CAR_Public/141126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 235


                             Headlines

718 AUTO SALES: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ALPHA NATURAL: Settlement in UBB Securities Class Action Approved
ALPHA NATURAL: Motions to Dismiss Emerald Action Remain Pending
ALPHA NATURAL: Defendants Have Until Dec. 5 to Respond to Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: April 2016 Trial Set in NCI Employee Litigation

AMERICAN PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
APCO OIL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Okla. Over Pluspetrol Merger
APPLE INC: iPod Antitrust Trial to Proceed
ATLAS AIR: Plans to Oppose Recommendation to Certify Class
ATLAS AIR: Old Polar Agrees to Settle Class Actions in Canada

AVENTURA EATERY: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Vang" Suit in Pa. Over Violation of FLSA
BETTER BODY: "Montaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BITCASA INC: Sued Over Illegal Elimination of Data Storage Plan

BOCA LECHE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Claims
BOSTON HANNAH: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
BOULDER BRANDS: Hike in Gen. & Admin. Expenses Due to Settlement
BOULDER BRANDS: Paid $0.3 Million to Settle Class Action
BOULDER BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Oil Blend Products Action Pending

BUDGET INN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bed Bug Infestation
CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
CHOBANI: Chamber Intervenes in Food Labeling Class Action
CITYSIDE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CLOVER GLOBAL: "Fregoso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

CROSS COUNTRY: Accrued $0.8MM to Settle Wage and Hour Action
CVS HEALTH: Certification of Suit Over 1999 Settlement Challenged
CVS HEALTH: Cert. Motions in Antitrust Litigation Remain Pending
CVS HEALTH: N.H. Court Denies New Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act

EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Still Under Advisement
ECHOSPHERE LLC: Removes "Tajonar" Class Suit to S.D. California
ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Stock Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Fact Discovery Concluded in MTBE Litigation
ENERGY TRANSFER: Provides Updates on PVR Merger Litigation

ENERGY TRANSFER: Suits Filed Over Eagle Rock Midstream Deal
EUGENE STRUPINSKY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FAIRWAY PLAZA: Faces Independence Project Suit over Breach of ADA
FORD MOTOR: Court to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Asbestos Cases
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Summary Judgment Motions Filed in Class Suit

GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Defective Drywalls
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ariz. AG Suit Over Delayed Vehicle Recalls
GENERAL MOTORS: Deadline to File Ignition-Switch Claims Extended
GILLETTE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Duracell Batteries, Suit Says
GOLD RESOURCE: Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal to Tenth Circuit

GT ADVANCED: Faces "Walpole" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
HANGER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Fraud
HANSEN MEDICAL: Records Decrease in Legal Expenses
HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Drop Preliminary Injunction Bid
HOSPIRA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Litigation

I A NUTRITION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Non-Protein Ingredients
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Oppose Dismissal Bid
INTEREXCHANGE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders' Class Suit Now Concluded

KEY ENERGY: Faces Allegations of Violating California Labor Laws
KEY ENERGY: Still Faces Shareholder Litigation in Texas Court
KODIAK OIL: Faces 7 Class Actions Over Whiting Deal
LABORATORY CORP: Removes "Varsam" Class Suit to S.D. California
LEGGETT & PLATT: Settles U.S. Direct Purchaser Antitrust Lawsuit

LEGGETT & PLATT: 2015 Trial in Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit
LEGGETT & PLATT: Canadian Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Cases Remain
LEGGETT & PLATT: Suit by Mo. Indirect Purchasers in Discovery
LHC GROUP: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 11
LONDON SILVER: Faces "Depaoli" Suit Over Silver-Price Fixing

MARRONE BIO: Delays 3Q Financial Results Amid Class Actions
MERRY MAIDS: Removes "Jessop" Suit to California District Court
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Class Action
METLIFE INC: Magistrate Judge Recommends Approval of Remand Bid
METLIFE INC: "Keife" Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order

METLIFE INC: Facing "Owens" Class Action Over Use of TCA
METLIFE INC: Final Approval Hearing This Month on "Fauley" Accord
METLIFE INC: Contines to Defend Class Suits Over Sales Practices
MXD INC: Removes "Echavarria" Suit to District of New Jersey
NAT'L FOOTBALL: DEA Addresses Claims on Players' Drug Use

NELNET INC: Settlement in "Yaakov" Case Subject to Finalization
NELNET INC: Settlement in "Zaw" Case Subject to Finalization
NELNET INC: Ohio Court Hasn't Established Class in "Keating" Case
NEVADA: Health Exchange Launches Improved Web Site Following Suit
OCLARO INC: Court Gave Final Okay to "Westley" Action Settlement

PFIZER INC: Judge to Weigh on Expert Witness Issue in Zoloft MDL
POTTERY BARN: Sued Over Failure to Construct POS for Blind People
PRC MANAGEMENT: "Quinones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "Dier" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Approved

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend "Huffman" Case
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of Complaints
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Motion to Certify Class
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Facing "Bouder" Class Action
RAPIDSHOT NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

REACHLOCAL INC: Faces Class Action by Former Clients
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Court Consolidated Two Securities Actions
ROUND TABLE PIZZA: Inaccessible to Disabled Persons, Suit Claims
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SEATTLE IMPACT: Owner Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuse

SIOUX CITY, IA: Judge OKs Franchise Fee Class Action Settlement
SMART PAYMENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Plan Agreement
SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: Consumer Suit Moved to NJ District Court
SPIROS PARTNERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
STARION ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Business Practices

STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not File Notice of Appeal
SUBWAY 30976: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Dec. 1 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Bentlage" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Markowitz" Class Suit Over Exploding Airbags

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Ontario Court Okays Horsepower Label Suit Deal
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Horsepower Label Suit Accord in Quebec Okayed
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Settlement in Compressor Antitrust Suit Okayed
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Circuit Upends Split Panel Decision
UNI-PIXEL INC: Parties in Final Stages of Negotiations

UNIT CORP: Closing Argument in Royalty Owners' Suit Set for Dec.
UNITED ONLINE: No Hearing Date for Partial Final Judgment Motion
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: McAdoo Suit Unlikely to Succeed
VAN VLIET: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Several Firms Mull Shareholder Class Actions

WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Suit Over Hazardous Substance Dismissed
WALTER ENERGY: New Cert. Motion Filed in "Rush" Securities Suit
WASHINGTON, DC: Police Plan for Future Seizure Proceeds After Suit
WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Now Final
WELLS FARGO: Appellate Court Revives Mortgage Modification Suit


                            *********


718 AUTO SALES: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Salazar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 718 Auto Sales Inc. d/b/a Great Bear Auto Center and
Firas Hiraj, Case No. 1:14-cv-06689 (E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile repair center located
at 4701 Kissena Boulevard, Flushing, New York 11358.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yesenia Francisco, Esq.
      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: francisco@bwp-law.com
              pechman@bwp-law.com


ALPHA NATURAL: Settlement in UBB Securities Class Action Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
entered an order approving the settlement in the Upper Big Branch
("UBB") Purported Securities Class Action and dismissed the class
action with prejudice.

On April 29, 2010 and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey, now the Company's subsidiary Alpha
Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha Appalachia"), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
(the "Court") in connection with alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. The lead plaintiffs allege, purportedly on behalf
of a class of former Massey stockholders, that (i) Massey and
certain former Massey directors and officers violated Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by intentionally
misleading the market about the safety of Massey's operations and
that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons alleged to
have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.
The lead plaintiffs sought a determination that this action was a
proper class action; certification as class representatives; an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon; and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 3, 2011, the United States
moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the completion of
criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same facts that
allegedly give rise to this action. On July 9, 2012, the court
entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until the
earlier of either the completion of the United States' criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2013. The court
extended the stay several times.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint. On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss. On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer
to the consolidated amended class action complaint.

In October and December 2013, the parties participated in
mediation. In December 2013, the parties reached agreement on all
material terms of settlement, including a cash payment of
$265,000.

In February 2014, the parties reached agreement on definitive
settlement documentation, subject to court approval, and on
February 5, 2014, the lead plaintiffs moved the court for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 19, 2014, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement
subject to a final determination following a settlement hearing on
June 4, 2014. On February 25, 2014, pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, the Company made an initial payment of $30,000 into an
escrow account and on June 3, 2014, the Company deposited the
remaining $235,000 of the settlement amount into the escrow
account. The Company received approximately $70,000 of insurance
proceeds in connection with the settlement. On June 4, 2014, the
Court entered an order approving the settlement and dismissed the
class action with prejudice.


ALPHA NATURAL: Motions to Dismiss Emerald Action Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Boone
County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to
dismiss the Emerald Purported Securities Class Action and the
motions remain pending.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the acquisition of Massey by the Company (the "Massey
Acquisition"). The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, an award
of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia. On
September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to remand.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19,
2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on
November 2, 2012. On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded
the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on
the pending motion to dismiss). The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 22, 2013 and March 29, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Boone
County Circuit Court held a hearing regarding the motions to
dismiss. The motions remain pending.

On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia
Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and
certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.


ALPHA NATURAL: Defendants Have Until Dec. 5 to Respond to Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs
in Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
filed an amended complaint which maintains claims against Massey
and certain former Massey directors and officers but no longer
asserts claims against the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc.
and under a schedule approved by the court, the defendants have
until December 5, 2014 to respond to the amended complaint.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at Upper Big Branch, and by wasting corporate assets by
paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of
his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on
behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that
certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by
failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition
consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a
superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a
termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that
defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the
liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that
defendants failed to fully disclose all material information
necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the
Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims.

Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey,
certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and
Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated
for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9, 2011 and
February 24, 2011, respectively.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 10 and
13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants
moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the
remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The
court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay
expired on October 31, 2014.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former
Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against
the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Under a schedule approved
by the court, the defendants have until December 5, 2014 to
respond to the amended complaint.


ALPHA NATURAL: April 2016 Trial Set in NCI Employee Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia has scheduled the
trial for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016 in the NCI Employee
Litigation.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative
class action lawsuit against Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. filed in
the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI
employee (the "NCI Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI
Employee Litigation is represented by the same attorney who
represented the plaintiff in the ACTF Litigation, and the
complaint's allegations raise issues similar to those in the ACTF
Litigation and arise from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at
issue in the ACTF Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has
meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee
Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court
declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a
more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore
resumed. The Circuit Court has scheduled the trial for April 25-29
and May 2-6, 2016.


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice the First Amended Complaint in the putative
class action styled Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of
themselves and a similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc.
and John G. Hondros.

On or about November 18, 2013, the putative class action styled
Tabatha Vickery, Bryan Lynn, on behalf of themselves and a
similarly situated class v. Hondros College, Inc. and John G.
Hondros, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, as Case No. CV 13 817299.  National Education Seminars,
Inc., which we refer to as Hondros College of Nursing, or HCON,
was not named in the lawsuit, but a then member of HCON's board of
directors, John Hondros, was named in the lawsuit, and the
allegations made in the Complaint related to HCON's operations and
not the operations of the entity named in the lawsuit.  The
lawsuit asserted claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied-in-fact contract,
promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act, for, among other things, the alleged
provision of false or misleading information to the named
plaintiffs and other putative class members in 2011 and 2012
regarding the status of accreditation by National League for
Nursing Accrediting Commission of HCON's Associate Degree in
Nursing, or ADN, program offered at its Independence, Ohio campus.
The plaintiffs alleged that the putative class consisted of more
than 60 former students who in the summer or fall quarters of 2011
enrolled in the ADN or the licensed practical nursing, or LPN,
program at the Independence campus with the intention of pursuing
a degree in nursing, but who withdrew from the ADN or LPN program.
On February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint, which removed Hondros College, Inc. as a defendant and
added HCON as a defendant.

On February 24, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
with prejudice the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. On April
1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss. On April 10, 2014, the defendants filed their reply brief
in support of the motion to dismiss.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the likelihood or
range of reasonably probable loss, if any, for this matter. The
Company does not believe, based on currently available
information, that the outcome of this proceeding, if adverse to
HCON, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition.

American Public Education, Inc., or APEI, provides online and on-
campus postsecondary education to approximately 112,600 students
through two subsidiaries.


APCO OIL: Faces Shareholder Suit in Okla. Over Pluspetrol Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apco Oil and Gas International Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the
District Court of Tulsa County in the State of Oklahoma over its
merger with Pluspetrol Resources Corporation, 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 October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the District Court of
Tulsa County in the State of Oklahoma challenging the proposed
Merger.  The lawsuit is a putative class action filed on behalf of
purported shareholders of Apco and names the Company, its
directors and WPX Energy, Inc. as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that Apco's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders by agreeing to sell Apco for inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to improper deal protection terms in
the Merger Agreement.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
declaratory and injunctive relief against the Merger and costs and
fees.


APPLE INC: iPod Antitrust Trial to Proceed
------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class of
iPod buyers suing Apple Inc. seems likely to make it to trial
intact, after an 11th-hour challenge from the company's legal team
fell flat. U.S.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said on Nov. 18 she's not
willing to hack apart the plaintiffs' class two weeks before
antitrust claims over Apple's iPods and iTunes music store are set
to go to trial.

The class will proceed as is, with two individual plaintiffs
representing both end users and iPod retailers, Gonzalez Rogers
ruled tentatively from the bench in Oakland.  Apple had attempted
to decertify the retail portion of the class, arguing the named
plaintiffs, both consumers, have different interests and damages
calculations than those of resellers like Amazon, Best Buy, and
Wal-Mart.

But Judge Gonzalez Rogers said it's too late.

"To decertify at this juncture on the eve of trial, I think
frankly more than anything else severely puts at a disadvantage
those unnamed class members," she said.  "And I'm just not willing
to do it."

The judge promised to follow up with a written ruling.

Plaintiffs lawyers, led by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd partner
Bonny Sweeney, have accused Apple of illegally rigging certain
iPod models so they would only play music purchased from the Apple
iTunes store.  By tying the devices to the music store, Apple
created a near monopoly over the MP3 music market, plaintiffs
lawyers argue.

After 10 years of litigation, jury selection is scheduled to start
Wednesday. Plaintiffs estimate damages at about $350 million, with
retailers entitled to about $150 million.

Apple is represented by Jones Day and Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
William Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- a Boies Schiller
partner in Washington, D.C., took the lead role for Apple at
Tuesday's hearing.

Last month Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed concern over allowing
consumer plaintiffs to represent retailers in the suit and
encouraged plaintiffs lawyers to add a retail representative.

But Judge Gonzalez Rogers wasn't happy with their choice.
Kenneth Riegel, owner of iPod retailer K&N Enterprises Inc.,
doesn't appear to have standing to sue Apple, the judge said.  K&N
Enterprises became a void corporation after the company stopped
paying required fees to the state of Delaware, Apple's lawyers
pointed out, which they say means he has no legal right to sue.
"This proposed class representative has not met the statutory
requirements," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said.  "So I don't see how I
can have him serve."

Plaintiffs have argued that the class is valid without Mr. Riegel,
insisting they sought to add him only out of an abundance of
caution.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers said she would let plaintiffs proceed and
let a higher court have the final word.

"After reading your briefs and weighing all the issues, it finally
occurred to me I should just let you try the case the way you teed
it up," she said, "and then you'll take it to the Ninth Circuit
and they'll deal with it the way they're going to deal with it."


ATLAS AIR: Plans to Oppose Recommendation to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company plans to oppose the recommendation of the court magistrate
that the court enter an order certifying a class for adjudicating
the claims.

In 2010, Polar Air Cargo LLC ("Old Polar") entered into an
agreement with the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ")
to resolve issues relating to the previously disclosed DOJ
investigation concerning alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of
fuel surcharges and other rate components for air cargo services
(the "DOJ Investigation").

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was
substantial pretrial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether
or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October
2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013.

"On October 15, 2014, the court magistrate issued a decision
recommending that the court enter an order certifying the class
for adjudicating the claims.  We plan to oppose that
recommendation. We are unable to reasonably predict the court's
ruling or the ultimate outcome of the litigation," the Company
said.

Atlas Air provides outsourced aircraft and aviation operating
services throughout the world, serving Africa, Asia, Australia,
Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America through:
(i) contractual service arrangements, including those through
which the Company provides aircraft to customers and value-added
services, including crew, maintenance and insurance ("ACMI"), as
well as those through which the Company provides crew, maintenance
and insurance services, with the customer providing the aircraft
("CMI"); (ii) military charter services provided to the U.S.
Military Air Mobility Command (the "AMC") ("AMC Charter"); (iii)
seasonal, commercial and ad hoc charter services ("Commercial
Charter"); and (iv) dry leasing of aircraft and engines ("Dry
Leasing" or "Dry Lease").


ATLAS AIR: Old Polar Agrees to Settle Class Actions in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company, Polar Air Cargo LLC and a number of other cargo carriers
were named as defendants in civil class action suits in the
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are
substantially similar to the class action suits in the United
States.  On August 1, 2014, the Canadian plaintiffs and Old Polar
executed a settlement agreement in which Old Polar agreed, without
admitting violations of law, to pay an immaterial amount in return
for the release of all claims. The settlement agreement is subject
to court approval.

Atlas Air provides outsourced aircraft and aviation operating
services throughout the world, serving Africa, Asia, Australia,
Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America through:
(i) contractual service arrangements, including those through
which the Company provides aircraft to customers and value-added
services, including crew, maintenance and insurance ("ACMI"), as
well as those through which the Company provides crew, maintenance
and insurance services, with the customer providing the aircraft
("CMI"); (ii) military charter services provided to the U.S.
Military Air Mobility Command (the "AMC") ("AMC Charter"); (iii)
seasonal, commercial and ad hoc charter services ("Commercial
Charter"); and (iv) dry leasing of aircraft and engines ("Dry
Leasing" or "Dry Lease").


