.  Isopure was recently
purchased by an Irish food group for $153 million.

General Nutrition Corp. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
GNC is a leading retailer in the United States of dietary
supplements.  GNC advertised, promoted, distributed, and sold
Isopure Protein Powderacross the United States, including to
hundreds of thousands of consumers in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Defendant Seeks to Junk "Sodhi" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Only one individual defendant has been served with the shareholder
suit recaptioned Adjit Sodhi, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Gentium S.P.A. et al., and the
defendant has moved to dismiss the suit, according to Jazz
Pharmaceutical Public Limited Company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In January 2014, the company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in connection with the Gentium Acquisition.
The lawsuit, captioned Xavion Jyles, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Gentium S.P.A. et al., names
Gentium, each of the Gentium's directors, the company and the
company's Italian subsidiary as defendants. The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that Gentium's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Gentium's shareholders in connection with the
Gentium tender offer agreement that Gentium entered into with the
company and the company's Italian subsidiary valuing Gentium
ordinary shares and ADSs at $57.00 per share, and that it and its
Italian subsidiary violated Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly
overseeing Gentium's preparation of an allegedly false and
misleading Section 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement.
The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, class action status,
rescission, and unspecified costs, attorneys' fees and other
expenses. Since the initial filing, a lead plaintiff was named for
the class, and the case has been recaptioned Adjit Sodhi,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gentium S.P.A. et al. Only one individual defendant has been
served, and the defendant has moved to dismiss the suit.


JOHNSON PREMIUM: "Williams" Suit Moved From California to N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John Williams v. Johnson Premium
Hardwood Flooring, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-03206, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Camden).  The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-cv-07104-RBK-JS to the proceeding.

The class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of individuals, who purchased a Samoan Mahogany wood
flooring product from Johnson.  Contrary to the Defendant's
representations and advertisements, the Samoan Mahogany is not
Mahogany at all, but is instead a different hardwood with a
different molecular composition, the Plaintiff alleges.  The
Plaintiff seeks to redress the alleged pervasive pattern of
fraudulent, deceptive, false and otherwise improper advertising,
sales and marketing practices that the Defendant continues to
engage in regarding its Product.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          11755 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 479-0944
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John W. Trimble, Jr., Esq.
          TRIMBLE & ARMANO
          Washington Professional Campus
          900 Route 168, Suite B1-B2
          Turnersville, NJ 08012
          Telephone: (856) 232-9500
          Facsimile: (856)232-9698
          E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com


KBR INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 14-cv01287
continues in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual
financial statements, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company, the company's former chief executive officer and the
company's current and former chief financial officers. Two of
those complaints were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and
four parties, including the plaintiff in the remaining case, moved
to be appointed lead plaintiff. In September 2014, the court
appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Local
58/NECA Funds as lead plaintiffs and ordered any new cases arising
from the same matters to be consolidated together as In re KBR,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 14-cv01287. Lead
plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on October
20, 2014, adding the company's former chief accounting officer as
a defendant. The amended complaint seeks class action status on
behalf of the company's shareholders, alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of the restatement of the company's 2013 annual
financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants
intend to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
to vigorously defend against these claims.


LINN ENERGY: In Settlement Negotiations for Royalty Payments Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in certain statewide suits over royalty payments, of
which Linn Energy, LLC is a defendant, are currently engaged in
settlement negotiations, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits,
including claims from royalty owners related to disputed royalty
payments and royalty valuations. With respect to a certain
statewide class action case, the parties in this case are
currently engaged in settlement negotiations and based on the
current status of those negotiations, the Company estimates a
range of possible loss of $1 million to $4.5 million for which an
appropriate reserve has been established. For a certain statewide
class action royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet
been established, the Company has denied that it has any liability
on the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if
accepted by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.
Briefing and the hearing on class certification are currently
scheduled for Summer 2015. The Company is unable to estimate a
possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any.


LINN ENERGY: May Distribute Settlement in Royalty Lawsuit by Q4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Petroleum Company, LLC and Linn Energy, LLC anticipate
distribution of settlement funds in a certain statewide royalty
suit, to begin in the fourth quarter of 2014, according to Linn's
Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Berry, Berry became, and
continues to be, a defendant in a certain statewide royalty class
action case, in which the parties have entered into a settlement
agreement to settle past claims for approximately $2.4 million.
Subject to approval of the settlement agreement by the court,
Berry and the Company anticipate distribution of settlement funds
to begin in the fourth quarter of 2014.


LINN ENERGY: No Appeal Filed v. Dismissal of Federal Case in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated suit against LINN Energy, LLC
LinnCo, LLC in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York did not appeal the court's dismissal of the case, and
the appeals deadline has now passed, according to Linn's Nov. 4,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In 2013, several class action complaints were filed and ultimately
consolidated in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York (the "Federal Actions") against LINN Energy,
LinnCo, certain of their officers and directors and the various
underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering. These cases
collectively asserted claims based on allegations that LINN Energy
made false or misleading statements relating to its (i) hedging
strategy, (ii) the cash flow available for distribution to
unitholders, and (iii) LINN Energy's energy production in its
Exchange Act filings; and additional claims based on alleged
misstatements relating to these issues in the prospectus and
registration statement for LinnCo's initial public offering.
Several derivative actions were also filed in federal and state
court in Texas, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Derivative Actions") asserting derivative claims on behalf of
LINN Energy against the individual officers and directors for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets,
mismanagement, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment based on
factual allegations similar to those in the Federal Actions.
In July 2014, the Court dismissed the claims of the plaintiffs in
the Federal Actions with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate any material misstatement or omission by
LINN Energy or LinnCo, or their officers and directors. The
plaintiffs in the Federal Action did not appeal the Court's
dismissal, and the appeals deadline has now passed. The plaintiffs
in the Derivative Actions subsequently have dismissed their claims
without prejudice.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Asks Second Circuit to Issue Writ of Mandamus
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball; Major League Baseball
Enterprises, Inc.; MLB Advanced Media, L.P.; MLB Advanced Media,
Inc.; Athletics Investment Group LLC; The Baseball Club of
Seattle, LLLP; Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC; Chicago White Sox,
Ltd.; Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd.; New York Yankees
Partnership; The Phillies; Pittsburgh Baseball Holdings, Inc.; and
San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC jointly ask the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to immediately
issue a writ of mandamus directing the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant summary
judgment in the Petitioners' favor and dismiss them entirely from
the underlying antitrust action, based on the exemption from the
antitrust laws that exists for the business of professional
baseball as raised in the case.

The Petitioners want the Appeals Court to determine whether the
District Court commit legal error when it ruled that the
professional baseball exemption from the antitrust laws did not
bar the Plaintiffs' antitrust challenge to MLB's territorial
broadcast rules and structure and allowed the action to continue.

According to the Petition, the appeal arises from a pending
antitrust case challenging the internal rules of MLB about where
and how live baseball games can be shown via telecast.  The
Plaintiffs seek to have rules fundamental to MLB's structure --
specifically the longstanding existence of home television
territories -- declared illegal and to hold MLB (and the other
Petitioners) liable for treble damages.

The Petitioners-Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' attack
violates the nearly century-old rule that the business of baseball
is immune from the antitrust laws, an exemption the Supreme Court
has reaffirmed six times.  The Petitioners-Defendants add that the
Second Circuit, like every other Circuit to opine on the
exemption, has recognized that "professional baseball is not
subject to the antitrust laws," citing Salerno v. Am. League of
Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 429 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1970).

