CAR_Public/141127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 236


                             Headlines

AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Misleading Drug Product Statements
AETNA INC: Faces "Isett" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN CLASSIC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: Offers Online Tool Amid iMessage Class Action
ATLANTIC POWER: Court Sets Joint Schedule in Shareholder Action

ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015
AUSTRALIA: Former Mr. Fluffy Home Owner Files Mesothelioma Suit
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Silver-Price Fixing
BANKRATE INC: Plaintiff in "Tong" Case Dismisses Action
BARNES AND NOBLE: Assistant Store Managers File OT Class Action

BITCASA: Faces Class Action Over Infinite Storage Service
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 11
BMO FINANCIAL: "Prena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BODY CENTRAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for January 21
BUDDY BEE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BURGER KING: Parties Working to Finalize Settlement Agreement
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC: Sued Over Failure Steam Generator Project
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reich" Suit Claims
CARLYLE GROUP: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval on Feb. 11
CASTLE 5 LLC: "Kwon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CENTURYLINK INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq et al Defending Appeal in "Fulghum" Case
CENTURYLINK INC: Provides Update on Fiber Optic Cable Class Suits
CHOPS STEAKHOUSE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued in D.C. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

COCA-COLA CO: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Security Breach
COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
CU EMPLOYMENT: "Best" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CYAN INC: Court Overrules Defendants' Demurrer in Class Action
DIRECT IMPORT: Judge Scolds Attorneys in Labor Class Action

DYNEGY INC: Deadline to Lodge Supreme Court Appeal Still Pending
EL BRILLANTE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vasconcello" Suit Says
ENERGY XXI: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Indefinitely Extended
FAIRWAY GROUP: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action
FAIRWAY GROUP: To Defend Against Wage and Hour Class Action

FASHION INSTITUTE: Faces "Vu" Suit in Cal. Over Breach of ERISA
FLORIDA: Judge Expects to Rule on Medicaid Class Action This Month
GLOBAL NOMADS: "Pititto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
GREAT LAKES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
GUCCI AMERICA: Faces Intern Class Action in New York

HOME DEPOT: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
INVESTMENT EMPORIUM: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ISOPURE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Powder Products, Suit Claims
JOSE ARROYO: "Landaverde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JPM MANAGEMENT: "Stein" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Primedia Merger Actions
KKR & CO: Feb. 11 Hearing to Approve Definitive Agreement
KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed KFN Shareholders' Case
LEANSPA: Settles FTC Suit Over Use of Fake News Websites
LENNOX NATIONAL: "Prescott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: 3rd Cir. Hears Argument on Retaliation Claims
MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MERCURY NEW HOLDCO: Plaintiffs Drop Motion to Expedite Hearing
MSTREET MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MUSCLEPHARM CORPORATION: Sued Over Deceptive Product Presentation

NATIONAL BEEF: Settles Wage & OT Class Action for $350,000
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Drug Agents Conduct Medical Staff Probe
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Hears Grievances Over Concussion Accord
NEW YORK: "Occupy Wall Street" Demonstrators File Suit
NEWS CORP: Plaintiffs in Wilder Case Oppose Motion to Dismiss

NEWS CORP: Settlement in Canadian Actions Approved
NEWS CORP: NAM Group Opposes Certification Motion
OKLAHOMA: DUI License Revocation Suit Qualifies as Class Action
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Leave to Amend Suit in Hotel Booking Case Nixed

PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Lawsuits Over Eltroxin in Early Stages
PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Supreme Court Affirmed Dist. Court Ruling
PERRIGO COMPANY: Defendant in Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits
PHARMERICA CORPORATION: No Hearing Yet on Class Certification Bid

PINSTRIPES INC:  Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRINCIPAL LIFE: Faces "Razo" Suit in Iowa Over Violation of ERISA
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lowenbein" Suit Over Breach of FDCA
RANCHO SANTO: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RAYONIER INC: Sued in Florida Over Misleading Financial Reports

REXNORD CORPORATION: Class Action Plaintiffs' Attorney Fees Paid
REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Defendants Answer Second Amended Complaint
SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of Securities Laws
SEVENTH GENERATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Labeling
SIRIUS XM: Motion for Summary Judgment in Copyright Suit Nixed

SIXT RENT: "Ojeda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SODEXO INC: Faces "Chandler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOLARCITY CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Class Action
SPECTRUM FINANCIAL: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
STARION ENERGY: Faces $50MM Class Action Over Electric Bill

STONEMOR PARTNERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Neely" Suit Over Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces RJR Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn

SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Face Gilbert Jones Suit Over Viptera Corn
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Shader" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Gerhart" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TRULIA INC: Dec. 3 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Shareholder Class Action Appeal Ongoing
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Reveals Issue on Bogus Courses
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Timely File Mortgage Certificate, Suit Says
WIND RESISTANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Sierra" Suit Says

WOLF OIL: Faces "Bahr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ZILLOW INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
ZILLOW INC: Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing Set for Dec. 3

* Clement, Tribe to Challenge FDA Over Lab Test Regulation
* Oregon Spent $50MM in Resolving Employment Claims in 10 Years
* Some FLSA-Related Suits Subject to Dismissal Over Lack of Facts
* US DOJ Collects $24.7 Billion in Penalties From Big Banks


                            *********


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Misleading Drug Product Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Silverberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aeterna Zentaris Inc., Jude Dinges, David A.
Dodd, Juergen Engel, and Dennis Turpin, Case No. 3:14-cv-07164
(D.N.J., November 14, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
safety and efficacy of the Company's drug products, which caused
the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflate price.

Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in
the development of novel treatments in oncology and endocrinology.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Aeterna
Zentaris Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS.
      210 Summit Avenue
      Montvale, NJ 07645
      Telephone: (201) 391-7000
      E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-5050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655


AETNA INC: Faces "Isett" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Isett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. Aetna Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01698 (D.
Conn., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per
week.

Aetna Inc. is a health and supplemental benefits company,
providing health insurance benefits under health maintenance
organization, Private Fee-For-Service, and preferred provider
organization plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


AMERICAN CLASSIC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Hernandez and Ruben Yanez-Monroy, individually and on
behalf of other employees similarly situated v. American Classic
Finishes, Inc. and Marek Kosciuch, Case No. 1:14-cv-09216 (N.D.
Ill., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

American Classic Finishes, Inc. owns and operates a Commercial
Construction company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


APPLE INC: Offers Online Tool Amid iMessage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Aira Quintana, writing for Ecumenical News, reports that U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., has issued an order
for Apple, Inc. to face Adrienne Moore, a complainant that has
filed a lawsuit vs. the tech giant over vanishing messages when
she switched from an iPhone 4 to Galaxy S5 using the same Verizon
Wireless service.

"Plaintiff does not have to allege an absolute right to receive
every text message in order to allege that Apple's intentional
acts have caused an actual breach or disruption of the contractual
relationship," Judge Koh wrote, as reported by Reuters.

Judge Koh has also consolidated previous cases filed in May and
Moore's into a single lawsuit last Nov. 14.  She also requested
plaintiffs to submit amended and complete class action lawsuit on
or before Dec. 4, 2014.

In their response to the charges filed, the company established
the fact that they did not claim that iMessage services would
recognize when iPhone users switched to non-Apple devices.

"Apple takes customer satisfaction extremely seriously, but the
law does not provide a remedy when, as here, technology simply
does not function as plaintiff subjectively believes it should,"
the Cupertino, California-based company said.

Apple first introduced iMessage system together with iOS 5. Now,
its revamped service is one of iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite's
cornerstone, allowing users to create and receive messages using
Macbook.  The latest Apple OS for mobile phones is also capable of
sending photo and voice messages.

The company has also offered an online tool to assist users that
are trading their iPhones for non-Apple smartphones.  The site
boldly instructs to "Deregister iMessage".

Aside from a prowling class lawsuit, Apple is also facing another
threat, this time in the form of an iOS malware that can menace
millions of users around the world.

Ecumenical News recently reported that a certain "Wirelurker" can
mask itself as an ordinary iOS app and can penetrate the
smartphone's system whenever a user agrees to update the app.


ATLANTIC POWER: Court Sets Joint Schedule in Shareholder Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
entered an order setting a joint schedule filed by the Lead
Plaintiff and Defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuits
in Massachusetts District Court.

Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
entered an order setting a joint schedule filed by the Lead
Plaintiff and Defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuits
in Massachusetts District Court.

On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported
securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District
Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the Company's
former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director
of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr.
Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, its former Chief Financial
Officer, Lisa Donahue, its former interim Chief Financial Officer,
and Terrence Ronan, its current Chief Financial Officer, in
certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual Defendants," and
together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed Defendants") (the
"U.S. Actions").

The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named
plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23,
2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and
August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District
Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic
Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint.

On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to
consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel
confirmed.  On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions.

On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to
address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions,
entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed
two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental
submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions,
and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court
granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were
filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which
sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion.

The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead
Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before
May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before
July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an
opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead
Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014.

Proposed Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by
Lead Plaintiff. On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed
application and proposed order, which sought another extension of
the schedule, and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed
Defendants jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order
requesting the following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be
permitted to file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014,
(ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5,
2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if
any, on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed
Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's
opposition on or before November 20, 2014.

On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested
schedule.

On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press
releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with
analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability
of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially
inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the
class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims
under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the
Individual Defendants.

In accordance with the schedule referenced above, Defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the consolidated (the "Motion to Dismiss")
U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014
announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO
transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion")
requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline
for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in
which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint.

On October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead
Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file
their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In
accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed
their opposition to the Extension Motion.

On October 10, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition") and also filed a motion for
leave to amend the Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second
amended complaint. On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and
Defendants filed a joint scheduling motion requesting (i) November
7, 2014 as the deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to
Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint;
(ii) November 24, 2014 as the deadline for Defendants to file
their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii)
November 24, 2014 as the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its
reply in further support of its motion for leave to amend the
Amended Complaint. On October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order
setting this requested schedule.