AVENTURA EATERY: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Elder Alexander Morales Aguirre and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Aventura Eatery LLC d/b/a Sicilian Oven
Wood Fired Pizza, and Ralph Disalvo, Case No. 0:14-cv-62592 (S.D.
Fla., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARRETT BUSINESS: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Carnes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., Michael L.
Elich, and James D. Miller, Case No. 3:14-cv-05903 (W.D. Wash.,
November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading financial statements, specifically by
understating its self-insured workers' compensation reserves by at
least $80 million.

Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a self-insured company that
provides outsourced solutions to address the costs and
complexities of employment-related issues for businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101-1170
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
      E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com


BASIC ENERGY: Faces "Vang" Suit in Pa. Over Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Vang, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Basic Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01553
(W.D. Pa., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Basic Energy Services, Inc. provides a range of well site
services, including, well servicing, fluid services, pumping
services, rental and fishing tools, contract drilling, wireline,
snubbing services, coil tubing, and water solutions services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             akoropey@bm.net

         - and -

      David A. Hughes, Esq.
      HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
      2121 14th Street
      Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
      Telephone: (205) 344-6690
      Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
      Email: dhughes@hardinhughes.com


BETTER BODY: "Montaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Campos Montaya, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Better Body Auto Collision LLC, Robert
Minott, and Sharon Thompson-Minott, Case No. 1:14-cv-06699
(E.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto body shop located at 123-4
Merrick Boulevard, Springfield Gardens, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BITCASA INC: Sued Over Illegal Elimination of Data Storage Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Romack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bitcasa, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05005 (N.D. Cal.,
November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendant engages in an
unfair and illegal conduct in connection with its recent abrupt
elimination of its Infinite data storage plan, whereby costumers
could upload and store an unlimited amount of electronic data on
data storage servers for a fixed fee.

Bitcasa, Inc. is a provider of data storage services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      Roger N. Heller, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
              rheller@lchb.com
              jelias@lchb.com


BOCA LECHE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Tine and Asja Morrell v. Boca Leche, Inc. and Robin C.
Moore, Case No. 0:14-cv-62614-WPD (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014)
alleges that during one or more workweeks, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiffs time and one half of the Plaintiffs' regular
rate of pay for overtime hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Boca Leche, Inc. was the Plaintiffs' employer and a corporation
conducting business in Florida.  The Defendants had employees
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,
and had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods
or materials that were moved in or produced for commerce by a
person.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd William Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
          Weston, FL 33331
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


BOSTON HANNAH: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurin Henry, and Rachelle Treiber, on behalf of themselves and a
class of on persons similarly situated v. Boston Hannah Chicago,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09132 (N.D. Ill., November 13, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for its discriminatory treatment in
the form of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the
Civil Rights Act.

Boston Hannah Chicago, LLC is a publishing group producing
magazines, websites and digital publications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol Coplan Babbitt, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CAROL COPLAN BABBITT
      35 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 435-9775
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4519
      E-mail: carol@ccbabbittlaw.com


BOULDER BRANDS: Hike in Gen. & Admin. Expenses Due to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that general and
administrative expenses of $63.7 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2014 increased $9.0 million, or 16.4%, from $54.7
million in 2013. The increase primarily related to increased
compensation and benefits of approximately $3.7 million primarily
due to increased headcount and the inclusion of EVOL, acquired in
December 2013. The increase also related to $1.9 million of
severance, relocation expenses and a settlement of a class action
lawsuit and a $1.3 million increase in depreciation and
amortization expense primarily relating to the inclusion of EVOL.

Boulder Brands is committed to creating food solutions that give
people opportunities to improve their lives, one product at a
time.  It distributes its products in all major retail channels,
including natural, grocery, club, mass, food, and drug.


BOULDER BRANDS: Paid $0.3 Million to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
reached a class action settlement whereby it agreed to pay the two
plaintiffs and their counsel $0.3 million in full and final
settlement.

On February 21, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the labeling of Smart Balance(R) Fat Free Milk products was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the label and marketing was misleading because,
although the labels says "Fat Free Milk" the product contains 1g
of fat from the Omega-3 fatty acid oil blend in the products.
After the Company's motion to dismiss was partially granted by the
court, it answered the remaining allegations of the complaint,
denying the substantive allegations.

On July 8, 2014, without any admission of liability, the Company
reached a settlement whereby it agreed to pay the two plaintiffs
and their counsel $0.3 million in full and final settlement. The
settlement payment was made and the case was formally dismissed
with prejudice on July 15, 2014. The matter is now fully and
finally concluded.

Boulder Brands is committed to creating food solutions that give
people opportunities to improve their lives, one product at a
time.  It distributes its products in all major retail channels,
including natural, grocery, club, mass, food, and drug.


BOULDER BRANDS: Bid to Dismiss Oil Blend Products Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in a class action
related to the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter &
Canola Oil Blend products is pending.

On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R)
Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and
deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint and substituted a new plaintiff.

The Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That
motion is pending.

A substantially similar class action lawsuit related to the
labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil
Blend products was filed on August 9, 2012 in the Southern
District of New York.

"In light of its similarity to the California Case, the Southern
District of New York stayed all activity in the case pending a
decision in the California Case on class certification. We believe
the allegations contained in both of these complaints are without
merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these
allegations," the Company said.

Boulder Brands is committed to creating food solutions that give
people opportunities to improve their lives, one product at a
time.  It distributes its products in all major retail channels,
including natural, grocery, club, mass, food, and drug.


BUDGET INN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Bed Bug Infestation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Harris, writing for The State Journal, reports that
attorneys representing a Hurricane woman who developed an
antibiotic-resistant staph infection after being treated for bed
bugs are seeking class-action status for her complaint against the
hotel where she allegedly was exposed to the pests and its owner.

Troy N. Giatras and Matthew Stonestreet of the Charleston-based
Giatras Law Firm say there are at least 100 potential members of
the class -- individuals who rented rooms at Budget Inn, also
known as American Inn, in Hurricane after March 2010 and had
similar experiences.  The firm petitioned for class certification
in October.

Mr. Giatras also wants the case, originally filed in 2013,
remanded to Putnam County Circuit Court.

The hotel is an NGS property, owned and operated by Navnit G.
Sangani, who had petitioned to have it moved to federal court.

Stacy McCown, a Hurricane resident, claims she checked into the
motel in August 2011 for a two-day stay, only to develop papules
the final day of her visit.  The bites increased in number and
began to itch, becoming severely inflamed and painful, she said.
Ms. McCown sought medical treatment at the emergency room and was
diagnosed as having been bitten by cimicidae, otherwise known as
bed bugs.

Ms. McCown said she reported her diagnosis to the Putnam County
Health Department, which investigated and days later issued a
written notice to Ms. Sangani that bed bugs had been detected
behind the headboard of the bed in the room she'd been assigned
to, the complaint stated.  That report also noted the poor
condition of the box spring and lack of a mattress pad or cover,
it added.

According to the complaint, concerns with the condition of the
facility were documented in health reports as early as March 2009,
when more than 20 items requiring attention were singled out --
including floors, walls, shower curtains, coffee pots and heavily
stained mattresses that required cleaning, and vents, air
conditioning filters, sinks and walkways were said to be in a
state of disrepair.

Another inspection eight months later in December 2009 listed
"crusted feces in toilet and floor," among hygiene issues noted,
the complaint stated.

Two more sanitation reports in 2010 reflected similar concerns
regarding the cleanliness of walls, floors, windows and bathrooms,
it said, adding that the March inspection also pointed out one of
the rooms required special cleaning after a meth lab bust.  An
inspection in March 2011 also cited dirty walls, floors, ceilings
and water damage, the complaint said.

Ms. McCown complained that NGS and Ms. Sangani "continued to rent
rooms to the unknowing public," exacerbating the problem by giving
the bed bugs "the blood meals required for (their) survival and
breeding."

The suit claims neither Ms. Sangani nor NGS disclosed the
infestation or potentially unsanitary conditions to guests, nor
were the premises properly maintained or inspected to make sure
guests would be protected.  The suit states those impacted by the
motel's alleged bed bug infestation would not have rented rooms
had they known there was a problem.

Ms. McCown said she suffered numerous bite wounds, extreme
itching, swelling, anxiety and scarring in addition to the
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, or MRSA,
and said she and other guests also were forced to dispose of
clothing and other items they'd brought with them to the motel
including any personal bedding, electronics, luggage, purses,
wallets and medications

She is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus
attorney fees and court costs, for herself and other members of
the proposed class from NGS and Ms. Sangani for premises
liability, negligence, emotional distress, violations of the
consumer credit and protection act, battery of a business invitee,
breech of express or implied warranty of habitability, deception
and unjust enrichment.


CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
06754 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating 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


CHOBANI: Chamber Intervenes in Food Labeling Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and at least one other business
group intervened in the appeal of a class action in hopes of
stemming food-labeling cases in California.

The case, brought in 2012, challenges the accuracy of labels on
Chobani Greek yogurt and is among a number of class actions filed
in the past two years raising food-labeling claims -- particularly
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, referred to by critics as the "food court."

The Chobani case focuses on whether consumers who alleged false
and misleading labeling lacked standing to sue unless they could
prove under California's Unfair Competition Law that they relied
on those statements when they purchased the product.  In 2004,
that law was amended under the state's Proposition 64 to force
plaintiffs to show they suffered injuries or lost money or
property as a result of unlawful conduct.

On Feb. 20, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose dismissed the
Chobani case, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.  The
plaintiffs -- three consumers filing on behalf of a California
class -- appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, seeking to affirm dismissal, called
upon the Ninth Circuit to prevent a return of "shakedown" lawsuits
that it said led to the passage of Proposition 64, according to an
amicus brief filed on Nov. 14.  The food-labeling lawsuits have
been brought under California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act, which like its federal counterparts prohibits companies from
selling illegally misbranded products.  The state's Unfair
Competition Law has allowed plaintiffs attorneys to bring private
causes of action.

The Chobani class action is the first of the recent cases to go
before the Ninth Circuit, said Jeremy Rosen, a partner at Horvitz
& Levy in Encino, Calif., who wrote the chamber's brief.

"It's going to be important for the Ninth Circuit to affirm what
the district court did," he said.  "If there were a reversal here,
that would again open up the floodgates to cases where people
could sue without injury, which is exactly what Prop. 64 was
designed to stop."

Plaintiffs attorney Darren Brown of Provost Umphrey in Beaumont,
Texas, did not return a call for comment.  Dale Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- a partner in the Los Angeles office of
Mayer Brown who represents Chobani LLC of Norwich, N.Y., did not
respond to a request for comment.

The case specifically alleges that consumers were misled about a
listed ingredient, "evaporated cane juice," which is really sugar,
and that the label's claim of having "natural" ingredients was
false because Chobani yogurts contained color additives.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that it was implausible that
consumers -- even health conscious ones -- would necessarily
equate evaporated cane juice with sugar.  They also noted that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has questioned whether
evaporated cane juice should be listed on food labels.

Mr. Giali, in Chobani's brief, emphasized that the FDA hasn't
issued final guidance on the issue and that ingredients added for
color aren't necessarily unnatural.

"After four complaints and two years of litigation, the district
court concluded that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege reliance
on Chobani's labels in the manner pleaded and dismissed with
prejudice," he wrote.  "This is precisely the sort of case that
California's statutory standing requirements are designed to
foreclose."

In addition to the Chamber, the Washington Legal Center, a tort
reform group, filed a similar brief in the case.  On Nov. 17, its
chief counsel, Rich Samp, said: "It is high time to halt the
deluge of food mislabeling claims being filed by plaintiffs
lawyers under California's Unfair Competition Law."


CITYSIDE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Morton, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Cityside Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
03663 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Cityside Healthcare, Inc. provides health care services in
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward D. Buckley, Esq.
      THE BUCKLEY LAW FIRM, LLC
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 781-1100
      Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
      E-mail: edbuckley@buckleylawatl.com


CLOVER GLOBAL: "Fregoso" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Fregoso, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Clover Global Solutions, LP, Case No. 3:14-cv-00363
(S.D. Tex., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Clover Global Solutions, LP is a professional staffing business
that provides engineering and management employees to oil and gas
companies around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CROSS COUNTRY: Accrued $0.8MM to Settle Wage and Hour Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that during the
nine months ended September 30, 2013, the Company accrued $0.8
million to settle a wage and hour class action lawsuit in
California, for which the Court granted final approval of the
settlement in September 2014.

On December 4, 2012, the Company's subsidiary, CC Staffing, Inc.
(now known as Travel Staff, LLC) became the subject of a purported
class action lawsuit (Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CC Staffing, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants) filed
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California. Plaintiff alleged that traveling employees were denied
meal periods and rest breaks, that they should have been paid
overtime on reimbursement amounts, various other wage and hour
claims, and that they are entitled to associated penalties.

In 2013, the parties agreed to settle this lawsuit for $0.8
million with the understanding that such settlement is not an
admission by the Company of any liability, negligence or wrong
doing. The Court granted final approval of the settlement in
September 2014.

Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., is a national leader in providing
healthcare recruiting, staffing and workforce management
solutions.


CVS HEALTH: Certification of Suit Over 1999 Settlement Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A rehearing on the class certification of a suit filed on behalf
of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities suit
and derivative lawsuits against CVS Health Corporation (formerly
CVS Caremark Corporation) is seeking to clarify the ruling with
the Alabama Supreme 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.

Caremark (the term "Caremark" being used herein to generally refer
to any one or more pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries of the
Company, as applicable) was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John
Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999
settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include
insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with
respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks
approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-
specified damages based on allegations that the amount of
insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was
misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in
November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court,
naming as defendants Caremark, several insurance companies,
attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This
lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was
subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action.
Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order
appointed class representatives and class counsel. On September
12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
August 15, 2012 Order. The Defendants timely filed an Application
for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court seeking to clarify or
modify its September 12, 2014 decision. The proceedings in the
trial court remain stayed pending resolution of the rehearing
application.


CVS HEALTH: Cert. Motions in Antitrust Litigation Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers
Antitrust Litigation remain pending, and the court has permitted
certain additional class discovery and briefing, according to CVS
Health Corporation's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October
2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The
North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities
named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and
the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties
pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision
which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the
proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the
Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of
the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue
case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate
appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued
an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012,
the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and
directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for
class certification in the coordinated cases within the
multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.


CVS HEALTH: N.H. Court Denies New Motion to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
denied the renewed motion of CVS Health Corporation to dismiss a
securities lawsuit filed against it, 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 November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently amended
the lawsuit to allege a class period beginning October 30, 2008.
The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants
and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public
disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and
allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court
against the directors and certain officers of the Company. This
lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related
securities class action, includes allegations of, among other
things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary
duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the
purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share
repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs
subsequently appealed the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior
ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings. In December 2013, the district court denied the
Company's renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative
lawsuit is presently stayed pending further developments in the
class action.


DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Sanay, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Downtown Restaurant Co., LLC, Giuseppe Cipriani, and
Arrigo Cipriani, Case No. 1:14-cv-09036 (S.D.N.Y., November 13,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 55 Wall
Street, 3rd Floor, New York, New York 10005.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Constantine Tryfon Tzifas, Esq.
      ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C.
      21 East 40th Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 557-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 557-5051
      E-mail: ctzifas@semetislaw.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit Still Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation
was heard and remains under advisement, according to Eastman Kodak
Company's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against
the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ("SOP") and
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation.  The allegations concern the decline in
the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was heard
on May 23, 2013 and remains under advisement.  On behalf of the
defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is
without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their
behalf.


ECHOSPHERE LLC: Removes "Tajonar" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Tajonar v. Echosphere, L.L.C.,
et al., Case No. 37-2014-00027744-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-02732-LAB-RBB to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Jose Tajonar accuses the Defendants of failure to
provide access to employee payroll and personnel records pursuant
to the California Labor Code and failure to maintain required
records, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE
          3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 866-7224
          Facsimile: (619) 259-5455
          E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Neda N. Dal Cielo, Esq.
          Marlene Muraco, Esq.
          Jose Macias, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando Street, 15th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: ndalcielo@littler.com
                  mmuraco@littler.com
                  jmacias@littler.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: No Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
No amended complaint has been filed in a shareholder lawsuit filed
against Electronic Arts Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, 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 December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of
purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder
class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was
subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been
consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of
its officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game. On
October 20, 2014, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss all claims with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their
complaint. As of the date of this filing, no amended complaint has
been filed.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Fact Discovery Concluded in MTBE Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that fact
discovery has concluded in the MTBE Litigation with respect to an
initial set of fewer than 20 sites each that will be the subject
of the first trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial
Puerto Rico case.

Sunoco, Inc., along with other refiners, manufacturers and sellers
of gasoline, is a defendant in lawsuits alleging methyl tertiary
butyl ether contamination of groundwater.  The plaintiffs
typically include water purveyors and municipalities responsible
for supplying drinking water and governmental authorities.  The
plaintiffs are asserting primarily product liability claims and
additional claims including nuisance, trespass, negligence,
violation of environmental laws and deceptive business practices.
The plaintiffs in all of the cases are seeking to recover
compensatory damages, and in some cases also seek natural resource
damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

As of September 30, 2014, Sunoco is a defendant in nine cases,
including cases initiated by the States of New Jersey, Vermont,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and two others by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with the more recent Puerto Rico
action being a companion case alleging damages for additional
sites beyond those at issue in the initial Puerto Rico action. Six
of these cases are venued in a multidistrict litigation ("MDL")
proceeding in a New York federal court. The most recently filed
Puerto Rico action is expected to be transferred to the MDL. The
New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Pennsylvania cases assert
natural resource damage claims.

Fact discovery has concluded with respect to an initial set of
fewer than 20 sites each that will be the subject of the first
trial phase in the New Jersey case and the initial Puerto Rico
case. Insufficient information has been developed about the
plaintiffs' legal theories or the facts with respect to statewide
natural resource damage claims to provide an analysis of the
ultimate potential liability of Sunoco in these matters.