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 Saint Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
          E-mail: MBoni@bonizack.com

Petitioners Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League
Baseball Enterprises, Inc., MLB Advanced Media, L.P., MLB Advanced
Media, Inc., Athletics Investment Group LLC, The Baseball Club of
Seattle, LLLP, Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Chicago White Sox,
Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., The Phillies,
Pittsburgh Baseball Holdings, Inc. and San Francisco Baseball
Associates LLC are represented by:

          Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Jordan B. Leader, Esq.
          Shawn S. Ledingham, Jr., Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com
                  jscullion@proskauer.com
                  jleader@proskauer.com
                  sledingham@proskauer.com

Petitioner New York Yankees Partnership is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
          Alan B. Vickery, Esq.
          Christopher E. Duffy, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  avickery@bsfllp.com
                  cduffy@bsfllp.com

The appellate case is Garber, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner
of Baseball, et al., Case No. 14-04233, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The District Court case is
Garber, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al.,
Case No. 12-CV-3704, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


MAXWELL & MORGAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosario Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02531-SRB (D.
Ariz., November 14, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Neal McDevitt, Esq.
          Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave., Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com
                  tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces Class Suit in Texas Alleging Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laron McCloud v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C. and Jaycar Energy
Group, L.L.C. d/b/a Jaycar Frac Plugs, Case No. 5:14-cv-01011-DAE
(W.D. Tex., November 13, 2014) alleges that the Defendants'
termination of the Plaintiff's employment was retaliatory.

On July 10, 2014, while employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff
filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated against the Defendants alleging violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which lawsuit
remains pending in this Court bearing Case No. 5:14-cv-00620.

Mr. McCloud alleges that the Defendants have treated him
differently than other employees because of his filing and
prosecution of the Overtime Lawsuit.  In this lawsuit, he contends
that he is entitled to reinstatement, to front pay and to the
payment of wages lost as a result of retaliatory conduct.

McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C. is a limited liability company
headquartered in Midland, Texas.  Jaycar Energy Group, L.L.C,
doing business as Jaycar Frac Plugs, is a limited liability
company also headquartered in Midland.  Jaycar is a subsidiary of
McClinton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, PC
          1001 S. Harrison St., Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
                  rachael@youngfirm.com


MERCADOLIBRE INC: Files Defense on Consumidores Financieros' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MercadoLibre S.R.L., the Argentine subsidiary of Mercadilibre,
Inc., has filed its defense on the lawsuit filed by Consumidores
Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa, according to the
parent company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On June 13, 2014, the consumer association called "Consumidores
Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa" ("Consumidores
Financieros") filed a class action against the Company's Argentine
subsidiary, MercadoLibre S.R.L. ("MercadoLibre"), in the First
Instance National Court on Commercial Matters Number Four of
Buenos Aires, Argentina (the "Court"). Consumidores Financieros
acts on behalf of customers who have used MercadoPago in Argentina
and claims that MercadoLibre has infringed certain consumer
provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, mostly related to
certain information to be provided to consumers in relation to the
transactions performed through MercadoPago by users holding credit
cards that are not associated to MercadoLibre's promotions, and
charged them excessive interest rates when users paid by
installments. Consumidores Financieros seeks that (i) MercadoLibre
provides clear and complete information about the costs of its
service MercadoPago in Argentina, (ii) MercadoLibre reimburse
users who have used MercadoPago in the last 10 years, an amount
equivalent to the difference between the interest rate actually
charged by MercadoLibre for the users that pay through MercadoPago
by installments and the interest rate set down by the section 36
of the CPA in cases of violation of the duty of information as per
section 36 (average annual rate set down by the Argentine Central
Bank, which is 26.31% as of the date of this report), (iii) the
Court establish the interest rate to be charged in future
transactions where users pay by installments, estimate by
Consumidores Financieros in twice the interest rate charged by the
Banco de la Nacion Argentina in commercial transactions (as of the
date of this report the doubled interest rate is estimated at
50%), and (iv) condemn MercadoLibre to pay punitive damages on the
amount of AR$500 per each transaction performed in alleged
violation to section 36 of the CPA. The Company filed its defense
on October 3, 2014.


MERIX FINANCIAL: January 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Merix Financial Inc. and Paradigm Quest Inc.
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Class Action
Proposed Settlement Agreement

Jeremy Bell and Mackenzie Bell v. Merix Financial Inc. and
Paradigm Quest Inc.

British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry No. S-105301

What is this notice?

A proposed class action was started by the plaintiffs, Jeremy Bell
and Mackenzie Bell, on behalf of borrowers under Merix-branded
adjustable or variable-rate mortgages, including borrowers under
locked-in portions of Merix-branded Home Equity Lines of Credit,
regarding the adjustment of interest rates under these mortgages
(the "Adjustable Rate Mortgages").

The defendants, Merix Financial Inc. and Paradigm Quest Inc., have
at all times implemented changes to the interest rate on
Adjustable Rate Mortgages effective as of each borrower's next
scheduled payment date after a change in the prime rate,
regardless of whether the prime rate rose or fell on any
particular occasion.  Merix and Paradigm allege that this method
of adjustment was consistent both with the mortgage contracts and
with notices sent to the borrowers.  The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants were required to adjust the interest rates in
effect for Adjustable Rate Mortgages on the day that applicable
prime rate changed, and were not entitled to implement the new
rate effective as of each borrower's next regular mortgage payment
date.

Merix and Paradigm deny the plaintiffs' allegations and any
wrongdoing or liability.  The court has not taken any position as
to the trust or merit of the claims or defenses asserted by either
side.

The parties have reached a settlement agreement that must now be
approved by the court.  If you are or were a borrower under a
Merix-branded Adjustable Rate Mortgage, or under the locked-in
portion of a Merix-branded Home Equity Line of Credit, you may be
a potential settlement class member in this action.  Your legal
rights may be affected the proposed settlement agreement.

Not all potential class members will receive payment, since some
borrowers paid less interest under an Adjustable Rate Mortgage
than would have been payable had the interest rates been adjusted
on the day that the applicable prime rate changed.  However, in no
circumstances will class members be required to return to Merix or
Paradigm any sums or monies relating to their mortgages, including
the adjustment of the interest rate.

What are the terms of the settlement?

Under the proposed settlement agreement, Merix and Paradigm will
pay CAD$525,000 into a trust account.  After court-approved legal
fees, taxes, disbursements and administration fees are deducted,
the money will be distributed on a proportionate basis to all
settlement class members who have paid more interest under an
Adjustable Rate Mortgage than would have been payable had the
applicable interest rate been adjusted on the day that the
applicable prime rate changed.

You can read the full settlement agreement online at:

http://constructionlawgroup.ca/merix-settlement

What are the next steps?

The lawyers for both sides will ask the Court to approve the
settlement agreement at a hearing in Vancouver, British Columbia,
on January 20, 2015.  You can attend but you do not have to.  If
you want to object to the settlement agreement, you must send your
objection in writing to the lawyers for the settlement class by
December 19, 2014.

Do I have to do anything right now?

At this point you do not have to do anything.  Assuming that the
Court approves the settlement:

If you live in British Columbia you will be automatically included
in the settlement class, unless you choose to opt-out.  If you
have paid more interest under an Adjustable Rate than would have
been payable had the interest rates in effect been adjusted on the
day that applicable prime rate changed, you may be entitled to
payment from the settlement fund.

If you live outside British Columbia and if you wish to
participate in the settlement, you will need to opt-in to the
settlement agreement by submitting an opt-in form after the
settlement is approved.  The opt-in form will be available after
the settlement is approved, along with details for submitting this
form.

Will I have to pay anything?

You do not have to pay anything.  Under the settlement agreement,
the lawyers for the settlement class will ask the court to approve
their legal fees and disbursements.  All fees and disbursements
must be approved by the court as fair and reasonable.

How can I get more information?

For more information, contact the lawyer for the proposed
settlement class:

Kieran A.G. Bridge
Barrister & Solicitor
Law Corporation
1400-1125 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8
Telephone: 604-687-5546
Facsimile: 1-888-665-7448
E-mail: kieran@kieranbridgelaw.com


MESA PRODUCTION: Misclassified Workers as Contractors, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bahr, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Mesa Production, LLC, Scott Huskey, and Charlie
Schmidt, Case No. 1:14-cv-03073 (D. Colo., November 13, 2014)
alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff as an
independent contractor and, as such, paid him straight time for
overtime hours worked.