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.


ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the proposed
class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30, 2015 to follow
the action in Ontario.

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the Company's former
President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director of
Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr.
Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, its former Chief Financial
Officer, Lisa Donahue, its former interim Chief Financial Officer,
and Terrence Ronan, its current Chief Financial Officer, were
issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and
in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible
debentures, with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the
Province of Ontario.

On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action
against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court
of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating
to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this
claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as
Defendants. The Plaintiffs seeks leave to commence an action for
statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and
asserts common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs'
allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings
and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the statutory and common law claims
under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who purchased
and held securities through a proposed class period of November 5,
2012 to February 28, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million.

A schedule for the Plaintiffs' motions and the action is set that
contemplates a hearing on leave and certification during the week
of March 30, 2015.

The proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30, 2015
to follow the action in Ontario.

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.


AUSTRALIA: Former Mr. Fluffy Home Owner Files Mesothelioma Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Mosley, writing for 7 News, reports that a former owner of a
Mr. Fluffy loose-fill asbestos house who has incurable cancer is
seeking damages from the Commonwealth.

The man bought a so-called Mr. Fluffy house in the Canberra suburb
of Macgregor in 1978 and lived there with his family for 25 years.

Earlier this year, the 84-year-old was diagnosed with the
aggressive cancer mesothelioma -- a rare and often fatal condition
that is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos.  He has now
launched a personal injury claim against the Commonwealth in the
Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.  He has alleged that he
contracted mesothelioma as a result of living in a Mr. Fluffy
house and the Commonwealth was negligent.

The Commonwealth ran the ACT when the potentially deadly loose-
fill asbestos insulation was pumped into more than 1,000 Canberra
homes, in the 1960s and 1970s, by an operator that became known as
Mr. Fluffy.

The Commonwealth paid to have the roofs of the houses cleaned in
the late 1980s and early 1990s and they were declared safe to live
in.  But it was recently revealed that the substance had made its
way into the walls and subfloors of houses.

In January the ACT Government will begin making payments for a
buyback and demolition scheme for Mr. Fluffy homes across
Canberra, after the Government received a concessional loan of
AU$1 billion from the Commonwealth.

The man is seeking unspecified damages.

The matter was set down for a directions hearing on Nov. 18.

The ABC has decided not to name the man for privacy reasons.

The man is being represented by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

The firm said it had spoken with other affected residents about
their potential legal rights and entitlements.

But Brianna Heseltine from the Fluffy Owners and Residents Action
Group said law firm Maurice Blackburn was investigating a
potential class action on behalf of Mr. Fluffy home owners.

Ms. Heseltine said a class action was infeasible because of
statute of limitation restrictions, although people may choose to
engage lawyers individually.

"The response was that the different courses of action probably
meant that too much time had passed, so ultimately a statute of
limitations issue arises and if you have the course of action
coming more than six years ago you can't bring proceedings," she
said.

The ACT Government has announced the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts will hold an inquiry into the proposed Appropriation
(Loose-fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication) Bill 2014-15.

The legislation will allow the use of funds from the Federal
Government's $1 billion concessional loan to help pay for the
buyback and demolition scheme for 1,021 properties affected by
loose-fill insulation.

Victims and stakeholder groups are being approached for input and
written submissions will be sought.

The Legislative Assembly committee will hold the public hearing on
November 28, 2014.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Silver-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry and Rebecca Barrett, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Deutsche Bank, AG, HSBC
Bank U.S.A. N.A., HSBC Bank PLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09112 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 14, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired and
agreed with one another to intentionally manipulate the price of
silver and of silver derivative.

The Defendants are three of the world's largest silver bullion
banks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653


BANKRATE INC: Plaintiff in "Tong" Case Dismisses Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc., in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 6, 2014, provided a business update,
including preliminary selected financial results for the three
months ended September 30, 2014. These results are preliminary due
to the additional time needed to complete the Company's review of
its financial statements for the prior periods and the impact, if
any, of such review on the Company's results for the three months
ended September 30, 2014.  Due to the ongoing review of the
Company's financial statements, the Company has provided only
selected financial data, which is subject to change, in this press
release.

In September and October 2014, the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in three substantially similar putative class action lawsuits
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  On the basis of the
press release issued by the Company on September 14, 2014 and
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on September 15,
2014 regarding the ongoing investigation by the SEC and the review
being conducted by the Company's Audit Committee, the complaints
in these actions allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements about, and failed to
disclose, alleged errors in the Company's financial statements
relating to the improper recognition of revenues and expenses, and
allegedly inadequate internal controls over financial reporting;
and that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading.

The first of the three lawsuits, Tong v. Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-
8113-KLR, was filed on September 17, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and sought to
recover damages on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's
securities between March 1, 2013 and September 15, 2014,
inclusive.  The second, Atiyeh v. Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443
(JFK), was filed on October 22, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and seeks to recover
damages on behalf of the same proposed class of investors.  The
third, Jahm v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-81323-DMM, was
filed on October 28, 2014 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and seeks to recover damages on
behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than
the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between
October 16, 2012 and September 15, 2014, inclusive.  On October
24, 2014, the plaintiff in Tong filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal, terminating that action; the other two actions are
proceeding.