It is reasonably possible that a loss may be realized; however, we
are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in
excess of amounts accrued. Management believes that an adverse
determination with respect to one or more of the MTBE cases could
have a significant impact on results of operations during the
period in which any said adverse determination occurs, but does
not believe that any such adverse determination would have a
material adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated
financial position.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Provides Updates on PVR Merger Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
litigation relating to the PVR Merger.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the merger have
been filed and are currently pending. All of the cases name PVR
Partners, L.P., PVR GP and the current directors of PVR GP, as
well as Regency Energy Partners LP and the General Partner of
Regency (collectively, the "Regency Defendants"), as defendants.
Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported unitholder of
PVR, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of public unitholders of PVR. The lawsuits generally
allege, among other things, that the directors of PVR GP breached
their fiduciary duties to unitholders of PVR, that PVR GP, PVR and
the Regency Defendants aided and abetted the directors of PVR GP
in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, and, as to the
actions in federal court, that some or all of PVR, PVR GP, and the
directors of PVR GP violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The lawsuits purport to seek, in general, (i)
injunctive relief, (ii) disclosure of certain additional
information concerning the transaction, (iii) in the event the
merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iv) an award of plaintiffs' costs and (v) the accounting
for damages allegedly caused by the defendants to these actions,
and, (vi) such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The styles of the pending cases are as follows: David Naiditch v.
PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 9015-VCL) in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware); Charles Monatt v. PVR
Partners, LP, et al. (Case No. 2013-10606) and Saul Srour v. PVR
Partners, L.P., et al. (Case No. 2013-011015), each pending in the
Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania; Stephen
Bushansky v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-cv-06829-
HB); and Mark Hinnau v. PVR Partners, L.P., et al. (C.A. No. 2:13-
cv-07496-HB), pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On January 28, 2014, the defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") with Monatt, Srour, Bushansky, Naiditch and
Hinnau pursuant to which defendants and the referenced plaintiffs
agreed in principle to a settlement of their lawsuits ("Settled
Lawsuits"), which will be memorialized in a separate settlement
agreement, subject to customary conditions, including consummation
of the PVR Acquisition, which occurred on March 21, 2014,
completion of certain confirmatory discovery, class certification
and final approval by the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware
County, Pennsylvania. If the Court approves the settlement, the
Settled Lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice and all
defendants will be released from any and all claims relating to
the Settled Lawsuits.

The settlement will not affect any provisions of the merger
agreement or the form or amount of consideration received by PVR
unitholders in the PVR Acquisition. The defendants have denied and
continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the
plaintiffs' claims in the aforementioned litigation and have
entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden,
risk, expense, and distraction of further litigation.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Suits Filed Over Eagle Rock Midstream Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that three putative
class action lawsuits challenging Regency Energy Partners LP's
acquisition of the Eagle Rock midstream assets are currently
pending in federal district court in Houston, Texas. All cases
name Eagle Rock and its current directors, as well as Regency and
a subsidiary as defendants. One of the lawsuits also names
additional Eagle Rock entities as defendants. Each of the lawsuits
has been brought by a purported unitholder of Eagle Rock
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), both individually and on behalf
of a putative class consisting of public unitholders of Eagle
Rock. The Plaintiffs in each case seek to rescind the transaction,
claiming, among other things, that it yields inadequate
consideration, was tainted by conflict and constitutes breaches of
common law fiduciary duties or contractually imposed duties to the
shareholders. Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and attorneys'
fees. Regency and its subsidiary are named as "aiders and
abettors" of the allegedly wrongful actions of Eagle Rock and its
board.


EUGENE STRUPINSKY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Latrell Washington, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Eugene Strupinsky and The Law Office of
Eugene Strupinsky, PLLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-06753 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 17, 2014) is brought for 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


FAIRWAY PLAZA: Faces Independence Project Suit over Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Independence Project, Inc., a New Jersey Non-Profit
Corporation, and Ronald Moore v. Fairway Plaza Associates, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-07119 (D.N.J., November 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Fairway Plaza Associates, LLC owns and operates a shopping center
in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Donaher, Esq.
      WALDER HAYDEN P.A.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07066-1727
      Telephone: (973) 992-1505
      Facsimile: (973) 992-1505
      E-mail: rjdonaher@walderhayden.com

         - and -

      John P. Fuller, Esq.
      FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
      North Miami, FL 33181
      Telephone: (305) 891-5199
      Facsimile: (305) 893-9505
      E-mail: jpf@fullerfuller.com


FORD MOTOR: Court to Hear Arguments on Bid to Join Asbestos Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
When the state Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Rost v.
Ford, it gave itself the opportunity to consider a unique rule
that requires the consolidation of asbestos-related cases in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

It is the only court in the state that requires consolidation of
asbestos cases, attorneys said, thanks to a rule established when
asbestos filings were at a peak level.

"From a defendant's standpoint, that is extremely prejudicial,"
said John J. Hare -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- of the appellate
department at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.   "These
cases were consolidated with different plaintiffs, different
products, different exposure history, different medical history."

But the practice still serves a purpose, said Stanley Thompson,
director of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Complex
Litigation Center, as more than 200 asbestos cases are filed each
year.

"The fact of the matter is that these cases are still out there,"
said Benjamin P. Shein, an asbestos plaintiffs attorney.  "You
can't bring a program to a screeching halt, or you'll be right
back where you were before consolidation."

Fairness of Consolidation

In Rost, the high court will consider "whether the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas' mandatory practice of consolidating
unrelated asbestos cases . . . is consistent with the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure and due process; whether consolidation in
this case was proper; and whether the Superior Court has the
authority to review a trial court's case-consolidation decisions
in asbestos cases," according to the Supreme Court order granting
allocatur.

Richard Rost's case was consolidated with two others involving
plaintiffs who had mesothelioma, Estate of Wasekanes v. Sears and
Graver v. Foster Wheeler.

A Philadelphia jury awarded $844,800 to Mr. Rost and $150,000 to
his wife, Joyce Rost.  The case faced cross-appeals in the
Superior Court, and the court upheld the verdict.

In its petition to the Supreme Court for allowance of appeal, Ford
said consolidation of these cases caused defendants to suffer
severe prejudice.

"The three cases did not share common defendants, common claims,
common defenses, common facts, common products, common work sites
or common counsel," the defense said in its petition.  "The only
thing they had in common was alleged asbestos exposure and
plaintiffs with mesothelioma."

Ford had raised the same issue in an appeal to the Superior Court.
In response, the court said it did not have authority to address
the procedural issue without a claim of constitutional violation.

"Ford argues that the trial court erred in consolidating the Rost
case with two other cases based upon the grounds that all three
involved plaintiffs suffering from mesothelioma," Superior Court
Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion.  "However, we
note that Ford does not cite to any Pennsylvania appellate
authority to support its argument that consolidation of asbestos
trials by disease constitutes reversible error."

Duane Morris attorney Robert L. Byer -- rlbyer@duanemorris.com --
represented Ford and declined to comment.  Mr. Rost's lawyer,
Robert E. Paul of Paul, Reich & Myers, did not return a call
seeking comment.

Consolidation can be problematic for defendants, said Mr. Hare, if
the cases are not similar enough.

"At the end of the day, the jury is required to segregate the
different cases," he said.  "They hear a blizzard of arguments and
allegations and witnesses. . . . They can't keep track of which
witnesses apply to which cases."

Steven J. Cooperstein -- scooperstein@brbs.com -- of Brookman,
Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, who represents plaintiffs in asbestos
cases, disagreed.

"The juries can pretty easily distinguish between cases and award
an appropriate verdict," he said.  "I don't see any real downside
from the plaintiffs' standpoint to consolidating."

If cases were not consolidated, Mr. Cooperstein said, plaintiffs
would have to wait longer for their court dates.  Trying the cases
would be more expensive too, he said, because expert witnesses
would have to attend multiple trials, and the costs of resources
could not be split among multiple cases.

Mr. Shein said he agreed with Mr. Cooperstein on the benefits of
consolidation.  However, he said, in some situations the practice
could be unfair for either side.

"I think that the parties need to be charged with the
responsibility of making sure that the cases that are consolidated
make sense from a fairness standpoint," he said.  "I don't think
that's something the Supreme Court can really get involved in."

Cases Remain Plentiful

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has a specific set of rules
related to mass torts, and a subset of rules regarding asbestos
litigation in particular.

Asbestos cases are the only type that can be consolidated without
the consent of all parties involved, according to General Court
Regulation No. 2013-01, amended in February 2013.  The regulation
said asbestos cases must be consolidated into groups of eight to
10, based on various criteria including same law, same disease and
same plaintiffs law firm.

From there, a maximum of three cases will be tried, the regulation
said, and the others may be resolved through settlement or
returned to the coordinating judge for regrouping and relisting
for trial.  Immediately before the trial of up to three cases, the
judge is to determine whether they will be tried in a consolidated
manner.

Before the amendment, more than three cases could be tried
together and occasionally were.

When the rule was established in the late 1980s, the court had a
backlog of thousands of asbestos cases, Mr. Thompson said.  The
regulation allowed for that backlog to shrink.

However, the number of cases has remained steady in recent years.
According to the court's inventory breakdown, the court has had a
backlog of between 566 and 762 asbestos cases each quarter since
January 2009.

"I think consolidation works.  It's proven to work for a number of
years.  We've gotten rid of the backlog," Mr. Shein said.  "Is
there such thing as a perfect system? There's not."

The court currently has 633 cases, said Mr. Thompson, 365 of which
are listed for trial, and 260 are to be listed.

Mr. Thompson said he could not address whether the protocols were
up for consideration by the court.  More than 200 asbestos cases
are filed each year, he said, and the goal is to get them all
resolved or to trial within two years of filing.

"In a perfect world, every case would be tried individually,"
Mr. Thompson said.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Summary Judgment Motions Filed in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freightcar America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that parties in the
class action involving the Company's retirees filed with the
Pennsylvania Court their respective motions for summary judgment
as to liability.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois
Court"). The case names as defendants the United Steel, Paper &
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as
well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as
defined in the Complaint), and was assigned Case No 1:13-cv-4889.
As described in the Complaint, pursuant to the 2005 Settlement
Agreement among the Company, the USW and the Retiree Defendants,
the Company agreed to make certain levels of contributions to
medical coverage for the Retiree Defendants and to continue to
provide life insurance benefits at their amount at that time under
certain of the Company's employee welfare benefit plans. The 2005
Settlement Agreement expressly provided that, as of November 30,
2012, the Company could cease making these contributions. In June
2011, the Company and the USW began discussing the possibility of
an extension beyond November 30, 2012 for the Company's
contributions to retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits at a reduced amount and on other mutually acceptable
terms.

The Company engaged in voluntary negotiations for two years with
the USW and counsel for the Retiree Defendants in an effort to
reach a consensual agreement regarding such medical and life
insurance benefits, but the parties were unable to reach a final
agreement. The Company terminated, effective November 1, 2013, its
contributions for medical coverage provided to the Retiree
Defendants and the provision of life insurance benefits and is
seeking declaratory relief to confirm its rights under the ERISA
to reduce or terminate retiree medical coverage and life insurance
benefits pursuant to the plans that were the subject of the 2005
Settlement Agreement.

On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants
(collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania Court alleges
that the Company does not have the right to terminate welfare
benefits previously provided to the Retiree Defendants and
requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment finding that the
Retiree Defendants have a vested right to specified welfare
benefits.

On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the
Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from
Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5,
2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative,
to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).

On January 14, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss and, on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court
transferred the Company's case to the Pennsylvania Court. On
January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to consolidate both
cases before the Pennsylvania Court. On April 3, 2014, the
Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the "Initial Procedural
Order") that, among other things, consolidated both cases before
the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for purposes of the
consolidated actions, established discovery parameters and
deadlines and established a briefing schedule applicable to the
parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability only.

On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the Pennsylvania Court
their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability. The
parties have submitted their responses and replies with respect to
each of the motions. There can be no assurance as to when the
Pennsylvania Court will issue its ruling on such motions, or how
the Pennsylvania Court will rule.

On September 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs and certain
putative class representatives filed a Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the "TRO
Motion") with the Pennsylvania Court. In the TRO Motion, the
plaintiffs requested that the Pennsylvania Court enter an
injunction requiring the Company to continue to make monthly
contributions at the same rate established by the 2005 Settlement
Agreement until the parties' dispute is fully adjudicated on the
merits. Following entry of the Initial Procedural Order, the
Pennsylvania Court denied the TRO Motion without prejudice.
The Company has recorded postretirement benefit plan obligations,
a substantial portion of which relates to the dispute now before
the Illinois Court and the Pennsylvania Court.

Freightcar is a manufacturer of aluminum-bodied railcars and coal
cars in North America, based on the number of railcars delivered.


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Defective Drywalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Bennett, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02204 (N.D.
Ala., November 13, 2014), seeks damages over alleged defective
Chinese-manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured,
imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected,
marketed, sold and installed by the Defendants.

Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft is involved in the
insulation and building material industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James V. Doyle Jr.,
      DOYLE LAW FIRM PC
      2545 Highland Avenue Suite 100 (35205)
      PO Box 36445
      Birmingham, AL 35235
      Telephone: (205) 533-9500
      Facsimile: (205) 332-1362
      E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ariz. AG Suit Over Delayed Vehicle Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Christie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Arizona's attorney general has sued General Motors Co. for failing
to recall millions of cars and trucks with safety defects the auto
giant did not disclose for years.  The lawsuit seeks potentially
billions of dollars in fines.

Attorney General Tom Horne said on Nov. 20 that he sued under the
state's consumer fraud statutes and is seeking a $10,000 fine for
each of hundreds of thousands of defective vehicles sold in the
state.  The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court in
Phoenix also seeks an injunction barring GM from similar actions
and an order that it hand over profits it made from selling
defective vehicles.

Horne took action independent of a group of 48 states that have
been jointly investigating GM, which Arizona was participating in.
"I made the decision that my job was to protect Arizona citizens
and that I would be doing that better if we moved ahead with the
lawsuit," he said.

GM said in a statement that the lawsuit "misrepresents the facts,
the performance of our vehicles and our work to ensure the safety
of our customers.  We intend to vigorously defend ourselves."

Mr. Horne's actions came on the same day that news broke that he
was settling campaign-finance allegations brought by the state's
public campaign financing board and would pay a $10,000 fine.
Mr. Horne is leaving office in January after losing to his
Republican opponent in the primary after years of allegations that
he violated campaign laws in 2010 and again this year.

Mr. Horne said the two developments were unrelated.  "One of the
questions that I was asked frequently was, 'Can I continue doing
my job while defending against charges which I say are false
charges?' and I've always said yes, I can," he said.

GM has recalled more than 30 million vehicles so far this year,
including millions of cars equipped with a defective ignition
switch that has been blamed for at least 33 deaths.  The ignition
switches were installed in many GM small cars for years, and the
company has been under fire for failing to recall them until early
this year.

GM has hired compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg to pay victims
and their families and expects to pay $400 million to $600 million
in claims.

In addition to two assistant attorneys general listed on the
lawsuit, Mr. Horne brought in a Seattle law firm with a long
history of class-action lawsuits against major companies,
including suing Toyota Motor Corp. in a sudden-acceleration case.

The GM lawsuit alleges the Detroit company failed to ensure its
products were safe, did not tell the truth about safety issues and
failed to promptly recall defective vehicles.  It also said GM's
purported new safety culture "was an illusion given the company's
egregious failure to disclose, and its affirmative concealment of,
ignition switch defects and a plethora of other safety defects in
GM-branded vehicles."


GENERAL MOTORS: Deadline to File Ignition-Switch Claims Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rama Venkat Raman, Ben Klayman and Paul Lienert, writing for
Reuters, report that the deadline to file claims under General
Motors Co's faulty ignition-switch compensation program has been
extended by one month to Jan. 31, said Kenneth Feinberg, the
program's administrator.

Mr. Feinberg's office on Nov. 17 updated its list of claims
submitted, saying it had approved compensation for the families of
33 victims killed in GM cars with faulty ignition switches.

Notice of the deadline extension was sent to about 4.5 million
current and previous owners of eligible vehicles, Mr. Feinberg
said in a statement.  An extension of a further month was being
implemented "out of an abundance of caution," he said.

GM said it agreed with the extension of the deadline.

"Our goal with the program has been to reach every eligible person
impacted," the company said in a statement.

Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, an outspoken
critic of GM's handling of its ignition-switch problems, said the
extension was "inadequate."

In a statement, Senator Blumenthal said the compensation fund
deadline should either be eliminated or substantially modified.

"GM should either commit to waiving its bankruptcy shield in all
pending legal actions, or permit all victims who qualify for the
fund to postpone their acceptance of their compensation until the
completion of the Department of Justice investigation into GM's
possible criminal actions," he said.

A car-safety advocate has urged a more active approach to finding
cases of injury or death.  Clarence Ditlow, executive director of
the Center for Auto Safety, asked Feinberg to expand outreach
efforts and scour federal car-safety databases for accidents in
recalled vehicles to determine whether the switch was to blame for
additional injuries or deaths.

The program, GM Ignition Compensation Claims Resolution Facility,
began accepting claims Aug. 1 and as of Nov. 14 had received 2,105
for deaths and serious injuries linked to the switch.


GILLETTE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Duracell Batteries, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Punian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company,
Case No. 5:14-cv-05028 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), alleges
that Defendants concealed and misrepresented material facts
concerning potential battery leakage during storage and intended
use of their Duracell Batteries.

The Gillette Company produces and sells personal care products for
men.