Mesa Production, LLC is headquartered in and organized under the
laws of Colorado.  The Individual Defendants are residents of
Colorado and owners of Mesa.  The Defendants provide oil and gas
well monitoring services to energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Udyogi Hangawatte, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com
                  jneuman@kennedyhodges.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cert. Appeal in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Mohawk
Industries Inc.'s petition to appeal the certification of a suit
by the direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 27, 2014.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result
of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products
from at least 1999 to the present. The direct purchaser class
currently claims damages from all of the defendants named in the
lawsuit of up to approximately $1,200,000 which amount will be
reduced by the value of claims made by plaintiffs that opt out of
the class. Any damages actually awarded at trial are subject to
being tripled under US antitrust laws. The amount of damages in
the remaining cases varies or has not yet been specified by the
plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs and injunctive relief
against future violations.

In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action claims brought by the direct purchasers, and in May 2011,
the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought by the indirect
purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court denied all defendants'
motions to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the
direct and indirect purchaser classes. The Company sought
permission to appeal the certification order on April 24, 2014,
and the petition was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit on September 29, 2014.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC: Still Facing Polyurethane Suits in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries Inc. continues to face antitrust lawsuits in
Canada relating to the production of polyurethane foam products,
according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 27, 2014.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege
similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions
and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Riggins & Gabriel Sue Over Use of Their Images
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that John Riggins and Roman
Gabriel joined the long list of pro football players suing the NFL
and NFL Films for using their images in promotions, in a federal
class action filed in Minnesota.


NCB MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Mueller and Nechama Meuller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NCB Management Services Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06693 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) seeks relief
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Lebovits, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06688
(E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Moose-Vehicle Class Action Hearing Jan. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a legal battle to have people injured in
moose-vehicle accidents compensated by the provincial government
is going back to court.  An appeal hearing has been set for Jan.
21 in the moose-vehicle class-action lawsuit, St. John's lawyer
Ches Crosbie said in a news release.

The lawsuit, described by Mr. Crosbie as the biggest road injury
lawsuit ever, was dismissed by Judge Robert Stack of the Supreme
Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in mid-September.

Mr. Crosbie will ask a panel of three judges in the Court of
Appeal to overturn Stack's decision.

The class-action suit includes more than 100 members.

In his ruling, Judge Stack said the provincial government was not
liable for moose-vehicle collisions.

"The idea that government does not owe the public a general duty
to maintain the highways reasonably safe for travel may surprise
many people," Mr. Crosbie stated.

The appeal hearing is expected to last one day, and Mr. Crosbie
expects a decision could take up to six months.


NONGSHIM: Says US Class Action Over Noodles Baseless
----------------------------------------------------
Park Si-soo, writing for The Korea Times, reports that Korea's
leading ramen maker Nongshim claimed on Nov. 14 that a potential
class action by U.S. retailers against it is "baseless" because
products they sold in America had nothing to do with a ruling by
the Fair Trade Commission (FTC).

"The FTC's investigation focused solely on noodles produced for
the domestic market.  Thus it's a baseless claim that the U.S.
plaintiffs were affected by alleged price rigging," a Nongshim
spokesman told The Korea Times.

Nongshim and Ottogi may face a reported fine of $800 million in
the U.S. for price fixing of instant noodles sold there between
2001 and 2010.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick cleared the way by giving some
300 American retailers the green light to file an anti-trust class
action against the two. The judge dismissed a complaint against
two other Korean noodle makers -- Samyang Foods and Korea Yakult -
- for lack of evidence.

The Nongshim spokesman argued that the FTC statement issued on
July 26 last year backed his claim.  Lee Yong-soo, an FTC director
familiar with the issue, confirmed this.

Nongshim reported 2.087 trillion won in sales last year, but it
refused to reveal sales generated in the U.S.

"We opened our own factories in the U.S. in 2005. So our exports
to the U.S. have since declined," the spokesman said.

Ottogi posted 1.7 trillion won in sales last year, with around 10
billion won generated in the U.S., said its spokesman.

The U.S. federal judge was quoted as saying that the retailers
have "plausibly alleged" that the two firms had been engaged in
price rigging.  The judge is expected to ask the Seoul-based firms
to file a defense against the allegations.

"This is the beginning of the legal action," the Nongshim
spokesman said.

The Ottogi spokesman voiced a similar view, saying the company is
making preparations for the U.S. court case.

The U.S. retailers collectively raised the issue in July 2013 --
one year and four months after the FTC slapped Nongshim, Ottogi,
Samyang Foods and Korea Yakult with a hefty collective fine of
135.5 billion won ($123.2 million).

"The companies exchanged detailed information on planned price
hikes so others could take similar action," the FTC said at the
time.  "Such an illegal practice led to an unjustifiable price
hike of their products that hurt consumers."

The food companies took the case to court, but the Seoul High
Court ruled in favor of the FTC, ordering Nongshim and Ottogi to
pay 108.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won in fines. The case is
pending at the Supreme Court.

The American plaintiffs argue that they were also victims of the
price rigging since they imported the accused firms' noodles for
many years.


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Court Conditionally Certifies OT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Times reports that a federal court has conditionally
certified a nationwide class of more than 100,000 hourly employees
of the Outback Steakhouse chain, owned by Tampa's Bloomin' Brands,
over allegations of required off-the-clock work by hourly workers
resulting in potential minimum wage and overtime violations.

According to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
all hourly employees of Bloomin' Brands' Outback Steakhouses must
be notified of the class action and have the option to join the
lawsuit.

The case originated in fall 2013 when former Outback employees
Brooke Cardoza and Cody Hancock filed suit in Nevada on behalf of
all hosts, bartenders and other hourly Outback employees during
the past three years.  The plaintiffs allege that Bloomin' Brands,
which owns more than 600 Outback Steakhouse restaurants, forced
Outback employees to perform unpaid labor -- typically for 15
minutes but sometimes for as long as two hours -- before being
able to clock in for scheduled shifts.  Unpaid time also allegedly
occurred after the shifts, when employees were made to undergo
unpaid training sessions, as well as for unpaid but mandatory
meetings or time worked at promotional events benefitting the
company.

The original lawsuit refers to these periods worked before and
after the on-the-clock pay period as "Outback Time."

Bloomin' Brands denied wrongdoing and said the lawsuit lacks
merit.

Named plaintiffs now added to the suit come from Florida and eight
other states.  As of October, 239 current and former employees
from 27 states had opted into the lawsuit, even prior to
initiation of the court's notification process.


PARK'N FLY: Accused of Discriminating Against Haitian Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will Gabot v. Park'n Fly, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-62590-JIC (S.D.
Fla., November 13, 2014) is an action under the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights
Act of 1992, to redress injury done to the Plaintiff by the
Defendant's alleged discriminatory treatment and retaliation on
the basis of his Race/Color (Black), and National Origin
(Haitian).

Park'n Fly, Inc., is a profit corporation authorized to conduct
business in the state of Florida.  The Defendant is a Shuttle
service that provides transport services to travelers between
airports and parking lots.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PLANET FITNESS: Gym Members File Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Howell, writing for KWQC.com, reports that on the weekend of
Nov. 8, a man was arrested after hidden cameras were discovered in
the tanning area of Planet Fitness in Moline.

Now gym members have filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming the
company was negligent in ensuring member's privacy while in the
tanning beds.  Trent Hamer, 27, is charged with unauthorized
videotaping.  He was a member of the gym at the time of his arrest
and never worked there.