Bankrate is a publisher, aggregator and distributor of personal
finance content on the Internet.


BARNES AND NOBLE: Assistant Store Managers File OT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Barnes and Noble is facing
an unpaid overtime lawsuit to prove it.  The potential class
action is seeking nationwide certification.  The lawsuit was filed
by the company's assistant store managers who allege they were
misclassified as exempt from overtime and that their primary role
was not to supervise other employees but rather to provide
customer service.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for a nationwide class.

According to the plaintiffs, B&N assistant store manager positions
are misclassified as exempt under state and federal law.
Specifically, while some managerial work is required, assistant
store managers have been "primarily engaged in the same routine
tasks as hourly employees."  Those tasks include helping customers
find merchandise, working cash registers, stocking shelves and
helping out in the store's cafe area, the class certification
motion states.

According to the complaint, B&N assistant store managers spent
between 75 percent and 90 percent of their time completing the
same types of "hourly duties" that other employees were required
to perform.  Further, the plaintiffs claim that the work required
of assistant store managers was governed by B&N's nationwide
policy, making the case ripe for class certification.  "At B&N,
all ASMs are required to follow closely circumscribed corporate
policies and rules established by their store manager," the motion
said. "These policies are implemented across the B&N brand and
ASMs are prohibited from deviating from these guidelines."

The motion is seeking class certification of New York assistant
managers who worked at B&N between January 25, 2007, and July 2010
and conditional certification under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act for a nationwide class.  B&N reclassified the
assistant store manager position in June 2010.

The case Steven Trimmer et al. v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al., case
number 1:13-cv-00579, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


BITCASA: Faces Class Action Over Infinite Storage Service
---------------------------------------------------------
Business Cloud News reports that cloud storage provider Bitcasa is
facing a class action lawsuit in the US over its controversial
decision to force existing users of its infinite storage service
to migrate onto more expensive, lower volume plans.

In October, as part of significant upgrades to the service's back-
end, the company announced that it would be discontinuing its
infinite storage plan, which cost $99 per year, and forcing
infinite tier subscribers to move to (significantly more
expensive) 1TB or 10TB storage plans to continue using the
service.

"While our Infinite offering was one of our early value
propositions, we have since found that only a small percentage of
people use it (only 0.5 percent of our accounts require more than
1TB, and less than 0.1 percent require more than 10TB)," the
company explained in a blog post.

"Also, the reality is while we have tried to make our vision of
infinite work, the low demand combined with the growing number of
suspected abusers, means that supporting an Infinite plan is not a
viable business for us."

As part of the change, users initially had between October 22 and
November 16 to transfer their data to the new service, or the
account and all of the data associated with it would be deleted.
But a group of users represented by US law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein are suing Bitcasa on behalf of subscribers of
its infinite plan, charging that the company breached their
contracts and violated California law.

The complaint seeks damages against Bitcasa and an order ensuring
that infinite plan subscribers will have sufficient time to remove
their digital files from Bitcasa's cloud computing platform; the
law firm said three weeks is insufficient period for many
subscribers to download their voluminous files and save them in a
separate location.

Bitcasa claims that because of its encryption technology, it
cannot simply migrate accounts over to the new backend, and that
some action is required from subscribers.

The November 16 deadline was extended by the court until
November 20, a day after a hearing is scheduled, and when the
court is to determine the merits of plaintiffs' request that the
injunction remain in place for a longer period.

Bitcasa did not respond to requests for comment by the time this
article was published.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group 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 the court has
scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for February 11,
2015 in a lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and
investment banks.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.). The suit alleges that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.

On July 28, 2014, Blackstone entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve all of plaintiffs' claims without any admission of
wrongdoing. On August 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and the
agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29,
2014. The settlement agreement provides for a settlement payment
to the class that was substantially covered by insurance and did
not have a material effect on our financial condition or results
of operations. The settlement agreement is subject to final
approval by the court and the court has scheduled a final
settlement approval hearing for February 11, 2015.

The Blackstone Group L.P., together with its subsidiaries, is a
global manager of private capital and provider of financial
advisory services.


BMO FINANCIAL: "Prena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Prena, Tedra Jackson, Stacey Charran, and Jeffrey Spratt,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMO
Financial Corp., and BMO Harris Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-09175
(N.D. Ill., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Financial Corp. and BMO Harris Bank, N.A. are one of the 16
largest commercial banks in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


BODY CENTRAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for January 21
---------------------------------------------------------
Body Central 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 27, 2014, that a settlement
hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2015 in the class action,
Mogensen v. Body Central Corp. et al.

On August 27, 2012, a securities class action, Mogensen v. Body
Central Corp. et al., 3:12-cv-00954, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors.  An amended complaint, filed on February
22, 2013, on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock
between November 10, 2011 and June 18, 2012, alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or
misleading statements about the business and operations, thereby
causing the stock price to be artificially inflated during that
period.  The amended complaint seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees.