The Procter & Gamble Company is a manufacturer of products
including personal care, household cleaning, laundry detergents,
prescription drugs and disposable nappies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pierce Gore, Esq.
      RICHARD R. BARRETT LAW FIRM
      2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662)380-5018
      E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

         - and -

      Barrett J. Clisby, Esq.
      BARRETT J. CLISBY, PLLC
      Box 240, 2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1021
      Oxford, MS 38655-0240
      Telephone:  (662) 234-8413
      E-mail: bjclisby@gmail.com

         - and -

      Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
              vln@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, PC
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 515-3393
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      Facsimile: (501) 374-2222

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Bonnie J. Prober, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
              bprober@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com


GOLD RESOURCE: Plaintiff Appeals Case Dismissal to Tenth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Resource Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a securities
class action lawsuit subsequently captioned In re Gold Resource
Corp. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832 was filed on October
25, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors as defendants.  The complaint alleged violations of
federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers
and directors. On July 15, 2013, the federal district court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with
prejudice.  The plaintiff has appealed the District Court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

Gold Resouces is a mining company which pursues gold and silver
projects that are expected to have low operating costs and high
returns on capital.


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Walpole" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Walpole, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal, and
Richard J. Gaynor, Case No. 1:14-cv-00507 (D.N.H., November 13,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that there were significant
risks that the Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements
of the Apple Agreement to supply sapphire material, that the
Company's sapphire material would not be used in the Apple iPhone
6 devices, and that, as a result of the Apple Agreement problems,
the Company was facing a liquidity crisis.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
      SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL LLP
      3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
      Alexandria, LA 71303
      Telephone: (318) 445-4480
      Facsimile: (318) 487-1741


HANGER INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP on Nov. 14
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Federal
court on behalf of purchasers of Hanger, Inc. common stock during
the period between August 1, 2013 through August 7, 2014.

On November 12, 2014, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a class action complaint against Hanger
and certain of its executives alleging that they violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that Hangar failed to disclose the effect that an increase
in Medicare audits had on the Company's business, including
reserves for bad debt and accounts receivable.  Hanger announced
on August 7, 2014, that earnings declined 23% due to the Medicare
audits.  On the news, Hanger's shares declined 24.7% the next
trading day.  Johnson & Weaver, LLC is investigating whether
certain directors and officers violated state laws as well in
connection with alleged false and misleading statements.

If you are a shareholder that lost a significant amount of money
as a result of these alleged improper statements, or you are a
long-term shareholder concerned about protecting your investment,
please contact Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email
or by phone at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please include your
phone number.

                   About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia.  The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits.


HANSEN MEDICAL: Records Decrease in Legal Expenses
--------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that selling, general
and administrative expenses decreased in the third quarter of 2014
compared to same period in 2013 primarily due to a $0.8 million
decrease in legal expenses associated with a settlement of the
securities class action lawsuit, patent filing expenses and other
corporate matters and a $0.3 million decrease in stock-based
compensation expenses, partially offset by a $0.3 million increase
in the salary and incentive accrual and a $0.2 million increase in
sales and marketing expenses for tradeshows, advertising and
promotions.

Selling, general and administrative expenses increased during the
nine months of 2014 compared to same period in 2013 primarily due
to a $1.7 million increase in salary related expenses and
incentive accrual, $0.8 million increase in advertising and
promotion cost related to mobile lab and other costs, $0.4 million
increase in sales commissions, $0.3 million severance cost
incurred and $0.6 million increase in other general administrative
expenses. These increases were partially offset by a $2.3 million
decrease in legal and litigation fees related to a settlement of
the class action lawsuit and $0.8 million decrease in related
stock-based compensation expenses due to executive transitions.

Hansen Medical develops, manufactures and markets a new generation
of medical robotics designed for accurate positioning,
manipulation and stable control of catheters and catheter-based
technologies.


HILLTOP HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Drop Preliminary Injunction Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Hilltop Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that each of Hilltop,
Peruna LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of Hilltop), SWS Group Inc.
and the individual members of the board of directors of SWS have
been named as defendants in two purported stockholder class action
lawsuits arising out of the pending merger. Both lawsuits were
filed in Delaware Chancery Court (Joseph Arceri v. SWS Group, Inc.
et al and Chaile Steinberg v. SWS Group, Inc. et al filed April 8,
2014 and April 11, 2014, respectively).

On May 13, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes. On June 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The complaint generally alleges,
among other things, that the SWS board of directors breached its
fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take steps to
maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale process
before approving the merger, that the SWS board of directors
labored under conflicts of interest, that certain provisions of
the merger agreement unduly restrict SWS's ability to negotiate
with other potential bidders, and that the other defendants aided
and abetted the SWS board of director's breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
proxy statement/prospectus filed by Hilltop on May 29, 2014 omits
or misstates certain material information. The complaints seek
relief that includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the merger, rescission to the
extent the merger terms have already been implemented, damages for
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and the payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 16, 2014, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the merger, and for expedited
proceedings in connection therewith. Pursuant to negotiations
between the parties to the lawsuit, plaintiffs subsequently
withdrew those motions. Hilltop believes that the claims are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these
actions.

Hilltop Holdings has two primary operating business units,
PlainsCapital and National Lloyds Corporation ("NLC").
PlainsCapital is a financial holding company, headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, that provides, through its subsidiaries, an array
of financial products and services. In addition to traditional
banking services, PlainsCapital provides residential mortgage
lending, investment banking, public finance advisory, wealth and
investment management, treasury management, capital equipment
leasing, fixed income sales, asset management, and correspondent
clearing services. NLC is a property and casualty insurance
holding company that provides, through its subsidiaries, fire and
homeowners insurance to low value dwellings and manufactured homes
primarily in Texas and other areas of the southern United States.


HOSPIRA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved on September
5, 2014, a settlement and dismissed a class action lawsuit filed
against Hospira and certain of its current and former corporate
officers alleging violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934. In City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement
System, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Hospira, Inc., F. Michael Ball, Thomas E. Werner,
James H. Hardy, Jr., and Christopher B. Begley, amended complaint
filed June 25, 2012, the plaintiffs alleged, generally, that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding Hospira's financials and business prospects and failed
to disclose material facts affecting Hospira's financial
condition. The settlement was fully funded by insurance proceeds.

Hospira, Inc. is a provider of injectable drugs and infusion
technologies that it develops, manufactures, distributes and
markets globally.


I A NUTRITION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Non-Protein Ingredients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Mee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. I A Nutrition, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, Case
No. 3:14-cv-05006 (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), arises out of
the Defendant's unlawful practice of adding non-protein
ingredients to fake a higher protein content through a higher
nitrogen content in its Inner Armour Mass Peak Whey Hydrolysate
Enhanced and Nitro Peak Whey Hydrolysate Enhanced dietary
supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine #101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      1515 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-1300
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Oppose Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss shareholder class actions,
which has been opposed by the lead plaintiff.

On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were
filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the
Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had
been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy
analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9,
2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain
information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the
FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo.

On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court.

On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which has been opposed by the lead plaintiff. The lead
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to
treat chronic liver and intestinal diseases utilizing its
proprietary bile acid chemistry.


INTEREXCHANGE INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johana Paola Beltran, and those similarly situated v.
Interexchange, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-03074 (D. Colo.,
November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and post-judgment interest
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Interexchange, Inc. is a non-profit organization dedicated to
promoting cultural awareness through a wide range of work and
travel, language, volunteer, professional training, internship,
and au pair programs within the United States and around the
world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Neville Hood, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE-GOLDEN
      601 16th Street, Suite C-207
      Golden, CO 80401
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Defendant's failure to comply with reasonable security standards
provided the Company with short-term and fleeting benefits in the
form of saving on the costs of compliance, but at the expense and
to the severe detriment of its own customers," the complaint
states.

Along with allegedly breaking state security breach laws, the
plaintiffs assert that Jimmy John's engaged in violations of state
consumer fraud statutes, as well as unjust enrichment, bailment
and breach of implied contract.

They ask for injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement
and three years of credit-card monitoring services.

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


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders' Class Suit Now Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
lawsuit filed on behalf of a putative class of all of the
Company's shareholders is now concluded.

On February 1, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
the Company's chief executive officer on behalf of a putative
class of all of the Company's shareholders (other than the
defendants) who acquired the Company's shares between June 1, 2009
and April 1, 2012. Smith v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG (S.D.N.Y.).

On February 26, 2013, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed
against us and our chief executive officer as well as our chief
financial officer. Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On June 10, 2013, the Court
entered an Order consolidating the two lawsuits and appointing a
lead plaintiff. The case was styled In re Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-CV-
0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.).

The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint that, in substance, repeated the
claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuits. The Consolidated
Amended Complaint asserted claims against (i) us for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
our chief executive officer for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The claims in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint were premised on general
allegations that we and the individual defendant participated
directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of
purportedly false and misleading earnings reports, SEC filings,
press releases, and other public statements, which allegedly
caused our stock to trade at artificially inflated prices."

"On August 26, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, the Court entered an
Opinion and Order granting the motion to dismiss. The Court
entered Judgment for the Defendants on February 24, 2014. The lead
plaintiff did not appeal the Judgment and this matter is now
concluded."

Keryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on bringing
innovative therapies to market for patients suffering from renal
disease.


KEY ENERGY: Faces Allegations of Violating California Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. is facing lawsuits alleging violations
of California's wage and hour laws, 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.

Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class
actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California
involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.
In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including
overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon
employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse
reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide
wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. The
company intends to vigorously investigate and defend these
actions. Because these cases are in relatively early stages, and
the company has not yet briefed class certification issues, it
cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits at this time.
Accordingly, it cannot estimate any possible loss or range of
loss.


KEY ENERGY: Still Faces Shareholder Litigation in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. continues to face shareholder lawsuits
in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas Houston
Division, 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.

A special committee of the company's Board of Directors is
investigating possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act ("FCPA") involving business activities of the
company's operations in Russia and an allegation involving the
company's Mexico operations that, if true, could potentially
constitute a violation of certain of the company's policies,
including the company's Code of Business Conduct, the FCPA and
other applicable laws. The special committee's investigations,
which also include a review of certain aspects of the Company's
operations in Colombia, as well as the company's other
international locations, are ongoing. The company is fully
cooperating with investigations by the SEC and the Department of
Justice ("DOJ"). At this time it is unable to predict the ultimate
resolution of these matters with these agencies and, accordingly,
cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss.

In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The lawsuits are as follows: Sean Cady, Individually and on Behalf
of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services,
Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368,
filed on August 15, 2014; and Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy
Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No.
4.14-cv-2403, filed on August 21, 2014. Both lawsuits allege that,
during the period July 25, 2013 to July 17, 2014, the defendants
failed to disclose (1) that the Company's production for Petroleos
Mexicanos ("Pemex") was in decline; (2) that the Company engaged
in improper conduct related to its operations in Russia; and (3)
that the Company's business practices in Russia were in violation
of the FCPA.


KODIAK OIL: Faces 7 Class Actions Over Whiting Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that seven purported
class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's
shareholders subsequent to the announcement of the Arrangement
Agreement with Whiting Petroleum Corporation.

On July 13, 2014, Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. entered into an
Arrangement Agreement with Whiting Petroleum Corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Whiting whereby Whiting Canadian Sub
would acquire all of the outstanding common shares as part of a
plan of arrangement.

Subsequent to the announcement of the Arrangement, seven purported
class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado: Quigley and Koelling v.Whiting Petroleum Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02023, filed July 22, 2014 (the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on September 24,
2014); Fioravanti v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02037,
filed July 23, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
lawsuit October 24, 2014); Wilkinson v.Whiting Petroleum
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2074, filed July 25, 2014
(the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 23,
2014); Goldsmith v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2098, filed
July 29, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit
on October 31, 2014); Rogowski v.Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2136, filed July 31, 2014 (the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on October 20, 2014); Reiter v.
Peterson, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02176, filed August 6, 2014;
Sohler v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
02863, filed October 20, 2014 (the "Sohler Case"); and one
purported class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the
Company's shareholders in Denver District Court, State of
Colorado: The Booth Family Trust v. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et
al., Case No. 14-cv-32947, filed July 25, 2014. This last case was
removed to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on September 4, 2014 and is pending in that court now as
Case No. 1:14-cv-2457.

It is possible that other related or amended suits could
subsequently be filed. The defendants have filed motions to
dismiss with prejudice in the all remaining cases other than the
Sohler Case. The allegations in the three remaining lawsuits are
similar. They purport to be brought as class actions on behalf of
all shareholders of the Company. The complaints name as defendants
the individual members of the Company's board of directors,
Whiting and Whiting Canadian Sub and list the Company as a nominal
party or a defendant.

The complaints allege that the Company's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by,
among other things, failing to engage in a fair sale process
before approving the Arrangement and to maximize shareholder value
in connection with the Arrangement. Additionally, the Sohler Case
alleges violations under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
complaints allege that the Company's board of directors
undervalued the Company in connection with the Arrangement and
that the Company's board of directors agreed to certain deal
protection mechanisms that precluded the Company from obtaining
competing offers. The complaints also allege that Whiting and
Whiting Canadian Sub aided and abetted the Company's board of
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Sohler Case alleges additionally that in issuing the
preliminary joint proxy statement/circular the Company's board of
directors violated the cited sections of and rule promulgated
under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek, among other things,
injunctive relief preventing the closing of the Arrangement,
rescission of the Arrangement or an award of rescissory damages to
the purported class in the event that the Arrangement is
consummated, and damages, including counsel fees and expenses.
Whiting and the Company believe each lawsuit is without merit.


LABORATORY CORP: Removes "Varsam" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., Case No.
37-2014-00017789-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02719-
BTM-JMA to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          Heather M. Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
          E-mail: amir@protectionlawgroup.com
                  heather@protectionlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq.
          GRENNBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: ashmichfarrell@aol.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Settles U.S. Direct Purchaser Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Inc. reached a tentative settlement in the U.S.
direct polyurethane foam purchaser class action cases, 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.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20
defendants alleging that competitors of the company's carpet
underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and
Canadian antitrust laws.

The company has been named as a defendant in three pending direct
purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) on
behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam
products. The direct purchaser class action cases were all filed
in or were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct
purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly
suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of
polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each
plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future
violations.

On April 15 and May 6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss
the U.S. direct purchaser class actions in the consolidated case
in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim. On July 19,
2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. A motion for
class certification was filed on behalf of the direct purchasers.
A hearing on the motion was held January 15, 2014. On April 9,
2014, the Court certified the direct purchaser class. The company
filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification
Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
on April 23, 2014. The petition to appeal was denied on September
29, 2014. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding
mediation with a mediator of their choosing.

The company reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. direct
purchaser class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to
pay an aggregate amount of $39.8, inclusive of plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs. The company continues to deny all
allegations in the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class
cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of
the litigation. The settlement is subject to Court approval. The
company recorded a $39.8 (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in
the third quarter 2014. Since the payment would be partially
attributable to the company's former Prime Foam Products business,
which was sold in the first quarter of 2007, $8.3 is reflected in
discontinued operations.


LEGGETT & PLATT: 2015 Trial in Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial date in the In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196 is tentatively set for 2015,
according to Leggett & Platt, Inc.'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 was named as a defendant (but not served with process)
in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint
filed on March 21, 2011 and subsequently sued in an indirect
purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that proceeds
under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of indirect purchasers, bring damages claims under various
states' antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and are
seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a
result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam
products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also
seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. On
April 15 and May 6, 2011, the company filed motions to dismiss the
indirect purchaser class action, for failure to state a legally
valid claim. On July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions
to dismiss. Discovery is nearing completion in the indirect
purchaser class case. A motion for class certification was filed
on behalf of the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was
held January 15, 2014. On April 9, 2014, the Court certified the
indirect purchaser class. The company filed a Petition for
Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 23, 2014.
The petition to appeal was denied on September 29, 2014. The Court
ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a
mediator of their choosing. The trial date for the indirect
purchaser class cases is tentatively set for 2015.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Canadian Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Cases Remain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Inc. continues to face Canadian class action
cases for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products, 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 was named in two Canadian class action cases (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products),
both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164
(amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30,
2011). In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100, punitive
damages of $10, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and the
costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class
action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam.
The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of
carpet underlay. The company is not yet required to file the
company's defenses in these or any other Canadian actions. In
addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)
styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits
Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended
motion for authorization seeking to add the company and other
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this
case, which was granted. This action has a pending motion for
certification which is to be heard in January 2015. The company
were also notified in June 2014 of two motions to add the company
as parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those
proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one
proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic
Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362
Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of
carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver
Registry). The motion to add the company as parties to these
actions has been scheduled to be heard with the motions for
certification in the two actions in April 2015. The British
Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas
the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers. No
certification motions will be brought in the Ontario actions until
after the British Columbia motions for certification have been
determined.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Suit by Mo. Indirect Purchasers in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced and plaintiff Dennis Baker on behalf of
himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products in the State of Missouri has filed a motion for class
certification, 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 June 22, 2012, the company was also made a party to a lawsuit
brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis
Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the company
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon the
company's alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane
foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages,
punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. The
company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied on
November 5, 2012. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed
a motion for class certification. The parties' briefing is
completed, and a hearing on the motion was held on February 20,
2014.


LHC GROUP: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 11
-----------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the District Court
entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
for Notice and setting a final fairness hearing for December 11,
2014, in the shareholder securities class action.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the
same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint.
In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without
merit. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013.

On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court
entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
for Notice and setting a final fairness hearing for December 11,
2014.

If approved, as part of the settlement, the Company's insurance
carrier will fund the entire $7.9 million settlement amount. The
Company's balance sheet reflects the entire settlement in current
assets as a receivable due from insurance carrier and
correspondingly reflects the entire settlement in current
liabilities as a legal settlement payable.

LHC Group, Inc. is a health care provider specializing in the
post-acute continuum of care primarily for Medicare beneficiaries.