PRICELINE GROUP: Faces 40 Lawsuits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Priceline Group Inc. and certain third-party online travel
companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately forty
lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought
by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues
involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel
occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.), according to
Priceline's November 4, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC
and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases.
Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the
OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel
transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and
remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.  The
complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.  In
addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties,
and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings
(including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities
in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued
proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the
payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional state and local
jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to
travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes,
retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it
provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and,
therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be
owed.  Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue
generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own,
operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or
provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel
services.  In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing
jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" --
essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully
"pocketed" those tax dollars -- a claim that the Company believes
is without basis and has vigorously contested.  The taxing
jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other
proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future
proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely
continue to do so.  From time to time, the Company has found it
expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims
pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at
issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to
be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  For example, the City and County of San
Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an
amount that includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel
occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a
second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the
Company paid in January 2013.  Payment of these amounts, if any,
is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to
such taxes.  In the San Francisco action, for example, the court
ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not owe
transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city to
refund the amount paid in July 2009; the Company also is seeking a
refund of the amount paid in January 2013. San Francisco has
appealed the court's ruling. The matter has been stayed while the
appeal in another case with the City of San Diego is pending
before the California Supreme Court.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in pending or future cases and proceedings.  For
example, in January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State of
Hawaii held that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the
State's transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs,
including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise
tax on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a
hotel room reservation, without any offset for amounts passed
through to the hotel. The Company recorded an accrual for travel
transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties),
with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately
$16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in
the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this
ruling. During the year ended December 31, 2013 and nine months
ended September 30, 2014, the Company paid approximately $20.6
million and $1.8 million, respectively, to the State of Hawaii
related to this ruling. The Company has filed an appeal now
pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Other adverse rulings include a decision in September 2012, in
which the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted
summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs
ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which
the Company is appealing. As a result, the Company increased its
accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated
interest), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by
approximately $4.8 million in September 2012 and by approximately
$5.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in
July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that
the Company and the other OTCs are liable for tax and other
obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations Tax. In July
2014, the Company resolved all claims in this case through
settlement and the claims against the Company were dismissed
September 3, 2014. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San
Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs
that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes
of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are,
therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The
Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment
when it becomes final.


PRICELINE GROUP: Antitrust Suit Over Hotel Room Reservation Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissed the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint filed against
online travel companies, including The Priceline Group, Inc.,
according to Priceline's November 4, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2014.

On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations
from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain OTC
defendants, including the Company.  The initial complaint, Turik
v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleged that the
Hotel Defendants and the OTC defendants violated U.S. federal and
state laws by entering into a conspiracy to enforce a minimum
resale price maintenance scheme pursuant to which putative class
members paid inflated prices for hotel room reservations that they
purchased through the OTC defendants.  Thirty-one other complaints
containing similar allegations were filed in a number of federal
jurisdictions across the country. Plaintiffs in these actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
consolidated all of the pending cases under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, an amended consolidated
complaint was filed.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Boyle dismissed the amended
consolidated complaint without prejudice. On March 20, 2014,
plaintiffs moved for leave to file a proposed Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "proposed SCAC"), naming only the OTC
defendants as defendants and alleging that the OTC defendants
violated U.S. federal and state laws by entering into minimum
resale price maintenance agreements with the Hotel Defendants and
by conspiring to enforce the terms of those resale price
maintenance agreements. On April 3, 2014, the OTC defendants filed
an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed
SCAC. On October 27, 2014 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file the proposed SCAC, and on October 28, 2014 the court
issued a final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. The
court's October 27, 2014 decision is appealable.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
06690 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


RAYONIER INC: Faces Securities Suit in Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Sating, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rayonier Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort,
David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-MMH-JBT
(M.D. Fla., November 12, 2014) is brought on behalf of all
persons, other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Rayonier securities between, February 28, 2014, and
November 7, 2014.

Rayonier Inc. is engaged in the business of selling and developing
real estate and timberland management, as well as in the
production and sale of cellulose fibers in the United States, New
Zealand and Australia.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS, LLP
          1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 315-3454
          Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
          E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan 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
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  fmcconville@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 E. 42nd St., Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484


RAYONIER INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 13 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Rayonier, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida, and docketed under 14-cv-1395, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Rayonier securities between February 28, 2014 and November 7,
2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Rayonier securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 12, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Rayonier, Inc. engages in the sale and development of real estate
and timberland management, as well as in the production and sale
of cellulose fibers in the United States, New Zealand, and
Australia.  The company operates in four segments: Timber, Real
Estate, Performance Fibers, and Wood Products.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rayonier's financial
statements overstated its estimated merchantable timber inventory
volumes by including timber in specially designated parcels
located in restricted, environmentally sensitive or economically
inaccessible areas; (2) the inclusion of this timber was
incorrect, inconsistent with Rayonier's historical definition of
merchantable timber inventory, and a significant change from prior
years; (3) Rayonier's financial statements understated depletion
expense in cost of goods sold by approximately $2.0 million in
each of the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014, and June 30,
2014, which resulted in a corresponding overstatement of income
from continuing operations of $1.9 million and $2.0 million,
respectively, in those periods; (4) there was a material weakness
in Rayonier's internal controls related to financial reporting as
of December 31, 2013, March 31, 2014, and June 30, 2014; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Rayonier's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 10, 2014, before the market opened for trading, the
Company issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
reporting third quarter results and announcing a restatement of
prior issued financial statements, which contained material
errors.

On this news, shares of Rayonier fell $5.08 or almost 15%, on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $28.82 on November 10, 2014.

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


RETROPHIN INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Retrophin, Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-
8376, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Retrophin securities between March 27, 2014
and September 30, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Retrophin securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 19, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Retrophin, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development, acquisition, and commercialization of therapies for
the treatment of serious, catastrophic, or rare diseases.  It
sells Chenodal, a synthetic oral form of chenodeoxycholic acid for
the treatment of radiolucent stones in well-opacifying
gallbladders, and Vecamyl, for the treatment of hypertension.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that:  (i) Retrophin's founder and Chief Executive
Officer was committing stock-trading irregularities and other
violations of the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan and other
securities rules; (ii) said irregularities included grants of
shares in violation of the Company's Incentive Compensation Plan
and the failure to disclose stock grants to employees; and (iii)
as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 16, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing that on September 15, 2014, it had reached an agreement
with its Chief Financial Officer, Marc Panoff, pursuant to which
Mr. Panoff's employment with the Company will terminate, effective
as of February 28, 2015.  Also, the Company announced that on
September 10, 2014, Jeffrey Paley, MD abruptly stepped down as a
member of the Board of Directors.  As a result of this news,
shares of Retrophin fell $1.03 or over 8%, on unusually heavy
trading, to close at $11.46 on September 17, 2014.
On September 30, 2014, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors
terminated its Chief Executive Officer, Martin Shkreli, effective
immediately, and appointed Stephen Aselage as interim Chief
Executive Officer.  As a result of this news, shares of Retrophin
fell $0.40 or almost 4.5%, on unusually heavy trading, to close at
$8.62 on October 1, 2014.

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


RICK'S CABARET: Judge Awards $10.9MM in Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
MailOnline's Mia de Graaf and Reuters reports that strippers have
been awarded $10.9 million by a federal judge who found they had
been denied tips and forced to pay for the privilege of working.

Rick's Cabaret in New York City's Midtown collected $2 of every
$20 the girls earned in tips, a federal court heard.  And bosses
demanded $60 from each girl every shift in exchange for letting
them take to the pole.

On Nov. 14, Manhattan Federal Court Judge Paul Engelmayer
published a 51-page ruling, slamming the club for misleading
customers and depriving employees of their due salaries.
The action was brought on behalf of some 2,000 dancers employed at
the club -- owned by Peregrine Enterprises Inc., a unit of RCI
Hospitality Holdings Inc. -- going back to 2005.

The award is short of the $18.8 million in damages the dancers
sought, and the judge left the balance to be decided at a trial.

The date will be set shortly, the court order said.

In a September 2013 ruling, Judge Engelmayer sided with the
plaintiffs, saying Rick's Cabaret exercised so much control over
the dancers that they were actually employees subject to the
club's rules and could not make independent decisions about their
work.

The only payment the dancers received was in the form of tips for
dances, which normally amounted to around $20.

Defending, the club said the strippers were obliged to pay
"performance fees".

This included $20 per dance or semi-private performance, where
they charge a minimum of $100 for 15 minutes and up to $400 for an
hour.

However, Judge Engelmayer slammed the defense, saying a
"reasonable customer would have understood the performance fees
which customers paid dancers as gratuities belonging to particular
dancers, not as service charges belonging to the club."

RCI Hospitality, Rick's Cabaret's parent company, dismissed the
ruling as "flawed".


SANDISK CORP: Dec. Hearing Set to Certify Ritz Camera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on a class certification motion in an antitrust suit
filed by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC against Sandisk Corporation is
set for December 1, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition
for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the
portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker
Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the
Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying
SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal
Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District
Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. On February
20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert Giuliano, the
Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be substituted as
the plaintiff in this case,which the District Court granted on
July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the
Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint,
which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as
named plaintiffs. Ritz has sought leave to file a fourth amended
complaint, which would add a cause of action for attempted
monopolization, add another named plaintiff and extend the class
period to July 1997. The District Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss, granted Ritz's leave to file a fourth amended
complaint and denied Ritz's request to file a modified fourth
amended complaint. The hearing on class certification is scheduled
for December 1, 2014.