On March 19, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The court gave plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

A second amended complaint was subsequently filed on April 23,
2014, which, in addition to the allegations previously filed,
further alleges that one of the defendants, a former officer and
director, violated Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934. On May 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

On July 18, 2014, the parties informed the court that the parties
had reached an agreement in principle to settle this action for
$3.4 million and requested a 30-day extension to allow the parties
an opportunity to execute a settlement agreement. A settlement
agreement was subsequently entered in to and a settlement hearing
is scheduled for January 21, 2015.

The Company does not believe that the outcome of the class action
will have a material adverse effect on the business, financial
statements, or disclosures as it is fully insured subject to an
insurance deductible of $200,000 recorded in fiscal 2012.

Founded in 1972, Body Central Corp., a Delaware company, is a
multi-channel specialty retailer offering on-trend, quality
apparel and accessories at value prices.


BUDDY BEE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jameka Brown and other similarly situated individuals v. Buddy Bee
Corporation d/b/a Take One Lounge, a Florida Corporation, Karen
Raley and Scott Cohen, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24368 (S.D.
Fla., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an entertainment center in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ria Nikki Chattergoon, Esq.
      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ AND ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: ria@saenzanderson.com
              msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BURGER KING: Parties Working to Finalize Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, 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 agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a class action
lawsuit and the parties are currently working to finalize a
settlement agreement and then expect to seek court approval of the
settlement.

On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against BKC in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint
alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements
by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the
United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of
the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Burger King franchises and operates fast food hamburger
restaurants, principally under the Burger King(R) brand.


CALIFORNIA PUBLIC: Sued Over Failure Steam Generator Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Oversight, Inc., a Delaware non-profit corporation, Ruth
Henricks, Nicole Murray Ramirez, Niel Lynch, Hugh Moore, David
Keeler, Francis Karl Holtzman, Roger Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and a class of others similarly situated v. California
Public Utilities Commission, Michael R. Peevey and Michel Peter
Florio, in their official capacity as Commissioners, Southern
California Edison Company, a California corporation, and Does 1-
100, Case No. 3:14-cv-02703 (S.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), arises
out of a failed project to install four new steam generators at
San Onofre in North County, San Diego.

California Public Utilities Commission is a regulatory agency that
is charged under California law with the legal duty of ensuring
public utilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria C. Severson, Esq.
      AGUIRRE AND SEVERSON, LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1050
      San Diego, CA 92101-3597
      Telephone: (619) 876-5364
      Facsimile: (619) 876-5368
      E-mail: mseverson@amslawyers.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reich" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Reich on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Capital Management Services, Case No. 1:14-cv-06750
(E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
unlawfully engaged in the collection of consumer debts in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Capital Management Services is a fee-only advisory and financial
planning firm.

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


CARLYLE GROUP: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval on Feb. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group 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 on February 14,
2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging "club" bids and
other alleged anti-competitive business practices was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Police and
Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Apollo Global
Management, LLC, later renamed Kirk Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners
LLC). The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
global alternative asset firms, including the Partnership,
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming multi-sponsor
consortiums for the purpose of bidding collectively in company
buyout transactions in certain going private transactions and
agreeing not to submit topping bids once such a consortium had
announced a signed deal, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a
"conspiracy in restraint of trade." All of Carlyle's codefendants
reached settlement agreements with plaintiffs. To avoid the risk
and cost associated with continuing the litigation through trial,
Carlyle entered into an agreement with plaintiffs on August 29,
2014 to settle all claims against Carlyle without any admission of
liability. The Court granted preliminary approval of all the
defendants' settlements, including Carlyle's, on September 29,
2014. A hearing on final approval of the settlements is scheduled
for February 11, 2015. Carlyle Partners IV, L.P. ("CP IV") and its
affiliates will bear the costs of the settlement not covered by
insurance. As a result, Carlyle's performance fees from CP IV were
reduced by $19.3 million.


CASTLE 5 LLC: "Kwon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kwon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Castle 5, LLC d/b/a Chapel Beauty Supply, a Georgia
Corporation, Beauty of America, LLC d/b/a Chapel Beauty Supply, a
Georgia Corporation, and Nam K. Park, Case No. 1:14-cv-03665 (N.D.
Ga., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidates damages, attorney's fees, costs, and
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Castle Beauty retail stores within
the State of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
      Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
      P.O. Box 1070
      Tucker, GA 30085-1070
      Telephone: (770) 313-5538
      Facsimile: (770) 837-2678
      E-mail: Kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com
              tfmartinlaw@msn.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Bultemeyer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CenturyLink, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02530 (D. Ariz.,
November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

CenturyLink, Inc. is a provider of telecommunications services in
the Phoenix metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq et al Defending Appeal in "Fulghum" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 Embarq and the
other defendants are defending an appeal in the Fulghum case.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class
action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain
modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life
insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,
generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at
the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated
future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300
million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans,
its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan
administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional
defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.