LONDON SILVER: Faces "Depaoli" Suit Over Silver-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Depaoli and Kevin Maher, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. The London Silver Market Fixing,
Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09068 (S.D.N.Y., November 13,
2014), alleges that the Defendants manipulate the price of silver
and financial instruments tied to the price of physical silver,
such as silver futures, options and other silver based
derivatives.

The London Silver Market Fixing, Ltd. is responsible for the
benchmark prices for gold and silver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nassbaum, Esq.
      Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
      485 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com
              pbarile@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
      Christian P. Lewis, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, PC
      One North Broadway
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: bhart@lowey.com
              vbriganti@gelaw.com
              ghorn@gelaw.com
              clevis@gelaw.com


MARRONE BIO: Delays 3Q Financial Results Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Kasler, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that Marrone Bio
Innovations Inc., struggling with an internal investigation into
its financial reporting, said on Nov. 14 it's delaying
indefinitely the release of its third quarter results.

The announcement, disclosed in a Securities and Exchange
Commission filing, is the latest sign of trouble at the Davis
biotech company.

In September, the maker of eco-friendly pesticides said it had
begun an in-house probe of its finances after discovering
documents "calling into question" the reporting of $870,000 in
revenue during the fourth quarter of 2013.  The company also said
the reported results of the first two quarters of 2014 "should no
longer be relied upon."

That disclosure, coupled with a previously-reported decline in
sales, sent Marrone Bio's stock price plummeting and prompted
several class-action shareholder lawsuits.  The company laid off
23 percent of its employees in early October.

Marrone Bio ordinarily would have announced its the third quarter
results by now.  The company said it has no estimate of when it
will release those numbers.

The company's shares closed Friday at $2.84, down 4 cents, on the
Nasdaq market.  The delay was announced after the market closed.


MERRY MAIDS: Removes "Jessop" Suit to California District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jessop v. Merry Maids, et al.,
Case No. 37-2014-00034060-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
02717-JLS-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122-1253
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
          E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street, 40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: alally@sidley.com


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the case City of
Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et.
al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012) seeks to represent a class
of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between
February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint alleging that MetLife, Inc. and several
current and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated
the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc.
to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or
escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this
action vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Magistrate Judge Recommends Approval of Remand Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the case City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al.
(N.D. Alabama, filed in state court on July 5, 2012 and removed to
federal court on August 3, 2012) seeks to represent a class of
persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common equity units in or
traceable to a public offering in March 2011.  The plaintiff filed
an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certain current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc., and various
underwriters violated several provisions of the Securities Act of
1933 related to the filing of the registration statement by
issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions concerning MetLife, Inc.'s
potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits
that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the
states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief. Defendants removed this action to federal court, and
plaintiff has moved to remand the action to state court. The
magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to remand to
state court and the defendants have objected to that
recommendation. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: "Keife" Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court
on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on September 7,
2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed November 3, 2011) are putative class action lawsuits, which
have been consolidated.  The actions raise breach of contract
claims arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance
benefits under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance
program. On March 8, 2013, the court granted MLIC's motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Facing "Owens" Class Action Over Use of TCA
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014) is a putative class action lawsuit alleging that MLIC's use
of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits
under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative
class.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Final Approval Hearing This Month on "Fauley" Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the cases
C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to
S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al.
(Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill.,
July 3, 2014), the Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against
defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services
representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax
advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. MLIC has agreed to pay up to
$23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August
23, 2008 and the date of the court's preliminary approval of the
settlement. Following this agreement, the Fauley case was filed in
Illinois, seeking certification of a nationwide class of
plaintiffs and the C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily
dismissed. In August 2014, the Fauley court preliminarily approved
the settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class, and
scheduled the final approval hearing for November 2014.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


METLIFE INC: Contines to Defend Class Suits Over Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that over the past
several years, the Company has faced numerous claims, including
class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of
individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or
other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial
damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys'
fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the
claims in these matters. The Company believes adequate provision
has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices
matters.

MetLife is a global provider of life insurance, annuities,
employee benefits and asset management.


MXD INC: Removes "Echavarria" Suit to District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Echavarria, et al. v. MXD, Inc.,
Case No. MID L 6373 12, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Trenton).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-07207-AET-LHG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. O'Connor, III, Esq.
          O'CONNOR PARSONS LANE & NOBLE LLC
          435 East Broad Street
          Westfield, NJ 07090
          Telephone: (908) 928-9200
          E-mail: paul@lawnj.net

               - and -

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          16 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 799-1266
          Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

Defendant J&J Trucking, Inc. is represented by:

          Anthony Santos Almeida, Esq.
          MASHEL LAW, L.L.C.
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 303
          Morganville, NJ 07751
          Telephone: (732) 536-6161
          Facsimile: (732) 536-6165
          E-mail: asalmeida@mashellaw.com

Defendant MXD, Inc. is represented by:

          Peter Francis Berk, Esq.
          GENOVA BURNS GIANTOMASI & WEBSTER
          494 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102-3230
          Telephone: (973) 230-2071
          E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: DEA Addresses Claims on Players' Drug Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a class
action accusing the National Football League of prescription drug
abuse is back in the national spotlight after it reportedly led
federal drug agents to question team doctors over the weekend.

The Nov. 16 inspections by the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, which reports say included the San Francisco
49ers, has turned the tables on the typical relationship between
class action lawyers and government investigators  Civil
litigation often follows federal investigations or indictments,
but the reverse is more unusual.

"I think it's rare," Reed Smith partner L. Julius Turman --
jturman@reedsmith.com -- said. "Because I think that plaintiffs
counsel often use government and government agencies . . . as a
means of gathering information, facts and theories before they
actually file suit."

In this case, plaintiffs lawyers can take much of the credit.
They sued in May, accusing the National Football League of
illegally dosing players with opiates, anti-inflammatory medicines
and local anesthetics on game days to help them play through the
pain of past injuries.  They allege the drugs were handed out by
trainers without medical licenses and without proper
prescriptions, in violation of state and federal law.

Plaintiffs lawyers say the practice led to permanent health
problems for some members of the class, composed of retired
players employed by NFL teams between 1969 and 2012.

For example, Richard Dent, who played for teams including the
Chicago Bears and the 49ers, and was inducted into the Pro
Football Hall of Fame in 2011, developed an addiction to
prescription painkillers, according to the complaint.  He also
played for eight weeks on a broken foot, and now suffers permanent
nerve damage.

On Nov. 16, DEA spokesman Rusty Payne told The Washington Post the
class action triggered the government investigation.  The agency
declined to comment further Nov. 17, and wouldn't divulge the
results of the Nov. 16 inspections.

Plaintiffs firms Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Silverman,
Thompson, Slutkin & White; and Namanny Byrne & Owens are
litigating the class claims in the Northern District of
California.

Steven Silverman of Silverman Thompson agreed it's unusual to see
a government probe follow a civil suit, but he welcomed the DEA's
involvement.

"The allegations in our complaint were not a secret as far as we
could tell," he said.  "There certainly were media reports over
the years of systemic drug abuse and misuse within the National
Football League.  I can't speak to why this wasn't investigated
earlier."

The NFL is represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.  Lawyers from the firms did not
respond to calls or emails seeking comment on Nov. 17.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy declined to comment on the ongoing
litigation in an email Monday, but confirmed the DEA inspections.
"Our teams cooperated with the DEA," he wrote, "and we have no
information to indicate any irregularities were found."

The DEA agents may be able to help plaintiffs in the class action
by uncovering information the civil lawyers couldn't, said L.A.-
based Steptoe & Johnson LLP partner Lawrence Riff --
lriff@steptoe.com

"When the phone rings and somebody says 'I am an investigator for
the DEA,'" Mr. Riff said, "that certainly commands the respect of
the person on the other end of the line."

But Mr. Turman wonders how useful the federal investigation will
be to the plaintiffs' claims.

"The class action, we're looking for commonality, typicality and
numerosity," he said.  "And the DEA's investigation, going team by
team and position by position, is going to be highly
individualized."

The NFL's lawyers argued the issue of individuality late last
month, in a motion to dismiss before U.S. District Judge William
Alsup.  The lawyers argued plaintiffs' claims center on private
interactions between a player and a team's medical staff --
interactions that vary from team to team and from player to
player.

"Plaintiffs do not, and cannot in good faith, allege that the NFL
employed the team doctors, or restricted or controlled the
provision of medical care and advice by them to the players," the
league's lawyers wrote in their motion to dismiss.

They also argued plaintiffs' claims are barred under California's
statute of limitations, which stipulates a one-year limit for
medical malpractice claims and a two-year limit for personal
injury claims.

And NFL lawyers argued plaintiffs' claims are subject to the
agreements reached by the NFL players union. Claims challenging
players' medical care, which is regulated by union agreements,
must be fought through the union's grievance procedures, not in
court.

Judge Alsup postponed his ruling and requested a brief from the
National Football League Players Association to determine whether
the class of retired players is part of the NFL union.  The union
has retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Andrew Tulumello --
atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- and was scheduled to file a brief
Nov. 19.


NELNET INC: Settlement in "Yaakov" Case Subject to Finalization
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014, that the settlement agreement in
principle in the case Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's
Nelnet, LLC is subject to finalization and court approval.

On January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC
("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was filed
in the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey
(the "New Jersey District Court"). The complaint alleges that
Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in
2008-2009 that were not the result of express invitation or
permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain
opt out language. The complaint also alleges that such faxes
violated the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes. The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent
putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the
TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty
damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful
violations. The complaint seeks to establish a class action.

On September 13, 2013, the named plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, and on October 7, 2013, Peterson's filed a
motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's motion for class
certification. As of the filing date of this report, the New
Jersey District Court has not established, recognized, or
certified a class.

On January 23, 2014, Peterson's and the named plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle whereby Peterson's would, without admitting
any wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit,
including potential class action claims, for payment of an
immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is
subject to finalization and court approval.

Nelnet, Inc. is an education services company focused primarily on
providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: asset management
and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment
services (education planning).


NELNET INC: Settlement in "Zaw" Case Subject to Finalization
------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014, that the settlement agreement in
principle in the case Than Zaw v. Nelnet, Inc. is subject to
finalization and court approval.

On January 18, 2013, a Third Amended Complaint was served on
Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than Zaw against Nelnet
(erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as Nelnet Business
Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Contra Costa County. The case has since been moved to the U.S.
Federal District Court for the Northern District of California
(the "California District Court"). The lawsuit was originally
instituted on December 30, 2010, and alleges that Nelnet violated
the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its
interactions with the plaintiff, a California resident. The
plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint added additional allegations
claiming that Nelnet violated Section 632 of the California Penal
Code by allegedly recording one or more telephone calls to the
plaintiff without the plaintiff's consent, and sought $5,000 in
statutory damages per alleged violation.  The Third Amended
Complaint further alleged that Nelnet improperly recorded
telephone calls to other California residents without such
persons' consent, and sought to establish a class action with
respect to the California Section 632 claim. As of the filing date
of this report, the California District Court has not established,
recognized, or certified a class.

On October 16, 2013, Nelnet and the named plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle whereby Nelnet would, without admitting any
wrongdoing or liability, settle all claims in the lawsuit,
including potential class action claims, for payment of an
immaterial amount. The settlement agreement in principle is
subject to finalization and court approval.

Nelnet, Inc. is an education services company focused primarily on
providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: asset management
and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment
services (education planning).


NELNET INC: Ohio Court Hasn't Established Class in "Keating" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2014, that the Ohio District Court has
not established, recognized, or certified a class in the case
Grant Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC et al.

On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's,
CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on Nelnet
(collectively, the "Keating Defendants"), in connection with a
lawsuit by Grant Keating in the U.S. Federal District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio District Court"). The
lawsuit was originally instituted on August 24, 2011, and alleges
that the Keating Defendants sent an advertising text message to
the named plaintiff in June 2011 using an automatic telephone
dialing system, and without the plaintiff's express consent. The
complaint also alleges that this text message violated the TCPA,
purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful
violation. The complaint further alleges that the Keating
Defendants sent putative class members similar text messages using
an automatic telephone dialing system, without such purported
class members' consent. The complaint seeks to establish a class
action.

On August 29, 2013, the Keating Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On May 12, 2014, the Ohio District Court granted
the Keating Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing
the case. On September 8, 2014, the named plaintiff filed an
appeal brief with the Circuit Court of Appeals and on October 22,
2014, two Keating Defendants filed a responsive brief.

As of the filing date of the Form 10-Q report, the Ohio District
Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class. The
Keating Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously in this lawsuit.

Nelnet, Inc. is an education services company focused primarily on
providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: asset management
and finance, loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment
services (education planning).


NEVADA: Health Exchange Launches Improved Web Site Following Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lopardi, writing for KNTV, reports that with open
enrollment beginning on Nov. 15, leaders with Nevada's health
exchange are hoping to avoid the nightmare that users experienced
last year.

Nevada Health Link recently launched with a new look and function.
The site will now serve as a portal to direct customers eligible
for a commercial plan to healthcare.gov.  Others will be directed
to a state website for low-income medical programs.

"I'm going to try to be optimistic and hope that it works," said
exchange customer David Ferraro.

Mr. Ferraro was able to obtain insurance through the old website
but has run into problems logging onto the site for months.

"I think in this day and age for a computer system not to be able
to work and function, and still having problems with it a year
later, is totally unacceptable," Mr. Ferraro said.

The complaints are well documented: website glitches, lost
payments, no coverage.  Customers lashed out at the state exchange
earlier in the year as the problems came to a boil.  In the end,
the executive director resigned, the state fired developer Xerox
and the exchange decided to switch to a federally supported
system.

Customers have also filed a class action lawsuit against the state
and Xerox over problems with the site.

"Our goal is to make this a good experience," said health link
spokesman Tyler Klimas.

The exchange is opening an enrollment center at the Boulevard Mall
where people can sign up in person.

"I think this experience is going to be completely different from
top to bottom and I hope that they'll come out and they'll see it
for themselves," Mr. Klimas said.

But insurance broker Pat Casale isn't so optimistic.

"My predictions for the first three or four days is there's going
to be a lot of issues," Mr. Casale said, noting it will be tougher
for local brokers to communicate with representatives from the
federal system.

Customers who purchased plans last year will have to re-enroll
this time around.  Open enrollment runs from Nov. 15 to Feb. 15.


OCLARO INC: Court Gave Final Okay to "Westley" Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court gave its final approval to the settlement in the class
action by Curtis and Charlotte Westley, Oclaro, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27,
2014.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors. The Court subsequently appointed
the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund ("Pension Fund") as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.

The Company said, "On April 26, 2012, the Pension Fund filed a
second amended complaint, captioned as Westley v. Oclaro, Inc.,
No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased
our common stock between May 6 and October 28, 2010, alleging that
we and certain of our officers and directors issued materially
false and misleading statements during this time period regarding
our current business and financial condition, including
projections for demand for our products, as well as our revenues,
earnings, and gross margins, for the first quarter of fiscal year
2011 as well as the full fiscal year. The complaint alleged
violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint sought damages
and costs of an unspecified amount."

"On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with leave to amend. After the Pension Fund moved for
reconsideration, on January 10, 2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs
to take discovery regarding statements made in May and June 2010.
On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund filed a third amended complaint,
attempting to cure pleading deficiencies with regard to statements
allegedly made in July and August 2010.

"On April 1, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint with respect to the statements made in July and August
2010. On May 30, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint's claims based on statements made in July
and August 2010. Although discovery has commenced, no trial was
ever scheduled in this action.

"On June 10, 2011, a purported shareholder, Stanley Moskal, filed
a purported derivative action in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, against us, as nominal
defendant, and certain of our current and former officers and
directors, as defendants. The case is styled Moskal v. Couder, No.
1:11 CV 202880 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct., filed June 10,
2011). Four other purported shareholders, Matteo Guindani,
Jermaine Coney, Jefferson Braman and Toby Aguilar, separately
filed substantially similar lawsuits in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 27, June 28,
July 7 and July 26, 2011, respectively. By Order dated September
14, 2011, the Guindani, Coney, and Braman actions were
consolidated under In re Oclaro, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead
Case No. 11 Civ. 3176 EMC. On October 5, 2011, the Aguilar action
was voluntarily dismissed.

"Each remaining purported derivative complaint alleged that Oclaro
has been, or will be, damaged by the actions alleged in the
Westley complaint, and the litigation of the Westley action, and
any damages or settlement paid in the Westley action. Each
purported derivative complaint alleged counts for breaches of
fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment. Each purported
derivative complaint sought damages and costs of an unspecified
amount, as well as injunctive relief.

"By Order dated March 6, 2012, the parties in the Moskal action
agreed that defendants shall not be required to respond to the
original complaint. By Order dated February 27, 2013, the parties
in the Moskal action agreed that plaintiff would serve an amended
complaint no later than 30 days after the Court in the Westley
action rules on defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in the Westley action and the stay of discovery would
remain in effect until further order of the Court or agreement by
the parties, provided, however, that they obtain discovery
produced in the Westley Action.

"By Order dated March 12, 2013, the parties to In re Oclaro, Inc.
Derivative Litigation agreed to stay all proceedings until such
time as (a) the defendants file an answer to any complaint in the
Westley action; or (b) the Westley action is dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice, provided, however, that they obtain
discovery produced in the Westley Action. No trial has been
scheduled in any of these actions.

"On September 3, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the Westley,
Moskal, and In re Oclaro Derivative matters for a total of $3.95
million, plus certain corporate governance changes. The money will
be paid entirely by our directors and officers liability insurance
carriers. Any fees awarded to the plaintiffs in these actions, or
their respective counsel, are included in this amount."

By Order dated August 13, 2014, the Court in the Westley matter
gave its final approval to the settlement.

By Order dated September 19, 2014, the Court in the In re Oclaro,
Inc. Derivative Litigation gave its final approval to the
settlement.