SANDISK CORP: 9th Cir. Nixes Bid for Rehearing in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America and SD-3C,
LLC's petition for a rehearing and remanded an antitrust lawsuit
filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the Sandisk
Corporation's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.

On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung") filed
an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court") alleging various claims against
Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
(collectively, "Panasonic") and SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C") under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and
under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to
the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint
seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital ("SD")
card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as a
declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and
that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held
unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this
case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba,
and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning
the Company. As a member of SD-3C, the Company may be responsible
for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief,
including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could
result in a loss of revenue to the Company. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") on October 14, 2010. On August 25, 2011,
the District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with
prejudice but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On
January 3, 2012, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss Samsung's complaint without leave to amend. Samsung
appealed. On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Appeals Court") issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds
and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. The Appeals Court has denied defendants' petition for
rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the
District Court.


SANDISK CORP: Court Refuses to Rehear Oliver v. SD-3C Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
defendants' petition for rehearing of the case Oliver v. SD-3C
LLC, et al. and remanded it to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to the Sandisk
Corporation's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2014.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with
the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the
royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation
of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws,
which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for
SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by
reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and
SD-3C LLC. On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs
appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision
reversing the District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations
grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. The appeals court denied Defendants' petition for
rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the
District Court.


SANDISK CORP: Fusion-io Files Motion to Junk Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Fusion-io, Inc. and certain of its officers filed a motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities action against them in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the Sandisk Corporation's Nov. 3, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2014.

Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion-io and certain of its
officers (the "defendants") were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et
al.; Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.;
Marriott v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-
io's common stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013,
and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
between January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints
generally allege violations of the federal securities laws arising
out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during
the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class. On June 10, 2014, the Court
consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff, and ordered
plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. On August 6,
2014, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Fusion-io common stock between
October 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013, inclusive. The consolidated
complaint generally alleges violations of the federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class period and seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class. On September 22, 2014, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.


SAPIENT CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Publicis, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Sapient
Corp. (consulting) too cheaply through an unfair process to
Publicis Groupe, for $3.7 billion or $25 a share, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Appeal v. Nixing of 2011 Power Outage Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal District Court in San Diego is yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal against the dismissal of a suit against Arizona
Public Service Company, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and San
Diego Gas & Electric Company, over the 2011 power outage in Mexico
and Southern Orange County, California, according to Sempra's
September, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County,
California. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E
customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court
in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West
Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed
to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified
amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In July 2012, the
court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the punitive damages
request and dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle
West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit. In September 2013, the
court granted SDG&E's motion for summary judgment and dismissed
the lawsuit. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's
dismissal of their action.


SKECHERS USA: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Shape-Up and Tone-Up Shoes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kandace Walker v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc., Skechers, U.S.A., Inc.,
II, and Skechers Fitness Group, Case No. 3:14-cv-00750-TBR (W.D.
Ky., November 13, 2014) alleges that Skechers made numerous
misrepresentations, and continues to make those representations,
regarding the efficacy and health benefits of Shape-ups.

The Plaintiff contends that in fact, toning shoes provide no
additional health benefits than do regular athletic and walking
shoes.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are Delaware
corporations headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California.
Skechers Fitness Group is a trademarked subsidiary of Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II also headquartered in Manhattan Beach.

Skechers is a shoe company that manufactures toning shoes,
including Skechers Shape-ups and Tone-ups.  The shoes have a
pronounced rocker bottom sole.  Skechers markets and promotes its
toning shoes as footwear that will provide countless health
benefits including improved cardiac function and orthopedic
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          812 E. National Road
          Dayton, OH 45377
          Telephone: (937) 435-7500
          Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@legaldayton.com


STARION ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over "Bait-and-Switch" Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Business.com reports that attorneys representing energy
consumers across the country filed a $50 million class-action
lawsuit on Nov. 13 against Middlebury electricity supplier Starion
Energy.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges that Starion engaged in an "illegal
bait-and-switch" routine that defrauded thousands of consumers out
of millions of dollars.

National law firm Sanford Heisler said in a statement that Starion
targeted low-income and elderly consumers with promises of lower
rates, which were later increased two or three-fold.

"The company actively misleads customers to believe that switching
to Starion will save them money," David Tracey --
dtracey@sanfordheisler.com -- a Sanford Heisler attorney, said in
a statement.  "But the company fails to disclose that its regular
rates are nearly always substantially higher than its competitors
and exorbitant when compared to the energy supply market."

Starion and two other suppliers were the subject of a state
regulator investigation last year into whether they switched
customers to another supplier without their knowledge, which is
known as "slamming."

The legislature passed a series of reforms earlier this year aimed
at electricity marketing practices. The Public Utilities
Regulatory Authority issued final regulations earlier this month.

The lawsuit asks for a jury trial, compensatory damages, triple
damages, interest, and an order forbidding Starion from continuing
to use "deceptive, illegal and unlawful trade practices and
schemes.


SUSHI YASUDA: Court Slashes Lawyers' Cut in Workers Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
although he praised the lawyers' service in resolving a three-star
sushi restaurant labor dispute, a federal judge nevertheless cut
their portion of the $2.4 million settlement by more than a third
to protect the workers.

"The danger to workers from underpayment by their employers is
clear," U.S. District Judge William Pauley wrote in his 21-page
opinion.  "The danger of overpaying their lawyers is more subtle."

Midtown's Sushi Yasuda received acclaim for its authenticity in
The New York Times, but its wait staff, bussers and sushi chefs
panned the restaurant's alleged policy of paying trainees less
than the minimum wage.

After the workers filed a class action lawsuit, Sushi Yasuda
publicized a new policy to eliminate tipping.

"While most of the reportage emphasized the restaurant's desire to
follow Japanese customs and create a more pleasant customer
experience, it appears this lawsuit may also have prompted the
move," Judge Pauley wrote.

The parties eventually proposed a multimillion-dollar settlement
giving $800,000 to the workers' lawyers, $20,000 for each of six
named employees, $100,000 for an administration fund and the rest
for a settlement fund for class members.

Although the lawyers agreed to reduce their pay to $600,000, Judge
Pauley commented even this portion cut against the grain of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Paraphrasing Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Pauley remarked that the
76-year-old statute was meant to guard against "the evil of
'overwork' as well as underpay."

There has been an "explosion in FLSA litigation" in the last
decade, he noted.

So far this year, FLSA cases represent nearly 9 percent of the
civil cases filed in the Southern District of New York, the
opinion states.

"And this district is no outlier," it continues. "Nationwide,
annual FLSA fillings are up over 400 percent from 2001."

"A law is only effective to the extent it is enforced, and this
increased litigation has been a positive development for many low-
wage workers," Pauley wrote.  "The same is true for their
lawyers."

The tendency of this case to settle breeds overcharging by the
lawyers, he added.

"When cases settle, 'the adversarial process melts away,'" the
opinion states.  "Settling defendants tend to lose interest in how
settlement monies are distributed.  And a natural tension arises
between plaintiffs' attorneys and the class they represent, in
that both must jockey for payment from a common fund.  Often, it
is judges alone who are left to safeguard the interests of the
class.

"Courts typically rely on the adversarial process to strike a
balance between competing interests," it continues.  "But the
vacuum created by proposed FLSA class action settlements has
permitted plaintiffs' attorneys to write much of the law on what
constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee.  Those fees, effectively
paid by the class, at times provide lawyers with more than a fair
day's pay for a fair day's work."

Despite praising the lawyers for having "expertly guided the case"
and "obtained an excellent settlement," Pauley reduced class
counsel fees to $500,020.18.

Lawyers for the sushi workers declined to comment, and Sushi
Yasuda's lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The case is Sakiko Fujiwara, et al. v. Sushi Yasuda Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 12cv8742, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


TALLAHASSEE, FL: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Montanaro, writing for WCTV.tv, reports that Tallahassee is
one of 24 cities named in a federal class action lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of red light cameras.