The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but
rejected class certification as to other claims.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at
issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members
of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly
vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are
similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II),
on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court
has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited
discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the
plaintiffs.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum
court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Embarq and the other defendants are defending the appeal, continue
to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to
have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds.

"We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we
believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is
warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of
probable liability," the Company said.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of communications services to its
residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers.


CENTURYLINK INC: Provides Update on Fiber Optic Cable Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 several putative
class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in
certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of
landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in
which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)
For the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to
install the Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.
The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as
an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company
to install the Company's cable in the right-of-way without the
plaintiffs' consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on
theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive
damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide
settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties
proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-
state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of
such settlements in 30 states. The settlement administration
process, including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing
in relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not
yet received final approval in one state (Texas), and have not yet
received either preliminary or final approval in two states where
an action is pending (Massachusetts and New Mexico) and one state
where an action was at one time, but is not currently, pending
(Arizona).

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of communications services to its
residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers.


CHOPS STEAKHOUSE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exequiel Vasquez Castillo and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Chops Steakhouse, LLC and Isaac Nahon, Case
No. 1:14-cv-24356 (S.D. Fla., November 16, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dade 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


CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued in D.C. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Chrysler Group LLC,
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc., and Mitsubishi
Electric US, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01920 (D.D.C., November 14,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Audio Home Recording Act, specifically by failing to register
their digital audio recording devices with the U.S. Copyright
Office, failing to pay royalties for these devices, and not having
incorporated the Serial Copy Management System or its functional
equivalent in these devices.

Chrysler Group LLC designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes
automotive vehicles in the United States under the Chrysler, Jeep,
Dodge, Ram and Fiat brands.

Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc., and Mitsubishi
Electric US, Inc. supply Chrysler with devices that are installed
in and distributed with Chrysler's vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Oakes, Esq.
      Michael David Bednarek, Esq.
      Walter D. Davis Jr., Esq.
      Richard Brian Dagen, Esq.
      AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
      950 F Street, NW, 7th Floor
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 721-5403
      E-mail: doakes@axinn.com
              mbednarek@axinn.com
              wdavis@axinn.com
              rdagen@axinn.com


COCA-COLA CO: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a former employee has filed a putative class action against The
Coca-Cola Co. for allegedly failing to alert workers that their
personal information was at risk following the theft of 55 laptop
computers, blaming the company for being more careful in
protecting the formula for its iconic beverage than in
safeguarding them against identity theft.

Former Coca-Cola service technician Shane Enslin alleges that, due
to the lack of encryption of the sensitive data and Coca-Cola's
delay in notifying him and others of the loss, he fell victim to
identity thieves who used $1,784 from his checking account to
order merchandise from Bloomingdale's and make a purchase from
Fingerhut.

"In spite of the diligence with which they guard this trade
secret, the Coke defendants had no security policy in effect which
required their employees' personal information entrusted to their
care to be encrypted," according to the complaint in Enslin v.
Coca-Cola, which includes as defendants various Coca-Cola
subsidiaries and offshoots.

According to his Nov. 12 filing in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the thieves used Ms. Enslin's
information -- believed to include his Social Security number,
address, and bank and credit account numbers -- to make a purchase
in Ireland after getting a bank to reissue a credit card Ms.
Enslin had closed after learning of the breach.  A perpetrator
even used Ms. Enslin's information to get a job in his name at
United Parcel Service.

Ms. Enslin alleges Coca-Cola was also negligent in delaying the
notification of as many as 74,000 current and former employees of
the theft, which he said occurred from 2007 until it was
discovered in November 2013.  It wasn't until Jan. 23 that
Ms. Enslin was apprised in a letter from Coca Cola.

The company offered to pay for 12 months of credit monitoring for
Ms. Enslin and others whose information was compromised, according
to the letter.  According to the complaint, a suspect was arrested
by Cobb County, Ga., police and charged with felony and
misdemeanor theft by taking on June 14.

Ms. Enslin, who worked for Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. in
Pennsylvania for 11 years before leaving in 2007, alleges the
defendants engaged in violations of the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation in
connection with the delay in notification, breaches of contract
and covenant of good faith, and unjust enrichment, among other
counts.

He seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
25 years of credit monitoring, bank monitoring and credit
restoration services for the class.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with Haviland Hughes.


COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint 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 Charles Rankin has
been appointed lead plaintiff in a class action and the lead
plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Covisint Corporation, directors and certain officers at
the time of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging
violation of securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO
and seeking unspecified damages. On August 15, 2014, the cases
were consolidated with Charles Rankin appointed lead plaintiff.
October 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform for enabling
organizations to securely connect, engage and collaborate with
large, distributed communities of customers, business partners,
and suppliers.


CU EMPLOYMENT: "Best" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Best, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. C.U. Employment, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03673 (N.D.
Ga., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

C.U. Employment, Inc. is a cable installation provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deirdre M. Stephens-Johnson, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF DIERDRE M. STEPHENS-JOHNSON, LLC
      4567 Rockbridge Road # 1537
      Pine Lake, GA 30072
      Telephone: (404) 537-3002
      E-mail: dsjohnsonlaw@gmail.com


CYAN INC: Court Overrules Defendants' Demurrer in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyan 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 overruled a
demurrer (motion to dismiss) filed by the Company and other
defendants in a stockholder class action lawsuit.