By Order dated October 1, 2014, the Court approved the voluntary
dismissal of the Moskal matter, terminating the state court
derivative matters.


PFIZER INC: Judge to Weigh on Expert Witness Issue in Zoloft MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that several months after tossing the key expert witness for
plaintiffs who allege that Pfizer's antidepressant drug Zoloft
causes birth defects, a federal judge in Philadelphia considered
allowing them to offer a new one.

Her decision could spell the end of the case if she decides not to
allow it.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, who is handling the multidistrict litigation case,
held arguments on Nov. 18 over whether she should allow them to
offer the new expert, a move that would prompt another Daubert
hearing.

The first Daubert hearing -- which allows parties in a case to
challenge expert testimony before the start of trial and is named
for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals -- lasted for about a week last April and focused
mostly on Dr. Anick Berard, who was the plaintiffs' initial key
expert.

In July, Judge Rufe barred her testimony, finding several problems
with Dr. Berard's research and proffered testimony.

The original schedule for the case had the first bellwether trials
starting in January, Judge Rufe noted at the start of arguments
Nov. 18.  She asked Michael Fishbein -- mfishbein@lfsblaw.com --
of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, who was arguing for the
plaintiffs' steering committee, when the first trial could be
ready if she were to grant their motion to present a new expert.

"There's no reason it can't be quickly," he said.

"And only moving forward with cardiac cases?" Judge Rufe asked,
since the new expert, Nicholas Jewell, has proposed testimony on
his research linking the use of Zoloft in pregnant women to
congenital heart defects in their babies.  Dr. Berard's research
had linked Zoloft to a plethora of various birth defects.

If the plaintiffs would be able to use Jewell as an expert
witness, they would only pursue the cardiac defects, Mr. Fishbein
said.

He and the plaintiffs' steering committee argued that Judge Rufe
had erred in her opinion barring Dr. Berard's testimony by setting
the wrong standard.

"The court's reasoning was predicated in part upon a requirement
that an expert must rely on repeated, consistent, statistically
significant epidemiological findings in order to have a reliable
basis for inferring a causal link between a drug and an adverse
event. . . . However, this holding is contrary to United States
Supreme Court, Third Circuit, and other federal court precedent,
as well as the teachings of Sir Austin Bradford Hill, the author
of the Bradford Hill criteria," according to a brief filed by the
steering committee.

It's important to correct that matter of law, Mr. Fishbein told
Judge Rufe.  "The reason it's important is because even if Pfizer
achieves its fondest wish and gets summary judgment in all 600
cases that are pending before you . . . that's not the end of this
litigation," Mr. Fishbein said, explaining that Zoloft is still on
the market and the science studying it is continuing to evolve, so
plaintiffs will keep filing suits over it.

Those plaintiffs will come to court with expert reports from "a
Dr. Jewell, or Dr. A, or Dr. B, or Dr. C," Mr. Fishbein said.  So,
it's essential for the court to set the correct legal standard by
which to assess whether the proffered experts meet it.

"The law, it seems to me, has to follow the science," Mr. Fishbein
said.

"But then what happens to finality?" Judge Rufe asked.

A case has to be tried at a certain point in time and it has to be
tried based on what is available at that time, he answered.
Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued on behalf of Pfizer, however,
characterized the plaintiffs' motion to introduce a new expert as
highly unusual, calling it a "Daubert do-over," using language
adapted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

"It's really a question of . . . is this really disrupting an
orderly and efficient trial in the MDL, are you prejudiced . . . I
want to really know: How is Pfizer harmed and isn't it just as
harmful not to grant the right to have Dr. Jewell come in?" Judge
Rufe told Mr. Cheffo.

Granting the plaintiffs' motions would lead to "piecemeal
litigation with no finality and no end in sight," Mr. Cheffo said.
Courts must decide cases based on the science before them, he
said, since they must rule quickly and with finality.

Pfizer moved in August for summary judgment and, Judge Rufe asked,
if she were to grant that motion, which cases would be subject to
it?

"All cases in the MDL would be subject to this," Mr. Cheffo said.


POTTERY BARN: Sued Over Failure to Construct POS for Blind People
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pottery Barn, Case No. 2:14-cv-08806 (C.D. Cal.,
November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to design, construct, and own or operate Point Of Sale Devices
that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
people.

Pottery Barn owns and operates home improvement retail stores in
San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Harrison, Esq.
      THE SANTA CLARITA FIRM
      25876 The Old Road, #304
      Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381
      Telephone: (661) 257-2854
      Facsimile: 661-257-3068
      Email: Mharrison30@aol.com


PRC MANAGEMENT: "Quinones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yejide Quinones, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
v. PRC Management Company LLC, PRC Management Corporation, Frank
Linde, individually, John Chatzky, and David Gartenlaub, Case No.
1:14-cv-09064 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, and other actual damages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide property management services to residential
buildings in the New York City area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI, PC
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212)267-2101


PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces "Dier" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-06738 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 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


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------
The Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of
class acitons challenging the use of retained asset accounts to
settle death benefit claims, Prudential Financial, Inc. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2014.

From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class
actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts
to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life
insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of
the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by
the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re
Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract
Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the
retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to
be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time,
to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and
asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty
and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust
enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-
judgment interest.

In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In August 2012,
the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion without
prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment motions on the
issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury. In October
2012, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. In November
2013, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order stating that the
named plaintiffs: (1) did not suffer a cognizable legal injury;
(2) are not entitled to any damages based on allegations of delay
in payment of benefits; and (3) are not entitled to disgorgement
of profits as a remedy. The Court ordered further briefing on
whether nominal damages should be awarded and whether any
equitable relief should be granted.

In February 2014, the parties filed briefs on the issues addressed
in the Court's order. In August 2014, the Court granted
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of this matter as a
class action settlement. If final approval is obtained from the
Court, the anticipated class action settlement will be within the
amount reserved for this matter.

Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services to both individual and institutional customers throughout
the United States and in many other countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend "Huffman" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint in
the case, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, Prudential
Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of
ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.
In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings
was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the
outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2014, the Court lifted
the stay, and in September 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to amend the complaint.

Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services to both individual and institutional customers throughout
the United States and in many other countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014 that an appeal was
filed from the Court's summary judgment decision dismissing
complaints related to alternative dispute resolution agreement.

From November 2002 to March 2005, 11 separate complaints were
filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli &
Brown in New Jersey state court and in the New Jersey Superior
Court, Essex County as Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et
al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution
agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 235
claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance
employees, and Leeds Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing
the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired
with Leeds Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of
contract, and violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to
the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential's liability
to the claimants.

In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases
for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen
County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that
resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235
plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within
existing reserves for this matter.

In December 2013, the Company participated in court-ordered
mediation that resulted in a December 2013 settlement involving 40
of the remaining 42 plaintiffs with litigation against the
Company, including plaintiffs who had not yet appealed the
dismissal of their claims. The amounts paid to the 40 plaintiffs
were within existing reserves for this matter.

In July 2014, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment
motion dismissing with prejudice the complaint of one of the two
remaining plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company. In
August 2014, an appeal was filed from the Court's summary judgment
decision.

Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services to both individual and institutional customers throughout
the United States and in many other countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Motion to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014 that plaintiffs in a
class action filed a motion to certify a class comprised of
investors who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock
between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011.

In August 2012, a purported class action lawsuit, City of Sterling
Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of
federal securities law. The complaint names as defendants the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer,
the Principal Accounting Officer and certain members of the
Company's Board of Directors. The complaint alleges that knowingly
false and misleading statements were made regarding the Company's
current and future financial condition based on, among other
things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability
for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or
their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii)
the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal
law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the
escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an
undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add three additional
putative institutional investors as lead plaintiffs: National
Shopmen Pension Fund, The Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 &
172 Pension & Annuity Funds, and Roofers Local No. 149 Pension
Fund. In June 2013, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In February 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss. In July 2014, plaintiffs' filed a motion to certify a
class comprised of investors who purchased shares of the Company's
Common Stock between May 5, 2010 and November 4, 2011.

Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services to both individual and institutional customers throughout
the United States and in many other countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Still Facing "Bouder" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint
sought back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In March 2008,
the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.

Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to
pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of
California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts.

In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated
with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint
resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations
of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws.

In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal
overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008
and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of
the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims.

In January 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in its entirety. In July 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, permitting plaintiffs to
file a motion to certify a class of employee insurance agents
seeking recovery under state wage and hour laws. In September
2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification.

No updates were provided in Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27,
2014.

Prudential Financial and its subsidiaries provide a wide range of
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services to both individual and institutional customers throughout
the United States and in many other countries.


RAPIDSHOT NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Majors, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rapidshot North America, Inc., Walter Payerl, and
Kelley Payerl, Case No. 1:14-cv-02505 (N.D. Ohio, November 13,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 per workweek.

Rapidshot North America, Inc. manufactures, sells, and maintains
hockey shooting systems throughout the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: ryan@winterslawfirm.com


REACHLOCAL INC: Faces Class Action by Former Clients
----------------------------------------------------
ReachLocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that a lawsuit,
purporting to be a class action, was filed on May 2, 2014, by one
of the Company's former clients in the United States District
Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violation of California's unfair competition law. The complaint
seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. While the
case is at an early stage, the Company believes that the case is
substantively and procedurally without merit.

ReachLocal, Inc. offers a comprehensive suite of online marketing
solutions, including a total digital marketing system that
combines lead management, marketing automation, campaign analysis,
responsive website design and a mobile app (ReachEdge(TM)), search
engine marketing (ReachSearch(TM)), display advertising
(ReachDisplay(TM)), display retargeting (ReachRetargeting(TM)),
search engine optimization (ReachSEO(TM)), Web presence
(ReachCast(TM)), online marketing analytics (TotalTrack(R)), an
assisted chat service (TotalLiveChat(TM)), and other products,
each targeted to local business owners.


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Court Consolidated Two Securities Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regado Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that the Court
consolidated two purported securities class action lawsuits and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 10, 2014, the first of two purported securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  The Company said, "The
lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false
and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 3 trial
of Revolixys in patients undergoing certain percutaneous coronary
intervention procedures. Plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that we failed to disclose facts related to the potential risk of
several allergic reactions following the administration of
Revolixys and therefore made false or misleading statements about
Revolixys' safety. Plaintiffs seek damages and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney's fees."

On September 8, 2014, two prospective lead plaintiffs filed
motions to consolidate the lawsuits, appoint a lead plaintiff, and
appoint lead counsel. On September 26, 2014, the Court
consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

"We expect the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint. It
is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
received from stockholders, with respect to these same or other
matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as
defendants. These lawsuits and any other related lawsuits are
subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and
disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The
outcome of these lawsuits is necessarily uncertain. We could be
forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these
suits and we may not prevail," the Company said. "In addition, we
may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with
these lawsuits. We have a multi-layer Directors and Officers
("D&O") insurance policy which will provide reimbursement of the
defense costs. There is not a guarantee that our insurance limits
will be sufficient to cover all incurred expenses. We currently
are not able to estimate the possible cost to us from these
matters, as these lawsuits are currently at an early stage, and we
cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve these matters or
the possible amount of any damages that we may be required to pay.
We have not established any reserve for any potential liability
relating to these lawsuits. It is possible that we could, in the
future, incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims for
monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests on these
actions could result in the payment of substantial damages, or
possibly fines, and could have a material adverse effect on our
cash flow, results of operations and financial position."

Regado Biosciences is a development stage enterprise incorporated
in the State of Delaware on December 19, 2001, operating primarily
in Basking Ridge, New Jersey and Durham, North Carolina.  It has
been focused on the discovery and development of novel, first-in-
class, actively controllable antithrombotic drug systems for acute
and sub-acute cardiovascular indications.


ROUND TABLE PIZZA: Inaccessible to Disabled Persons, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Hernandez v. Round Table Pizza, Inc.; Gustavo Velez Dba
Round Table Pizza; Blue Panther Properties, LLC; and Does 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 5:14-cv-05067-HRL (N.D. Cal., November 17,
2014) involves the alleged denial of accessible public facilities,
including exterior and interior paths of travel, entrances,
restrooms, and related facilities, to the Plaintiff and other
similarly disabled persons at the Round Table Pizza restaurant
located in Palo Alto, California.

Mr. Hernandez is disabled by paraplegia and requires the use of a
wheelchair for locomotion.  He is unable to use portions of public
facilities, which are not accessible to disabled persons, who
require the use of a wheelchair.

The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees of
the business, property, buildings and portions thereof located in
Palo Alto, California, and known as the Round Table Pizza
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul L. Rein, Esq.
          Celia McGuinness, Esq.
          Catherine M. Cabalo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN
          200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 832-5001
          Facsimile: (510) 832-4787
          E-mail: reinlawoffice@aol.com
                  cmcguinness@reinlawoffice.com
                  ccabalo@reinlawoffice.com


SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Normarily Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Schachter Portnoy, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:14-cv-07176-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., November 17, 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


SEATTLE IMPACT: Owner Faces Class Action Over Sexual Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the owner of the newborn Seattle Impact FC indoor soccer league
team is facing a putative class action alleging he is a profane
tyrant who sexually assaulted two dance team members, threatened
his staff with retribution if they discussed his conduct, and
fired a manager because he spoke with police about the
allegations.

Six former employees lodged the claims against owner Dion Earl in
King County Superior Court on Nov. 6, two days before the team's
maiden regular-season debut, which they lost, 14-4.  Also named as
defendants are the Major Arena Soccer League and its commissioner,
Kevin Milliken, whom the plaintiffs allege effectively enabled
Mr. Earl's behavior and downplayed the allegations.

The complaint, Buslon v. Seattle Impact, portrays Mr. Earl as a
man allegedly obsessed with building a dance team of young,
attractive women and focused on his own self-promotion.

"He was more passionate about luring 'smoking hot' dancers than he
was about a soccer team," the complaint states.  "From the moment
that the Seattle Impact was formed, Earl's focus was on creating
attention for himself."

Among the plaintiffs are Elizabeth Buslon, a former dance team co-
captain who alleges Earl sexually assaulted her on Sept. 17, and
fellow dancer Jessilyn Roberts, who said Mr. Earl forced himself
on her on Sept. 4.  Alleging sexual harassment and pressure from
Earl to cover up his allegedly unlawful conduct is former dance-
team captain Lauren Baumann.  Former senior corporate account
manager Joe David alleges that Mr. Earl fired him because he
cooperated with a police investigation of Mr. Earl's alleged
behavior.

No criminal charges have been filed and Earl denies wrongdoing.
But a Superior Court judge issued an immediate and permanent
sexual assault protection order for Ms. Buslon against Mr. Earl on
Oct. 22.

Ms. Buslon and the other plaintiffs allege the indoor soccer
league should not have hired Mr. Earl, particularly given the
domestic violence charges and sexual harassment protective orders
lodged against him in the past.  Part of that past, according to
the complaint, is the firing of Mr. Earl, a former college and
professional soccer player, from his high-school coaching job in
1998 for his alleged inappropriate behavior towards a high-school
cheerleader he attempted to date.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Milliken failed to conduct a
"reasonable investigation" upon learning of the sexual assault
allegations and threats of retribution, and "colluded with Earl"
to cover up the assaults.

The plaintiffs also allege Milliken and the league were well aware
of earlier allegations against Mr. Earl for allegedly "making
inappropriate comments of a personal or sexually suggestive
nature, inappropriate touching, multiple sexual assaults, unlawful
terminations, and willful withholding of wages," according to the
complaint.

"Commissioner Milliken and the MASL had a duty to protect
Plaintiffs from the conduct and behaviors described in this
Complaint but failed to do so, and this failure caused damages to
the plaintiffs," said the complaint, which alleges the team and
its head engaged in negligent hiring, retention and supervision.

The complaint alleges Mr. Earl engaged in assault and battery,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment,
sexual harassment and discrimination, constructive discharge and
discriminatory termination, retaliation and failure to pay wages,
among other alleged unlawful acts.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with the firm HKM Employment Attorneys.


SIOUX CITY, IA: Judge OKs Franchise Fee Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Iowa judge has approved the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit in which the city of Sioux
City agreed to return nearly $6.5 million in franchise fees to
city residents and businesses.

Judge Jeffrey Neary, of Woodbury County District Court, approved
the deal on Nov. 14, the Sioux City Journal said.  Sioux City
resident Kathleen Sweisberger filed the lawsuit in 2006 on behalf
of all households and businesses that paid a 2 percent franchise
fee for gas or electricity to MidAmerican Energy Co. or Woodbury
County Rural Electric Cooperative from Sept. 5, 2001, to May 25,
2009. Lawyers say nearly 62,000 individuals and businesses will
qualify for settlement payments.

Iowa courts have ruled that the franchise fees were illegal and
the state legislature has since legalized franchise taxes of up to
5 percent.

The Sioux City Council approved the settlement in April and will
borrow money to pay it.  The city raised the franchise tax to 5
percent from 2 percent to pay off that debt.

Nearly $2.16 million, or 33 percent of the settlement, will go
Lane & Waterman, the Davenport law firm that represented
Sweisberger, under the terms of her contract with the firm.

Richard Davidson, who worked on the case, said the remaining $4.3
million will be divided among businesses and individuals who paid
the franchise fees.  The payment average is $69.28 per class
member, but, Mr. Davidson said, larger users will receive higher
amounts.  The estimated figure for St. Luke's Regional Medical
Center is $52,000, for example, and $46,500 for Mercy Medical
Center.

A similar lawsuit in Des Moines resulted in a $39 million
judgment.  Dubuque is in the process of settling another suit for
$2.6 million.


SMART PAYMENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Plan Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Z-Quana Powell v. Smart Payment Plan, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09033
(S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), alleges that the Defendant has used
its Payment Plan Agreement to establish preauthorization for
electronic fund transfers on behalf of thousands of consumers
around the United States.