The plaintiffs want the courts to void their red light tickets and
stop cities like Tallahassee from using the controversial cameras.

Red light cameras are posted at some of Tallahassee's busiest
intersections.

A class action lawsuit filed in Tallahassee's federal court
October 29 calls them "unconstitutional."

The suit names "American Traffic Solutions" and 24 cities
including Tallahassee.

It claims police have "delegated their police powers and out-
sourced them to a for-profit, non-governmental corporation."

Attorneys for the City of Tallahassee say that's not so.

"Anytime a person receives a notice of violation or a citation, it
is reviewed by a law enforcement officer before it is issued,"
Senior Assistant City Attorney Cassandra Jackson said.

One of the plaintiffs got a red light ticket in Tallahassee.

The federal lawsuit claims while an officer may sign off on the
actual citations it is American Traffic Solutions that initially
determines who is subject to prosecution, who creates the actual
citation, and who issues it.

Ms. Jackson says they're trying to get the case against the City
of Tallahassee thrown out because it doesn't have a contract with
ATS.  Its contract is with Xerox ACS.


TARGA RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit by APL Unitholders Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Corp. faces a lawsuit by public unitholders of
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. (APL) over a merger with Atlas,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

In October 2014, three public unitholders of Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P. (the "APL Plaintiffs") filed class action lawsuits
against APL, ATLS, Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC ("APL GP"), its
managers, Targa, the company, the general partner and Trident MLP
Merger Sub LLC (the "APL Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits are
styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al.,
in the Court of Common Pleas for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania;
(b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma; and (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v.
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common
Pleas for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania (the "APL Lawsuits").  On
October 23, 2014, a public unitholder of ATLS (the "ATLS
Plaintiff" and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs")
filed a class action lawsuit against ATLS, Atlas Energy Partners
GP, LLC ("ATLS GP"), its managers, Targa, and Trident GP Merger
Sub LLC (the "ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the APL
Lawsuit Defendants, "Defendants").  This lawsuit is styled Rick
Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas
for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS Lawsuit" and,
together with the APL Lawsuits, the "Lawsuits").

Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the
Atlas Mergers.  The APL Plaintiffs allege that (a) APL GP's
managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their
fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the company, the general partner,
Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC, APL, ATLS and APL GP have aided and
abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith
and/or fiduciary duties.  One of the APL Plaintiffs also alleges
that (a) APL GP and its managers breached APL's Limited
Partnership Agreement and (b) APL and APL GP's managers aided and
abetted in APL GP's alleged breaches of the Limited Partnership
Agreement.  Specifically, the APL Plaintiffs allege that (a) the
premium offered to APL's unitholders is inadequate, (b) APL agreed
to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade other potential
acquirers from seeking to acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers
favored their self-interests over the interests of APL's
unitholders.  The ATLS Plaintiff alleges that (a) ATLS GP's
managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their
fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, Trident GP Merger Sub LLC, ATLS
and ATLS GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties.  Specifically,
the ATLS Plaintiff alleges that (a) the premium offered to ATLS's
unitholders is inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms
that will allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from
seeking to acquire ATLS and (c) ATLS GP's managers favored their
self-interests over the interests of ATLS's unitholders.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seeks to enjoin Defendants
from proceeding with or consummating the Atlas Mergers unless and
until APL and ATLS adopt and implement processes to obtain the
best possible terms for their respective unitholders. To the
extent that the Atlas Mergers are consummated before injunctive
relief is granted, Plaintiffs seek to have the Atlas Mergers
rescinded.  Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs have not yet served Defendants, and Defendants' date to
answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Lawsuits has
not yet been set. The company cannot predict the outcome of the
Lawsuits or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date
of this filing; nor can the company predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the Lawsuits.  Defendants
intend to vigorously defend the Lawsuits.


UNIPIXEL INC: Enters Into MoU to Settle Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
StreetInsider.com reports that UniPixel on Nov. 14 disclosed that
it has entered memorandums of understanding to settle the
following previously disclosed lawsuits:

   -- the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, captioned
Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No.
4:13-cv-01649); and

   -- the consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, captioned In re Uni-
Pixel, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Cause No. 2014-
08251).

The proposed settlements would resolve for all defendants all of
the issues that are pending in the class action and in the
consolidated derivative action relating to Uni-Pixel's public
statements regarding its licensing agreements and product
development.  Uni-Pixel determined to settle these matters to
eliminate the burden, distraction, and expense of further
litigation.

If completed, the class action settlement would result in a
payment of $2.35 million in cash to the settlement class,
inclusive of fees and expenses.  In addition, Uni-Pixel would
issue $2.15 million in common stock to the settlement class.  The
proposed consolidated derivative settlement would result in a
payment of $150,000 in cash, the issuance of $125,000 of Uni-Pixel
common stock, and certain governance improvements.  Uni-Pixel
anticipates that the cash payment portions of both settlements,
totaling $2.5 million, would be paid from insurance proceeds.

"With these memorandums of understanding in place, we believe we
are one step closer to resolving these suits," said Jeff
Hawthorne, president and CEO of Uni-Pixel.  "We are hopeful the
courts will give final approval to the settlements."

The settlements described in this press release are not yet
consummated and are subject to a number of conditions.  The terms
outlined in the memorandums of understanding Uni-Pixel has entered
into are subject to the parties concluding definitive settlement
agreements.  The proposed settlements are also subject to final
approval by Uni-Pixel's insurance carrier and by the courts
following completion of a fairness hearing.  Hearing dates have
not yet been set on final approval of the proposed settlements.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Sale of Redline(R) Xtreme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna K. Mark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a Florida corporation,
doing business as VPX, Case No. 1:14-cv-14148-GAO (D. Mass.,
November 12, 2014) is a proposed economic class action brought on
behalf of all consumers, who purchased the Defendant's Redline(R)
Xtreme Energy Drink in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, seeking
redress for the Defendants' alleged deceptive practices in
misrepresenting and omitting the true nature of the Product, in
order to market the Product as a drink for consumption.

The Plaintiff alleges that adverse reactions have been reported
from consumers, who have purchased and ingested the Product,
including chills, excessive sweating, vomiting, convulsions, chest
pain, and rapid heart.  The Plaintiff adds that consumers of the
Product have been hospitalized after consuming the Product.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Florida corporation doing
business as, and selling the Product under, the trademark name of
VPX.  The Defendant owns and maintains an interactive Web site,
http://www.vpxsports.com/,which sells the Product.  The Defendant
also sells, distributes, markets, and advertises the Product
directly to citizens in Massachusetts through various
distributors, retailers, and other outlets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Goldman, Esq.
          1809 Stearns Hill Road
          Waltham, MA 02451
          Telephone: (781) 891-4583
          E-mail: Jongoldman10@gmail.com


VOCATION: Slater & Gordon Faces Second Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that Slater & Gordon is preparing a class
action against troubled education provider Vocation, with
aggrieved shareholders instructing the law firm to sue, only days
after Maurice Blackburn announced it was seriously considering a
class action on behalf of institutional investors.

Slater & Gordon's claim will be funded by listed litigation funder
Bentham IMF, and will allege the company "breached its continuous
disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct".

Vocation's Bawm and Aspin subsidiaries were the subject of a
Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
review that found the company had enrolled students in
inappropriate courses and provided poor-quality training.  The
company eventually announced it would have to close the two major
subsidiaries and had lost almost AU$20 million in funding.

The shock announcement, following months of denials that the probe
was material, has pushed Vocation's share price down almost 70
per cent.

Tim Finney, a senior Slater & Gordon lawyer, said there were
"reasonable grounds to allege that the problems in Vocation's
Victorian business were systemic, and that the company had been
misleading the market about its true position since its public
listing in late 2013".

Matthew Kennedy, Bentham IMF's investment manager, said it was
inconceivable the company was not aware of serious compliance
problems at its Victorian subsidiaries.

"Shareholders are angry that in response to media reports about
these issues, Vocation continued to maintain that it had nothing
material to disclose to the market," he said.