On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company, the members of the Company's Board
of Directors, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO.  On April 30, 2014 a
substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against
the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of
the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's IPO, and
seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

In July 2014, the Company and other defendants filed a demurrer
(motion to dismiss) to the consolidated complaint. On October 22,
2014, the court overruled the demurrer and allowed the case to
proceed. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.
Based on information currently available, the Company has
determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable.

Cyan, Inc. has pioneered innovative, carrier-grade networking
solutions that transform disparate and inefficient legacy networks
into open, high-performance networks.


DIRECT IMPORT: Judge Scolds Attorneys in Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
imparting guidance far more common in a kindergarten classroom
than a federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Patricia Gaughan
found herself ordering defense counsel to remember that it is not
nice to pound your fist on the table during a deposition, and
reminding the plaintiffs' attorney that it is rude to interrupt
when another person is talking.

That was the substance of an order Judge Gaughan issued on Nov. 12
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denying
the plaintiffs' motion to sanction defense attorney James Boulas
in a conditionally certified class action brought by a Cleveland
laborer against his former employers.

By all accounts, Sardisco v. Direct Import Home Decor is a
contentious and volatile case, allegedly involving exploitation of
undocumented workers, beatings, threats, a paid-off plaintiff and
strong-arm pressure to settle.  Lead plaintiff Felix Sardisco
alleges Direct Import and its owners, who include Eddie Ni and
Eric Chung, never made good on their agreement to pay him $1,400 a
month and provide free housing when he began work there in 2011.

Instead, they allegedly forced him to work 10 hours a day, or
longer, for $500 a week; never paid overtime; and made him pay
rent for a bedbug-infested room.  Mr. Sardisco, a U.S. citizen,
alleges the company abused undocumented workers and took no action
when he complained that he was being beaten by a foreman.  The
complaint accuses the defendants of violating the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and engaging in fraud, fraudulent inducement,
and assault and battery.

Mr. Sardisco's fellow plaintiff, Guang Chen, filed a similar FLSA
claim for allegedly never receiving overtime compensation.  But he
withdrew as a plaintiff after "influential" members of the local
Chinese community advised him it was not in his best interest to
pursue the case, according to the motion for sanctions by Lei
Jiang, his and Mr. Sardisco's counsel.  Without Mr. Jiang's
knowledge, Chen allegedly reached an "under-the-table" settlement
with one of the defendants, the motion contends.

Because of that alleged secret deal, and the "undue influence"
exerted on Chen, the defendants intentionally interfered with
Jiang's attorney-client relationship and engaged in witness
tampering and conspiracy, and should be sanctioned, Mr. Jiang
argued.  And defense counsel Mr. Boulas' allegedly boorish
behavior during the Oct. 15 deposition of Sardisco also merits
sanction, her motion saus.  Mr. Boulas allegedly yelled at both
Messrs. Sardisco and Jiang repeatedly during the three-hour
deposition and allegedly intimidated and bullied Mr. Sardisco, who
is hard of hearing and unfamiliar with legal terms, by shouting at
him when Mr. Sardisco indicated he didn't understand.

"Attorney Boulas' behavior was also physically terrifying; at one
point, he began pounding violently on the table as plaintiff
Sardisco struggled to understand what Boulas was asking of him,"
Mr. Jiang alleged.

Judge Gaughan was not persuaded that the circumstances of the
settlement with Chen merited a rebuke.  "Simply put, plaintiffs do
not establish that plaintiff's Chen (sic) settlement with
defendants warrants sanctions," Judge Gaughan wrote in an Oct. 23
order.

As for the conduct during Mr. Sardisco's deposition, Judge Gaughan
wagged a rhetorical finger at both parties.  The judge said the
record supports Boulas' complaint that "throughout the entire
deposition, counsel for the plaintiff routinely interrupted the
deposition and attempted to answer questions on the plaintiff's
behalf."  Thus, Judge Gaughan wrote, "plaintiff's counsel did not
abide by the rules governing depositions."

And Mr. Boulas? The judge called his conduct disturbing and
reminded the defense attorney that, "regardless of how frustrating
or difficult an opposing counsel may be, the type of conduct he
displayed is never appropriate."

Judge Gaughan denied the motion for sanctions and warned each
party that she would not tolerate such behavior in the future.


DYNEGY INC: Deadline to Lodge Supreme Court Appeal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy 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 connection with the
prepetition restructuring and corporate reorganization of the
Dynegy Holdings, LLC (formerly known as Dynegy Holdings Inc.)
Debtor Entities and their non-debtor affiliates in 2011 (the "2011
Prepetition Restructuring"), and specifically the transfer of
Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC or DMG, a putative class action
stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et
al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the "Securities Litigation"), was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit challenged certain disclosures made in connection with
the transfer of DMG.

As a result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy
by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and
as a result of the confirmation of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the
"Plan"), the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities
Litigation are permanently enjoined.