Smart Payment Plan, LLC provides flexible bill payment services
with its principal place of business located at 999 Vanderbilt
Beach Rd, Naples, FL 34108.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Bachuwa, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave,
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (888)595-9111
      Facsimile: (866)317-2674
      E-mail: abachuwa@consumerlawinfo.com


SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: Consumer Suit Moved to NJ District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer action against Sovran Self Storage, Inc. was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington
County to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, 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 or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division
Burlington County to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


SPIROS PARTNERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jocabed Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spiros Partners, Ltd d/b/a Rick's Cabaret, New Spiros,
LLC d/b/a Rick's Cabaret and Eric Langan, Case No. 5:14-cv-01012
(W.D. Tex., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Spiros Partners, Ltd is a gentlemen's club for adult entertainment
in San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STARION ENERGY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Windley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Starion Energy, Inc., Starion Energy NY, Inc., Starion
Energy PA, Inc., Robert Zappone, and Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09053 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2014), arises out of the Defendants'
deceptive and unconscionable business tactics, specifically by
misleading consumers to believe that by switching to Starion they
will save money over their local public utilities when in fact,
soon after customers switched, their rates skyrocket, completely
divorced from prevailing market conditions.
The Defendants are private energy service company providers in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Melzer, Esq.
      Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Fl.
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 402-5650
      Facsimile: (646)402-5651
      E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
              amelzer@sanfordheisler.com


STEREOTAXIS INC: Plaintiffs Did Not File Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Stereotaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that the plaintiffs in a
purported securities class action did not file a notice of appeal
prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014.

On October 7, 2011, a purported securities class action was filed
against the Company and two of the Company's past executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri by Kevin Pound, a purported shareholder of the Company.
On December 29, 2011, the court granted an unopposed motion
appointing Local 522 Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff in the action
and granting Lead Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint,
which Lead Plaintiff filed on March 19, 2012. The Amended
Complaint alleged that, during the period from February 28, 2011
through August 9, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition and future business prospects, in
violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The Amended Complaint sought unspecified
damages, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court
may deem appropriate.

On May 18, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. On July 24, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed its response to
the motion to dismiss, and on August 30, 2012, the Company filed
its reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss.

On March 18, 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of
appeal prior to the deadline of April 17, 2014.

Stereotaxis designs, manufactures and markets the Epoch Solution,
which is an advanced remote robotic navigation system for use in a
hospital's interventional surgical suite, or "interventional lab",
that the Company believes revolutionizes the treatment of
arrhythmias and coronary artery disease by enabling enhanced
safety, efficiency and efficacy for catheter-based, or
interventional, procedures.


SUBWAY 30976: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leda M. Rodriguez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. Subway 30976 of Dade County Inc. d/b/a Subway and
Muhammad Idrees, Case No. 1:14-cv-24315 (S.D. Fla., November 13,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate Subway restaurants within the State
of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Dec. 1 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction,
Expedited Discovery and a Hearing Date to Continue the Preliminary
Injunction Pending Trial is currently scheduled for December 1,
2014, Symmetry Medical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014.

On August 4, 2014, the Corporation announced that it has entered a
definitive agreement to sell all of its common stock to Tecomet
and concurrently transfer to Symmetry Medical, Inc.'s shareholders
ownership in a new company holding its Symmetry Surgical business
(merger and Separation Transaction). Tecomet, which is owned by
Genstar Capital, is a contract manufacturing, engineering and
metal fabrication technology company based in Wilmington,
Massachusetts.

On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint
challenging the Merger and Separation Transaction was filed on
behalf of Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of the
Corporation, and all others similarly situated, in the Kosciusko
Circuit Court in the state of Indiana. The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the SMI board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Resolution Partners
and SMI stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering
into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that
Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that
the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical
with the SEC on September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary
proxy statement of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain
allegedly material information. The complaint seeks, among other
relief, injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Merger,
compensatory and/or rescissory damages in an unspecified amount
and costs and fees.

On October 15, 2014, the plaintiff filed a Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, Expedited Discovery and a Hearing Date to
Continue the Preliminary Injunction Pending Trial.  On October 23,
2014, the parties agreed to a compromise on expedited discovery,
mooting that aspect of plaintiff's motion, and stipulated to a
briefing schedule on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction.  The Court has set a hearing for the plaintiff's
motion, which is currently scheduled for December 1, 2014.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in
the lawsuit are without merit, but express no view on the possible
outcomes of the litigation.


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Bentlage" Suit Over Sale of Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darvin Bentlage, Gregory Harris, Richard R. Oswald v. Syngenta
Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05151 (W.D. Mo., November 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide adequate warning to
farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting,
transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera
corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles F. Speer, Esq.
      SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A.
      104 West 9th Street, Suite 400
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone (816) 472-3560
      Facsimile: (816) 421-2150
      E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq.
      James A. O'Brien III, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com
              dkekatos@seegerweiss.com
              jobrien@seegerweiss.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Markowitz" Class Suit Over Exploding Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Markowitz and Maureen Rash, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings,
Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., and
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-24366-FAM (S.D.
Fla., November 17, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

The case is related to the multidistrict litigation known as In re
Takata Airbag Litigation, MDL No. 2599.  The litigation alleges
unlawful conduct involving airbags -- manufactured by Takata and
installed in millions of vehicles in the United States by Vehicle
Manufacturer Defendants -- that cause serious bodily harm or death
to vehicle occupants.  The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits, mostly
owners or lessees of vehicles recalled because they contain Takata
airbags, allege that Takata's airbags, instead of protecting
vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently
explode and eject lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel,
causing serious injury and death.

To date, Takata airbags have caused at least four deaths and
numerous horrific injuries, including maiming, loss of eyesight
and hearing, and seizures.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq.
          SHELDON J. SCHLESINGER PA
          1212 SE 3rd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Ontario Court Okays Horsepower Label Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement involving all but three of the defendants in the
Canadian Horsepower label litigation pending in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, of which Tecumseh Products Company is a
defendant, has been negotiated and approved by the 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 March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the
horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek
undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and
equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation
and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company
and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have
notified the company that they claim indemnification with respect
to this lawsuit under the company's Stock Purchase Agreement with
them.

A settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki,
American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by
the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor
is it determinative of their liability, if any.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Horsepower Label Suit Accord in Quebec Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement involving all but three of the defendants in a
lawsuit similar to the Canadian Horsepower label litigation
pending in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, of which
Tecumseh Products Company is a defendant, has been negotiated and
approved by the 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 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the company and several other defendants (including those
listed in the Canadian Horsepower label litigation) advancing
allegations similar to such case. Plaintiffs seek undetermined
monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable
relief. Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity,
LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries
and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified the company that
they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under the
company's Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

As was the case with the Ontario litigation, a settlement
involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American
Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court.
It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it
determinative of their liability, if any.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Settlement in Compressor Antitrust Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
issued an order granting final approval of the Settlement
Agreement between Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor
Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A.
LLC and the direct purchaser plaintiffs in a suit filed against
certain manufacturers in the compressor industry, according to
Tecumseh Products' Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On February 17, 2009, the company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and
a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to
investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive
pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The company entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the
DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy.
Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any
criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to
the investigation against the company as long as the company,
among other things, continues its full cooperation in the
investigation. The company received similar conditional immunity
from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or
requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in
other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, the European Commission
announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain
of the company's competitors received fines for the conduct
investigated. As a result of the company's conditional immunity,
the company was not assessed any fine.

While the company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. In
Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage. All of
the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") procedures.

Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust
law generally are jointly and severally liable to private
claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint
conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, the
company's civil liability will be limited pursuant to the
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as
amended ("ACPERA"). As long as the company continues to cooperate
with the civil claimants and comply with the requirements of
ACPERA, the company will be liable only for actual, as opposed to
treble, damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for
claims against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive
conduct being investigated.

Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh
do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a
settlement agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs in the
U.S. actions on June 24, 2010 to resolve claims in the action in
order to avoid the costs and distraction of this ongoing class
action litigation.

On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of the company's
proposed settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because
the time frame and products covered by the proposed settlement
class were inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date
granting, in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss
claims by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional
compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for
refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air
conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31,
2008 (the "Covered Products").

On October 15, 2012, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement
Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement was made by and between the
company and the company's subsidiaries and affiliates, and
plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the Covered Products in the United States, its
territories and possessions, directly from a defendant. Under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for plaintiffs'
full release of all U.S. direct purchaser claims against the
company relating to refrigeration compressors, the company agreed
to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in addition,
agreed to pay up to $150,000 for notice and administrative costs
associated with administering the settlement. These costs were
recorded as an expense in the second quarter ended June 30, 2010
(and paid in the third quarter of 2010) in the line item captioned
"Impairments, restructuring charges, and other items" on the
company's Consolidated Statements of Operations. On June 16, 2014,
the court issued an order granting final approval of the
Settlement Agreement between Tecumseh and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs. The court also issued a Final Judgment dismissing all
direct purchaser actions against Tecumseh and several other
defendants.

The company entered into a Settlement Agreement on March 21, 2014
with the named indirect purchaser plaintiffs pursuant to which
these plaintiffs agreed to enter a Stipulated Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice and Without Costs that dismisses all claims and
causes of action alleged in their third consolidated amended
complaint. The company's share of the settlement was $250,000. The
court entered this order on April 9, 2014.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Circuit Upends Split Panel Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has narrowed the opening for
plaintiffs lawyers in so-called mass actions to avoid removal to
federal court.  An en banc ruling on Nov. 18 upended last year's
split panel decision that allowed litigation against two
pharmaceutical companies on behalf of roughly 1,500 individual
plaintiffs to stay in a California state court, over the
objections of defendants.

Judge Ronald Gould, who dissented from last year's panel decision
in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, wrote the majority opinion in the
Nov. 18 9-2 en banc decision.  Judge Gould concluded that
plaintiffs' petition to coordinate more than two dozen cases "for
all purposes" triggered federal court jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act.  CAFA gives the federal court jurisdiction
over mass actions when they've been "proposed to be tried
jointly."

"Looking at the plain language of plaintiffs' petitions and
memoranda," Judge Gould wrote, "we must conclude that plaintiffs
proposed a joint trial in asking that 'all of the actions' be
coordinated 'for all purposes.'" Judge Johnnie Rawlinson, who
authored the prior majority panel opinion, wrote a 10-page dissent
to the Nov. 18 en banc decision joined by Judge Marsha Berzon.
While "admittedly a fairly close case," Judge Rawlinson wrote that
the plaintiffs' petition for coordination in the state courts
focused on pretrial matters such as discovery and witness
depositions.  "The plaintiffs' petition for coordination stopped
short of requesting a joint trial as contemplated by the plain
language of the [CAFA] statute," she wrote.

Plaintiff Judith Romo is one of about 1,500 individuals suing Teva
Pharmaceutical, McKesson Corp. and other drug makers after taking
the pain medication propoxyphene.  The compound, an ingredient in
the painkillers Darvon, Darvocet and their generic equivalents,
was on the market for about 50 years before it was pulled in 2010
amid warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Tests
showed a risk of potentially serious heart rhythm problems in
users.

The two cases before the Ninth Circuit were part of a wave of 40
separate lawsuits filed in California state courts that each fell
under the 100-plaintiff limit to trigger a CAFA removal to federal
court.  Law firms representing a majority of the plaintiffs
petitioned the state's judicial council to coordinate the cases
under California's Code of Civil Procedure.

Teva asked that the case be removed to federal court, arguing that
the plaintiffs were intentionally working around CAFA.  But U.S.
District Judge Philip Gutierrez of the Central District of
California routed the cases back to state court.  The panel upheld
Gutierrez's decision in September 2013, noting that U.S. District
judges Claudia Wilken, Richard Seeborg and William Alsup, all of
the Northern District of California, had issued similar rulings.
Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis argued on behalf of Teva.  He
wasn't immediately available on Nov. 18.  A Teva spokesperson said
the company is pleased with the decision.

Louis Bograd of the Center for Constitutional Litigation argued on
behalf of the plaintiffs. He didn't respond to messages.

En banc review in the case drew amicus briefs from the Chamber of
Commerce, the Washington Legal Foundation, the American
Association for Justice and the Product Liability Advisory
Council.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Parties in Final Stages of Negotiations
------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that the parties in the
Class Action Litigation and Shareholder Derivative Litigation are
currently in the final stages of negotiating a settlement in both
matters.

According to the Company, "In June 2013, two purported class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York and the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and our CEO,
CFO, and Chairman. The Southern District of New York complaint was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013.  The surviving
complaint alleges that we and our officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly
false and misleading statements concerning our licensing
agreements and product development.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May
31, 2013.  On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied
in part our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the
claims remaining in the case.  On August 25, 2014, we filed an
answer to the class action complaint.  We will continue to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit.  The Company has
directors' and officers' and corporate liability insurance to
cover some of the risks associated with securities claims filed
against the Company or its directors and officers and has notified
its insurers of these actions."

On February 19, 2014, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Jason F.
Gerzseny v. Reed J. Killion, et. al., was filed in the 165th
Judicial District in Harris County, Texas.  On February 21, 2014,
another shareholder derivative lawsuit, Luis Lim v. Reed J.
Killion, et. al., was also filed in Harris County district court.
Both complaints allege various causes of action against certain
current and former officers and directors, including claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, insider selling, and
unjust enrichment.  On April 8, 2014, these derivative actions
were consolidated into one action, and on September 9, 2014,
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit, and has
directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover some of the
risks associated with derivative claims against its directors and
officers and has notified its insurers of these actions.

On October 21, 2014, the parties in the Class Action Litigation
and Shareholder Derivative Litigation conducted a mediation.  The
parties are currently in the final stages of negotiating a
settlement in both matters.  Once finalized, the settlements must
be approved by the courts.  The Company cannot provide any
assurance that the settlements will ultimately be finalized or
approved.

Uni-Pixel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is the parent company of
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc., its wholly-owned operating subsidiary.
The Company is a production stage company delivering Performance
Engineered Film(TM) (PEF) products to the display, touch screen
and flexible electronics market segments.


UNIT CORP: Closing Argument in Royalty Owners' Suit Set for Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court handling the case Panola Independent School District
No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District
Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma has ordered closing arguments in
the case to be held on December 2, 2014, according to Unit
Corporation's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from the company
for the company's Oklahoma production. The company asserted
several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under
Oklahoma law. It also asserted that the case should not be tried
as a class action due to the materially different circumstances
that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease.
On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the
trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs
petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8,
2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013,
the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of
royalty owners that was slightly smaller than their first attempt.
Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed
class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under
certain leases located in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg
Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification
hearing was held where, in addition to the defenses, the company
argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under
the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class
certification. The court has ordered closing arguments to be held
on December 2, 2014. The company will continue to resist
certification using the defenses. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims
will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending.


UNITED ONLINE: No Hearing Date for Partial Final Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014 that no date has been
set for hearing on Plaintiff's motion for entry of partial final
judgment and certification for interlocutory appeal.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against multiple
defendants, including United Online, Inc., Classmates, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., and FTD Group, Inc. The complaint
alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), and aiding and abetting violations of
such act; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail
fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes; (3) violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and aiding and
abetting violations of such act; (4) violations of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act; (5) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602; and (6) unjust enrichment.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against multiple
defendants, including Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group,
Inc., Classmates, Inc., and United Online, Inc. The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO, and aiding and abetting violations
of such act; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail
fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes; (3) violations of the
ECPA, and aiding and abetting violations of such act; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act; (5) violation of
California Business and Professions Code section 17602; and (6)
unjust enrichment.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against multiple
defendants, including Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group,
Inc., Classmates, Inc., and United Online, Inc. The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO, and aiding and abetting violations
of such act; (2) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud,
wire fraud and bank fraud; (3) violation of the ECPA, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act; (4) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and aiding and abetting
violations of such act; (5) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17602; and (6) unjust enrichment.

In January 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.

In March 2014, the Court granted the motion to consolidate the
Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
action, with the latter designated as the lead case. The
plaintiffs in the Kelm Class Action, the Miller Class Action and
the Frank Class Action seek class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from the plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued an order in the In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action dismissing for lack of Article
III standing, and inadequately pled corporate parent liability for
its subsidiary's actions, Plaintiffs' claims against United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates,
Inc.), FTD Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc. The
Court ruled that because none of the named Plaintiffs alleged they
used services from or were otherwise injured by any of those
defendants, the claims against them are dismissed. The Court's
dismissal was without prejudice.

The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's Order expired on April 11, 2014, without any such
motion being filed. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking entry of partial final judgment on, and
certification for interlocutory appeal of, the Court's March 28,
2014 orders dismissing the RICO claims and RICO conspiracy claims,
the claims against certain credit card company defendants, the
nationwide Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act class action
allegations, and the claims of plaintiffs Warfel, Reilly, Restrepo
and Brian Schnabel based on their participation in a previous
class action settlement.

On May 5, 2014, the Court summarily granted Plaintiff's motion for
entry of partial final judgment and certification for
interlocutory appeal, but subsequently vacated that order and set
a May 23, 2014 deadline for the remaining defendants to file their
oppositions to Plaintiff's motion. On May 23, 2014, the remaining
defendants filed their opposition briefs to the motion for
interlocutory review and, on June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a
reply brief.

No date has been set for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion. The
Plaintiffs' motion did not seek entry of a partial final judgment
on, nor certification for interlocutory review of, the Court's
dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against United Online, Inc.,
Memory Lane, Inc. (subsequently renamed Classmates, Inc.), FTD
Group, Inc., and Classmates International, Inc., for lack of
Article III standing and inadequately pled corporate parent
liability for its subsidiary's actions.

United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, provides
consumer services and products over the Internet under a number of
brands, including Classmates, StayFriends, Trombi, MyPoints,
NetZero, and Juno.


UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: McAdoo Suit Unlikely to Succeed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Barnett, writing for News Observer, reports that Michael
McAdoo lost his NCAA eligibility to play football for the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill after a student honor
court found him guilty of receiving impermissible help from a
tutor who footnoted and sourced one of his papers.

When Mr. McAdoo unsuccessfully sued to be reinstated in 2011, he
included a copy of the disputed paper, which turned out to have
been heavily lifted from material on the Internet.  That led to
questions about why the professor involved, Julius Nyang'oro,
hadn't detected the paper's flaws and opened the university's
scandal involving the Department of African and Afro-American
Studies and no-show classes for athletes.

But what began with unacknowledged use of others' writing is
turning into an entirely original legal chapter.  Mr. McAdoo, a
defensive end out of Antioch, Tenn., who played during UNC's 2008
and 2009 seasons, has sued the university for breach of contract
claiming he was denied the education promised him by then-head UNC
football coach Butch Davis.

Mr. McAdoo filed the suit in federal court and asked that it be
accepted as a class action including himself and all football
players on scholarship between 1993 and 2011.  That is the period
that a report from Kenneth Wainstein, a former Justice Department
official, says the more than 3,000 students, nearly half of them
athletes, were steered into a "shadow curriculum" of bogus
classes.

The contract at issue is the promise Mr. Davis made to Mr. McAdoo,
his mother and his grandparents when he came to Mr. McAdoo's home
to recruit him.  "I can't guarantee that Michael will play in the
NFL," Davis allegedly said, "But one thing I can guarantee is that
he will get a good education at the University of North Carolina."

It's unlikely McAdoo's suit will be granted class action status --
it doesn't help that it starts with only one plaintiff -- and even
if he pursues it alone, it will be on tenuous legal ground.  One
obvious problem will be proving that he didn't consent to the
fraudulent classes and was exploiting the school as much as it was
of him.

Mr. McAdoo, who played football in Canada and is trying to break
into the NFL, lives in Maryland. He was not available for comment.

Prospects for its success aside, the McAdoo lawsuit is a
significant development in UNC's academic-athletic scandal and in
the debate about college revenue sports.  Should it go forward,
the discovery process and testimony under oath could bring more
harsh light on how UNC routed athletes into sham courses.  It also
brings into sharp focus this question: Just what is the exchange
athletes make when they give their time and talents to a major
football or basketball program? The schools and coaches collect
millions of dollars.  What do the athletes get? Apparently it's
not always an education.  If that's not provided, what are they
owed?

Jeremi Duru, an American University law professor and one of
Mr. McAdoo's attorneys, says compensation is not the aim of the
suit, reform is.  The suit asks that all athletes be given four-
year scholarships, not the current renewable one-year
scholarships. And it wants the curriculum for football athletes to
be reviewed by a court-appointee who would confirm that the
courses are legitimate for five years.

"We want to ensure that UNC remains committed to the student-
athlete principle . . .  We've seen a departure from that.  We
would love to see that restored," Mr. Duru says.  "McAdoo came
forward because he wants to right a wrong."

Bob Orr, a Raleigh attorney who is a former member of the N.C.
Court of Appeals and former justice on the N.C. Supreme Court,
informally advised Mr. McAdoo when he was seeking reinstatement of
his NCAA eligibility.  He is not involved in the current lawsuit,
but he said it is focused on a central problem for top sports
programs at schools with quality academics.

"You can't bring somebody in with a skill set below the median at
UNC, Duke or Notre Dame and work them 40 hours a week and expect
them to get up to speed doing normal college-level work," Mr. Orr
says.  He expects that Mr. McAdoo's case is the first of a series
that will focus on this conflict between obtaining performance and
providing an education.

"I think the McAdoo case is the tip of the iceberg," he says.  "I
think there will be other litigation, more expansive litigation."

Paul Haagen, a professor of sports law and policy at Duke Law
School, says the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed, but it could have
value nonetheless.  "This one sounds like it's got some real
problems," he says, "but independent of the ability to get
damages, this is another opportunity to get discovery and
highlight an issue that is going to expose the divide between
running an educational institution and running an entertainment
wing of a university."

Mr. Haagen says the case "may go nowhere," but if it advances at
all it will get at the key question that is emerging about college
revenue sports: "What inexactly is the value being exchanged for
the risk and time of what these kids are engaged in, especially
when some people are benefiting extraordinarily?"


VAN VLIET: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime and Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Staros v. Van Vliet & Trap, LLC, Remco Van Vliet and Cas
Trap, Case No. 1:14-cv-09119-AT (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and
costs.

Van Vliet & Trap, LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability
company headquartered in New York City.  The Company operates Van
Vliet & Trap, an event design company servicing clients that
include JP Morgan Chase, Ralph Lauren, the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, Goldman Sachs and Conde Nast, among others.  The Individual
Defendants are the owners of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Several Firms Mull Shareholder Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal St. Anthony, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the stock
price of Vascular Solutions Inc. plunged by nearly one-fourth on
Nov. 14, a day after the company and its chief executive were
charged criminally with conspiring to sell a varicose-vein
treatment device for unapproved uses.

Meanwhile, several firms announced they are considering
shareholder class-action lawsuits against the Maple Grove-based
company.  The stock, which had moved from a low of $18.97 this
year to nearly $31 before the Nov. 14 revelations, closed Nov. 15
at $23.74 per share.

Howard Root, the longtime CEO of Vascular Solutions, and the
company were indicted by a federal grand jury in Texas for selling
unapproved and adulterated medical devices.  Root, 53, disputes
the charges as "absurd," and the company has vowed to fight them
in court. Root co-founded Vascular Solutions in 1997 and is the
single largest individual shareholder with about 430,000 shares.

The Nov. 14 stock drop pared Vascular's market cap by more than
$100 million.  On Nov. 14, the company said it planned to
repurchase up to $20 million worth of its stock.

"We announced it concurrent with our statement about the
indictment because we knew that some investors were concerned,"
Vascular vice president Phil Nalbone said on Nov. 14.  "Our stock
had quite a run [through Nov. 14] and we imagined we would see a
pullback and we wanted to assure investors . . . that the legal
matter would not affect our ongoing business."

Prosecutors say the company marketed the "Vari-Lase" device to
seal veins deep in the leg, even though it was approved only to
treat superficial blood vessels near the surface of the skin.

The Vari-Lase was supposed to revolutionize varicose-vein
treatment and generate major revenue for the company because it
eliminated the need for vein surgery.

The device was voluntarily pulled from the market in July after
the company settled a lawsuit alleging the same off-label
marketing at issue in the new criminal case.


WALTER ENERGY: Alabama Suit Over Hazardous Substance Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and
Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-1391) was dismissed without
prejudice, according to Walter Energy's Nov. 4, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In 2011, the Company and Walter Coke were named in a suit filed by
Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter Coke,
Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-1391) in the federal District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama. This is a putative civil class
action alleging state law tort claims arising from the alleged
presence on properties of substances, including arsenic, BaP, and
other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of current
and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the defendants
and/or their predecessors. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a defendant and
amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to relate to
Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing after
March 2, 1995. Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss
the amended complaint. On September 28, 2012, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part
the motion. In partially granting Walter Coke's motion, the Court
held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was not
valid and that class action-related claims must be dismissed (with
leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined class. In
partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that at the
pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed on
rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient pleading. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29, 2012.

On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and motion for
partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The
Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for partial dismissal
of the second amended complaint on January 10, 2013. On September
30, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying
the motion. On November 1, 2013, a joint motion to stay the
proceeding was filed with the Court, which the Court granted on
November 21, 2013.

On September 30, 2014, the case was dismissed without prejudice.
However, the Order provides that either party may move for
reinstatement before the earlier of (i) 6 months of the EPA's
issuance of a Record of Decision for the 35th Avenue Superfund
Site, or (ii) 5 years after the date of the Order. Reinstatement
also causes the reinstated claims to relate back to the original
date of filing.


WALTER ENERGY: New Cert. Motion Filed in "Rush" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities suit Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al. filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29,
2014, 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 January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21,
2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into
In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The
consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant
Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of
Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion
without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February
15, 2013. The parties are now in the process of discovery.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15,
2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing
and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014.
Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' renewed class certification
was due October 28, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply is due December
19, 2014. All other deadlines have been stayed by the Court.


WASHINGTON, DC: Police Plan for Future Seizure Proceeds After Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Steven Rich, writing for The Washington
Post, report that D.C. police have made plans for millions of
dollars in anticipated proceeds from future civil seizures of cash
and property, even though federal guidelines say "agencies may not
commit" to such spending in advance, documents show.

The city's proposed budget and financial plan for fiscal 2015
includes about $2.7 million for the District police department's
"special purpose fund" through 2018.  The fund covers payments for
informants and rewards.

The financial details emerged on Nov. 12, when the D.C. Council's
judiciary committee unanimously voted to forward a bill that would
overhaul asset forfeiture laws in the nation's capital.  The bill
would raise the threshold of proof required for a forfeiture,
bolster the rights of individuals whose property has been taken
and require that proceeds from seizures under federal law go into
the city general fund, rather than directly to the police
department.  The full council is set to vote on the bill on
Nov. 25.

Council member Tommy Wells, chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary and Public Safety, said police should not have a
financial incentive to make seizures.  He said the bill addresses
problems that are common across the country.

"All across the nation, law enforcement agencies are directly
benefiting from forfeiture," said Mr. Wells (D-Ward 6), who is
leading the effort to reform asset forfeiture in the District.
"In those places, forfeiture proceeds go directly to the law
enforcement entity, creating at best the appearance of a conflict
of interest, and at worst, an unchecked incentive for slush
funds."

In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, an aggressive brand of policing
called "highway interdiction," which involves authorities seizing
money and property during traffic stops, has grown in popularity.
Thousands of people not charged with crimes are left fighting
legal battles to regain their money.

Since 2009, D.C. officers have made more than 12,000 seizures
under city and federal laws, according to records and data
obtained from the city by The Washington Post through the
District's open records law.  Half of the more than $5.5 million
in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand
for less than $20.  D.C. police have seized more than 1,000 cars,
some for minor offenses allegedly committed by the children or
friends of the vehicle owners, documents show.

When D.C. police seize cash or property under District law, the
proceeds go into the city's general fund.  But proceeds of
seizures made under federal law go directly to the police
department through the Justice Department's Equitable Sharing
Program, which allows local departments to join with federal
agencies in forfeitures and keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds.

District financial records show that D.C. police receive about
$670,000 annually from the Equitable Sharing Program.  About
$30,000 in proceeds from forfeitures under District law go into
the general fund.

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr declined to discuss civil
asset forfeiture practices in the District.  He said police
agencies can participate in the program only if they comply with
its guidelines.  Among other things, the guidelines say that
agencies "should not 'spend it before you get it' or budget
anticipated receipts.  Receiving agencies may not commit to the
spending of sharing monies for a certain purpose in advance."

In a statement, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the
department is not building its budget with the proceeds of civil
seizures but is using them "to augment the reward pool of funding
and confidential fund programs (witness protection, rewards for
information in homicides)."

Ms. Lanier said the department's focus is not on generating
revenue but on "removing the profit gained from facilitating a
crime.  By forfeiting those assets, the expansion of criminal
activities can also be reduced."

The council's reform effort began last year after the Public
Defender Service for the District filed a class action lawsuit
against the city, alleging that police violated the constitutional
rights of residents in the process of seizing their cars.  Among
other things, the Public Defender Service focused on a city
requirement that vehicle owners post bonds of up to $2,500 before
they were permitted to challenge seizures.

In August 2013, all parties agreed to put the lawsuit on hold as
the District worked to modify its forfeiture laws.

Mr. Wells said the proposed bill would create a fairer system
under District law by scaling back the bond requirement, creating
a clearer appeals process and imposing a requirement for notifying
property owners within 10 business days of a seizure.

But the bill has been opposed by law enforcement officials, partly
for the same reason other reform efforts across the country have
been stymied: money.  The officials also said it would create an
administrative burden.  In addition to tightening oversight and
the rules for civil seizures, the District proposal would cut back
on revenue.

"Enacting this Bill would almost certainly decrease the number of
successful forfeiture cases, which would lead to a loss of
significant forfeiture revenues," D.C. Attorney General Irvin B.
Nathan warned in a statement to the council last year.

Mr. Nathan, who has resigned effective Nov. 10, did not respond to
a request for an interview.  But a knowledgeable official who
spoke on the condition of anonymity because the negotiations are
ongoing said that Nathan was addressing an earlier version of the
bill.  The official said the attorney general's office thinks that
the current version is an improvement but declined to provide
details.

The bill would require that the federal proceeds from seized
property go into the city's general fund rather than to the
department.  Because the Equitable Sharing Program requires that
seizure proceeds go to the department, D.C. police would
effectively be blocked from participating in the program and using
the federal law.  That would force city police to make all
seizures under District law, which already requires that seizure
proceeds go into the general fund.

Mr. Wells said the general fund provision in the bill cannot take
effect until fiscal 2019, because the city has already budgeted
the anticipated proceeds to that point.

"That is personally offensive to me," said Mr. Wells, whose
council term ends in January.  "I want to make it fair.  There is
a financial incentive not to do that."

In a fiscal impact statement on Nov. 12, the city's chief
financial officer, Jeffrey S. DeWitt, said that the bill "could
reduce federal resources received by the District by approximately
$670,000" each year if the general fund provision takes effect.

Mr. Wells and the Public Defender Service contend that the
department's aggressive use of seizure laws -- originally intended
to fight drug kingpins and deprive them of ill-gotten riches --
has had a disproportionate impact on the poor and working class.

One case cited by the Public Defender Service involves
Sharlene Powell, who had worked for three decades as a Postal
Service employee.  She loaned her car to her son, who was stopped
and arrested on a misdemeanor drug offense.  Prosecutors dropped
the charges, but District police kept the car.  To get her car
back, Ms. Powell had to pay a $1,772 "penal sum" bond to challenge
the seizure, the Public Defender Service said in a statement last
year to the judiciary committee.


WATTS WATER: Settlement of Suit Over Toilet Connectors Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the settlement reached in the suit Trabakoolas et
al., v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., is now final,
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 March 8, 2012, Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Watts Regulator
Co., and Watts Plumbing Technologies Co., Ltd., among other
companies, were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of toilet connectors. The complaint
seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount,
replacement costs, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On December 12, 2013, the company reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims. The total settlement amount is
$23.0 million, of which the company would be responsible for $14.0
million after insurance proceeds of $9.0 million. The Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 14,
2014. On July 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the
class settlement at a fairness hearing, and issued a subsequent
written order formalizing the approval on August 5, 2014.  No
appeal was taken, and the order became final on September 4, 2014.
The litigation is now terminated. The liability was reduced by
$13.9 million for payments related to notice and claims
administration, plaintiff attorneys' fees and partial funding of
the settlement amount made during the nine months ended September
28, 2014.  The $9.0 million receivable for insurance proceeds was
received as of September 28, 2014.  The remaining liability of
$8.8 million as of September 28, 2014 will be paid over four
years.


WELLS FARGO: Appellate Court Revives Mortgage Modification Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a federal appellate court revived a pro se homeowner's case
against Wells Fargo Bank for its alleged refusal to consider him
for a mortgage loan modification program required by the terms of
the company's settlement in a class action.

Jonathan Foley of Hull, Mass., handled the District of
Massachusetts and earlier state court legs of Foley v. Wells Fargo
Bank but hired a lawyer when it went up for appeal.

On Nov. 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
vacated U.S. District Judge Dennis Saylor IV's December 2013
dismissal of two claims: breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Judge Saylor improperly converted Wells Fargo's dismissal motion
into a summary-judgment motion by sidestepping the standard and
relying on a document extraneous to the pleadings, Circuit Judge
O. Rogeriee Thompson wrote.  Judge Juan Torruella and Federal
Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk, sitting by designation, joined her.
That document was a July 2013 letter Wells Fargo sent to
Mr. Foley, which he received after he filed his lawsuit in early
August of that year.  It explained that he did not fit the income
guidelines for two loan modification programs.  Judge Thompson
wrote that Mr. Foley's contract claims were more about the bank's
alleged failure to fairly consider Foley's modification
eligibility for 1 1/2 years before it sent that letter.

"Foley was given no opportunity, let alone a reasonable one, to
collect and present evidence that would contradict Wells Fargo's.
Foley had no way to even challenge whatever numbers the bank used
to make its calculations.  Thus, Foley was provided no reasonable
opportunity to gather or present actual evidence pertinent to his
claims," Judge Thompson wrote.

The court upheld dismissal of Mr. Foley's claims under state laws
governing mortgage default and modification-eligibility notices
because he hadn't provided enough detail about the bank's alleged
violations.

"While we are certainly sympathetic to the challenges pro se
plaintiffs may face in filing a lawsuit on their own, it is not
our job, in an effort to ferret out the adequacy of a plaintiff's
pleaded allegations, to haphazardly mine documents appended to a
complaint," Judge Thompson wrote.

Mr. Foley obtained a $450,000 mortgage with a Wells Fargo
predecessor in 2005.  In October 2010, he fell behind on the
payments.  Starting at that point, he asked Wells Fargo many times
to revise his loan under the federal Home Affordable Modification
Program.  He alleges various bank delays and denials until he
filed his case.

He also claims that the bank's 2011 settlement of a California
class action required it to consider him for a different loan
modification program.

Mr. Foley's lawyer, Valeriano Diviacchi of Boston, declined to
comment except to say, "We're going back to the trial court and
hopefully we'll win there."

Wells Fargo's lawyer, David Bizar, a Boston Seyfarth Shaw partner
who co-chairs the Chicago-based firm's consumer financial services
litigation practice, declined to comment.  Wells Fargo spokesman
Tom Goyda said although the bank was disappointed, the court did
not rule on the merits of the surviving claims, only that they
will proceed.


                              *********

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  * * *