Maurice Blackburn, which announced it was considering its own
class action earlier this week, said it was not surprised there
was "widespread scrutiny over Vocation's activities".

Steve Varghese, a class action lawyer at Maurice Blackburn, said
the firm was also investigating what the company knew about the
extent of regulatory concerns dating back to its public listing in
December last year.

The Australian reported the Victorian regulator raised concerns
three months before the company raised AU$143 million in its
float.

But in a statement released to the Australian Securities Exchange,
the company rejected the allegation.  Vocation has consistently
maintained it took advice from managers and independent legal
experts about whether the review would be material, and was told
it would not be.

The company is due to announce restructure plans in the coming
week, involving the early exit of senior Bawm managers.


WEATHERFORD US: "Vega" Suit Moved From N.D. to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vega v. Weatherford U.S., Limited
Partnership, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03910, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Fresno).  The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:14-cv-01790-JLT to the proceeding.

In her complaint, Plaintiff Stephanie A. Vega alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq.
          Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
          BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
          1411 Marsh St., Suite 102
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322-3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
          E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com
                  efb@bbemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
          5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 937-9900
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9910
          E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
                  fschmidt@bollaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle L. Heverly, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Fairmont Plaza
          50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: mheverly@littler.com

               - and -

          Sophia Behnia, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 288-6663
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: sbehnia@littler.com


WELLS FARGO: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Gulla, Mat Krantz and William Waldron, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., William Westdyke
a/k/a Bill Westdyke, and Jonathan Rondi a/k/a John Rondi, Case No.
2:14-cv-07083-CCC-MF (D.N.J., November 12, 2014) seeks declaratory
relief and monetary damages for Wells Fargo's alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to
pay the Plaintiffs' overtime pay.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
which is a Delaware corporation with offices located in Wayne and
Morristown, New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are managers or
officers of Wells Fargo.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan W. Lawler, Esq.
          MINTZ & GOLD LLP
          470 Park Avenue South, 10th Floor North
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 696-4848
          E-mail: lawler@mintzandgold.com


WEST BROM: Landlords Vow to Pursue Mortgage Rate Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Lunn, writing for Mortgage Solutions, reports that a group of
landlords suing West Bromwich building society for upping rates on
buy-to-let tracker mortgages have vowed to fight on despite the
Financial Ombudsman backing the lender.

The Daily Telegraph has reported that some borrowers who took
their cases against West Brom to the Ombudsman have started to
receive decision letters -- and it's not good news.
The Ombudsman has ruled that the lender didn't act unfairly by
upping rates on buy-to-let tracker mortgages despite no change in
the base rate.

But Mark Smith, a barrister at Cotswold Barristers who is
representing borrowers taking part in the class action, is
pressing ahead with the case.

"The claimant is not surprised by the decision of the Financial
Services Ombudsman, which had been widely trailed in our previous
dealings with them.  It does not affect our position in the
commercial court case, as the court will be considering different
arguments than those which were addressed by the Ombudsman," he
said.

In September 2013 West Brom announced it was increasing rates on
6,700 buy-to-let tracker mortgages despite no rise in the Bank of
England base rate since it fell to an all-time low of 0.5% in
March 2009.

The move targeted "professional landlords" with three or more
rental properties and at least one mortgage with a division of
West Brom called the West Bromwich Mortgage Company.

The rate hike meant some landlords saw the interest rate on their
mortgage double and monthly payments increase by hundreds of
pounds.

Many customers took their case to the Ombudsman but, according to
The Telegraph, it's told them the lender had "legitimate
commercial reasons" to vary its tracker rate.

The statement echoes the small print West Brom is relying upon to
justify its actions. Despite borrowers being sold tracker
mortgages on the understanding they "tracked" the base rate -- and
the rate would only rise when the base rate did -- a clause in the
small print said the lender was allowed to change the rate without
the base rate moving.

The clause said the rate could be changed to "reflect market
conditions and to make sure its business is carried out prudently,
effectively and competitively".

Landlords are an easy target for lenders looking to increase
tracker rates as they are not protected by the same regulations as
owner-occupiers.

The Telegraph story quoted details of one letter from the
Ombudsman the newspaper had seen.

"I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of the mortgage you
have, allow West Bromwich to increase the interest rate in the way
it has," it said.

"West Bromwich has satisfied us that there is a legitimate
commercial reason for it doing so.  It has not acted unfairly in
changing the interest rate or in the way it has done so."

The class action, led by landlord website Property118.com and for
which Mr. Smith is counsel for the claimant, is due to be heard in
court on January 21, 2015.


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMO Product Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Buchner, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a class
action lawsuit that was filed on Nov. 7 in California accuses
Whole Foods Market California Inc. of selling misbranded products.
Specifically, the Whole Foods class action lawsuit alleges the
company sells Blue Diamond almond milk products that are
mislabeled as "Non-GMO" in violation of California's Sherman Law
and consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff Michelle Richard filed the Whole Foods class action
lawsuit on behalf of herself and other consumers who have
purchased Blue Diamond Refrigerated Almond Breeze Original Almond
Milk and/or Blue Diamond Refrigerated Almond Breeze Vanilla Almond
Milk products with the Non-GMO Project Verified label.

According to the GMO labeling class action lawsuit, Richard
purchased the Almond Breeze products at one to two times per week
between January and June.  She alleges that she, as a health-
conscious consumer, read and relied upon the Non-GMO Project
Verified labels when choosing to purchase the products.

"GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are plants or animals
created through gene splicing techniques of biotechnology, also
known as genetic engineering," the Whole Foods class action
lawsuit says.  "The evidence of risk and actual harm from
genetically modified foods and crops to our health and environment
is constantly growing.  GMOs have been linked to thousands of
toxic and allergic reactions, sick sterile and dead livestock, and
damage to almost every organ and system studied in lab animals,"
Richard alleges in the GMO labeling class action lawsuit.

According to the Whole Foods class action lawsuit, the Non-GMO
Project Verified label indicates that a product has been verified
as having been produced according the best practices for
genetically modified organism avoidance by the Non-GMO Project, a
nonprofit organization that is dedicated to building awareness
about GMOs.  The Non-GMO Project Verified is reportedly one of the
fastest-growing labels in the natural food sector. There are
currently more than 20,000 Non-GMO Project Verified products
available on the market today.

Ms. Richard alleges Whole Foods sells Almond Breeze almond milk
that bears the Non-GMO Project Verified label in order to profit
on the public's growing interest in non-GMO foods.  She claims
Whole Foods sells products with the Non-GMO Project Verified label
even though they have not actually been verified by the Non-GMO
Project.

The GMO labeling class action lawsuit alleges Whole Foods
illegally marketed, advertised, distributed and sold misbranded
products to consumers in California and throughout the United
States. Richard seeks an injunction to prevent Whole Foods from
continuing to market and sell these allegedly misbranded products
as well as an award of damages to Class Members.

Ms. Richard asserts that Whole Foods has violated California's
Unfair Business Practices Act, False Advertising Act and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.  The Whole Foods class action lawsuit also
asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of
quasi-contract.

Ms. Richard is represented by Brett Shainfeld and Jessica Anvar of
Shainfeld & Anvar PC and Todd Friedman of the Law Offices of Todd
M. Friedman PC.

The Whole Foods GMO Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Michelle
Richard v. Whole Foods Market California Inc., Case No. BC563304,
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.


WHOLE FOODS: Seeks Dismissal of Homeopathy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that
Whole Foods Market Inc. is attempting to sink a proposed class
action over allegedly deceptive packaging of store-brand
homeopathic products by picking off the named plaintiffs, telling
a Florida federal judge on Nov. 13 that the company offered to
reimburse them for any potential damages.

In a brief, Whole Foods told the court that last month it sent
each of the four named plaintiffs so-called offers in judgment
that the company says provides them "all the relief" they could
have recovered at trial.  The tactic, known as a pick-off, has
become an increasingly popular way to try and end proposed class
actions.

Whole Foods said its offer nullifies a pending motion for class
certification.  The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
U.S. consumers 18 years of age or older who purchased Whole Foods
brand 'Cough Ease for Kids,' 'Cough Ease,' 'Flu Ease' or 'Arnica
Montana 30C' products in the last four years.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 2013 Genesis HealthCare Corp. et
al. v. Laura Symczyk ruling, gave employers the green light to use
the type of pick-off strategy Whole Foods is attempting.  Whole
Foods, as well as other defendants who use this tactic, argues
that its offer makes the named plaintiffs whole thereby
eliminating any potential controversy in the litigation.

Whole Foods said it offered the plaintiffs $20 for products that
cost them between $6.00 and $10.00.

"Plaintiffs bring their [class certification] motion
notwithstanding the fact that they were stripped of their standing
to prosecute this case once they received Whole Foods' valid and
complete offers of judgment," Whole Foods said.

Alternatively, Whole Foods challenged the merits of the
plaintiffs' class certification bid.  The company argues that the
plaintiffs have failed to show that their case is suitable for
going forward as a class action.

The lawsuit, filed in August, claims Whole Foods 365-brand cough
syrup and remedies are so diluted that they have no effect on the
human body and don't effectively treat flu-like symptoms in adults
and children.

The homeopathic drugs Whole Foods sells aren't evaluated by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, leading to customer confusion,
the plaintiffs claim. Because Whole Foods' packaging and
advertising only mentions "homeopathic medicine" in fine print,
"this confusion crosses the line into deception," according to the
suit.

"Whole Foods is not only taking advantage of consumers' desire for
natural medicine, but also deceiving consumers into believing that
Whole Foods' products are effective, regulated drugs that are held
to the same standards as true medical drugs and nonhomeopathic
[over-the-counter] drugs," the lawsuit said.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas P. O'Connell of Thomas P.
O'Connell PA.

Whole Foods is represented by Valerie M. Goo -- vgoo@orrick.com --
and Christina Guerola Sarchio -- csarchio@orrick.com -- of Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Jeffrey Allan Hirsch --
hirschj@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig PA.

The case is Mario Herazo et al. v. Whole Foods Market Inc., case
number not yet assigned, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.


WILLIAMS SONOMA: Violates Disabilities Act, California Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Williams Sonoma, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08843-JFW-MAN
(C.D. Cal., November 14, 2014) is brought pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Todd Harrison, Esq.
          THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
          25876 The Old Road, Suite 304
          Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
          Telephone: (661) 257-2854
          Facsimile: (661) 257-3068
          E-mail: mharrison30@aol.com


* Coupon Accords Survive in Post-CAFA World, Sidley Austin Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that in the wake
of 2005's Class Action Fairness Act, class action settlements that
provide coupons to class members have surprisingly survived, a
Sidley Austin attorney recently said.

Kara McCall -- kmccall@sidley.com -- a partner with Sidley Austin
who works in its Chicago office, said when CAFA went into effect,
a lot of people felt coupon settlements were dead.

"In some instances they were the same, and in some instances they
were different," Ms. McCall said.  "After a few years, we wanted
to see how they were doing and we discovered they certainly were
not dead."

Ms. McCall authored a paper with Michael W. Davis and Caroline L.
Schiff of Sidley Austin titled "Coupon Settlements Play Continuing
Role in Class Litigations After CAFA."

Ms. McCall said coupon settlements are often at a higher value
than if the company paid a cash settlement.

"A coupon settlement is still judged the sale as a regular cash
settlement," Ms. McCall said.  "The court will still make sure
that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and will look
at the attorneys fees and all that is involved with that
settlement before approving or denying it."

Ms. McCall said coupon settlements are effective and because of
CAFA, they are regulated so that class members receive a fair
settlement.

There are criticisms to coupon settlements, such as some believing
they are a way for plaintiffs attorneys to inflate their own fees
at the expense of the class members.  However, CAFA removes the
economic incentive for attorneys to negotiate such settlements at
the expense of absent class members, according to Ms. McCall's
paper.

In coupon settlements, federal courts must hold a hearing and make
specific findings that the coupon settlement is fair, reasonable
and adequate and that the class members' interests are
represented.

According to Ms. McCall's paper, based on the case law both before
and after CAFA was enacted, there are several features of a coupon
settlement that parties should keep in mind when drafting such a
settlement.

She says courts are more inclined to approve coupon settlements
when:

- There are few or no restrictions on the use of such coupons;

- The coupon is not limited to a good or service that is rarely
purchased;

- The coupon does not require the purchase of the challenged
product;

- The value of the coupon is reasonable in light of the overall
cost;

- The claims process is not overly complicated;

- A cash payout is impractical or impossible.

"As long as class members are receiving a fair settlement, coupon
settlements can be a great value to the class members," Ms. McCall
said.

Congress enacted CAFA in part because of a growing concern that
the attorneys receive excessive attorneys' fees with little or no
recovery for the class members themselves.

CAFA sharply limits the ability of attorneys to tie their fee
awards to the nominal value of the coupons available to the
settlement class, according to McCall's paper.

CAFA limits attorneys fees in coupon settlements when coupons
provide the sole basis of relief or if the attorneys fees awarded
are not based on the recovery to the class.

If a proposed settlement includes a cy pres provision, the
distribution of any such proceeds "shall not be used to calculate
attorneys' fees, McCall's paper states.

David Martinez -- dmartinez@rkmc.com -- a partner at Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, wrote an article in 2009 stating that
since CAFA was enacted, attorneys fees in coupon settlements have
been regulated by providing that any portion of fees attributable
to the award of the coupons "shall be based on the value to class
members of the coupons that are redeemed" rather than the
theoretical value of the coupons available for redemption.

Mr. Martinez went on to say that redemption rates can be affected
by various factors, including the eligibility and use restrictions
associated with the coupons and the transaction costs involved in
redeeming them.

Because valuation can be complex, CAFA provides that the court
"may receive expert testimony . . . on the actual value to the
class members of the coupons that are redeemed," according to
Martinez's article.

According to a class action plaintiffs lawyer, settlements that
result in plaintiffs receiving coupons are better results than
class members receiving nothing and cash-strapped defendants being
bankrupted.

Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group said in a lot of
situations, a coupon or gift certificate is the best decision.

"The purpose of a class action is not to bankrupt the company,"
Mr. Kazerounian said.  "They need to be held accountable, but the
defendant must survive."

Mr. Kazerounian said in some cases, a company is not financially
stable enough to give a complete cash settlement and will give
coupons and gift certificates so that it can settle the lawsuit
without going bankrupt and closing down.

"In some cases, a $100 gift certificate is all the company can
afford, and you would rather the class members receive that than
nothing at all," Mr. Kazerounian said.  "It's very case-specific.
Not all settlements are the same."

Mr. Kazerounian said not every case is a slam dunk, and that if a
company is offering a coupon as its settlement, that is better
than nothing at all.

"If you've got a class action in which you have a 70 or 80 percent
chance of losing, that gift certificate is better than losing and
not receiving anything at all," he said.


* Smaller Law Firms in Class Action Industry Squeezed Out
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that the lawyer
who helped draft a reform plan for class actions says the latest
report on this subject "provides further evidence of the emergence
of a class action industry -- dominated by publicly listed
companies Slater & Gordon and the litigation funders".

Clayton Utz partner Stuart Clark -- sclark@claytonutz.com -- said
the report, by Monash Business School's Vince Morabito, raised
real concerns about whether smaller law firms were being squeezed
out of this form of litigation.

"The dominance of an important area of legal practice by publicly
listed companies is not in the interests of the legal profession
or the community," said Mr. Clark, who helped draw up a reform
plan for the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

His remarks come soon after plaintiff lawyer Stewart Levitt,
principal solicitor at Levitt Robinson, called for the law
governing class actions to be changed to eliminate what he
believed was a bias in favor of large plaintiff firms and
litigation funders.

Mr. Clark said the fact that 40 per cent of class actions were
abandoned or struck out showed many class actions lacked merit and
should never have been started.  "This starkly emphasizes the need
for the introduction of a certification procedure," he said.

"The data do not support the contention that the emergence of the
litigation funding industry has not had an impact on the cost of
class actions to the community.  The report says nothing about
what actions are funded nor the length and cost of those
proceedings.

"My experience is that the funded actions are the larger, more
complex and expensive actions -- often giving very little return
to the class members."


                              *********

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  * * *