On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan
asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be
permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions
(the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative
class members. We opposed that relief. On October 1, 2012, the
Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff did not have standing
to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-out of the
Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-interest.

Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed against
the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the putative
class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor Releases. The
lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2012. On
June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal. On July 3,
2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed a brief on
November 4, 2013.

On October 31, 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal based upon the lead plaintiff's lack of
standing. The lead plaintiff's appellate deadline to the U.S.
Supreme Court remains pending.

Additionally, on July 19, 2013, the defendants filed a substantive
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims by any opt-out
plaintiffs against the non-debtor defendants. On April 30, 2014,
the District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed
the action.  Plaintiff is appealing this decision to the Second
Circuit, but no decision has been issued.


EL BRILLANTE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vasconcello" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia A. Vasconcello and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. El Brillante Supermarket Restaurant, Inc., Jaime
A. Marine, and Jesus Bermudez, Case No. 1:14-cv-24331 (S.D. Fla.,
November 14, 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 a grocery store and cafeteria in
Miami, 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


ENERGY XXI: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Indefinitely Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy XXI LTD 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
date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to a class
action lawsuit has been indefinitely extended.

In March and April, 2014, three alleged EPL stockholders (the
"plaintiffs") filed three separate class action lawsuits in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of EPL
stockholders against EPL, its directors, Energy XXI, Energy XXI
Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Energy XXI ("OpCo"), and Clyde Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of OpCo
("Merger Sub" and collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on
May 5, 2014. The consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil &
Gas Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit").

Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provides for the
acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs allege that (a) EPL's
directors have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger and (b) Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL have
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on their
allegations that (i) the merger allegedly provided inadequate
consideration to EPL stockholders for their shares of EPL common
stock; (ii) the merger agreement contains contractual terms  --
including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B) "competing
proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions  --  that
allegedly dissuaded other potential acquirers from making
competing offers for shares of EPL common stock; (iii) certain of
EPL's officers and directors allegedly received benefits  --
including (A) an offer for one of EPL's directors to join the
Energy XXI board of directors and (B) the triggering of change-in-
control provisions in notes held by EPL's executive officers  --
that were not equally shared by EPL's stockholders; (iv) Energy
XXI required EPL's officers and directors to agree to vote their
shares of EPL common stock in favor of the merger; and (v) EPL
provided, and Energy XXI obtained, non-public information that
allegedly allowed Energy XXI to acquire EPL for inadequate
consideration. Plaintiffs also allege that the Registration
Statement filed on Form S-4 by EPL and Energy XXI on April 1, 2014
omits information concerning, among other things, (i) the events
leading up to the merger, (ii) EPL's efforts to attract offers
from other potential acquirors, (iii) EPL's evaluation of the
merger; (iv) negotiations between EPL and Energy XXI, and (v) the
analysis of EPL's financial advisor. Based on these allegations,
plaintiffs seek to have the merger agreement rescinded. Plaintiffs
also seek damages and attorneys' fees.

Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond
to the lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. Neither Energy XXI
nor EPL can predict the outcome of the lawsuit or any others that
might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this
quarterly report; nor can either Energy XXI or EPL predict the
amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the
lawsuit. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Energy XXI Ltd and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is an independent
oil and natural gas exploration and production company.


FAIRWAY GROUP: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings 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 28, 2014, that the
Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss an amended
securities class action.

In February and March 2014, three purported securities class
action lawsuits alleging violation of the federal securities laws
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, certain of its directors and the
underwriters for its initial public offering. The actions were
consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group
Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950.

On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed,
adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications
regarding its business and financial results.

On September 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the amended class action complaint.

Fairway Group operates in the retail food industry, selling fresh,
natural and organic products, prepared foods and hard to find
specialty and gourmet offerings along with a full assortment of
conventional groceries.


FAIRWAY GROUP: To Defend Against Wage and Hour Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings 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 28, 2014, that in May
2014, a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and employees.  This suit alleges, among other things,
that certain of the Company's past and current employees were not
properly compensated in accordance with the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  While the Company believes that
these claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter
vigorously, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation.

Fairway Group operates in the retail food industry, selling fresh,
natural and organic products, prepared foods and hard to find
specialty and gourmet offerings along with a full assortment of
conventional groceries.


FASHION INSTITUTE: Faces "Vu" Suit in Cal. Over Breach of ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saeyoung Vu, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Fashion Institute Of Design & Merchandising, a
California Corporation, The Fashion Institute Of Design &
Merchandising 401(K) Plan, Case No. 2:14-cv-08822 (C.D. Cal.,
November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising is for-profit
private college in California offering bachelors and associates
degrees related to the fashion industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
      Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
      ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558
      Telephone: (310) 670-1600
      Facsimile: (310) 670-1231
      E-mail: mozzello@aogllp.com
              slee@aogllp.com

         - and -

      Robert R. Ronne, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. RONNE, APC
      840 Apollo Street, Suite 307
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-1696
      Facsimile: (310) 322-3039
      E-mail: rrr55@sbcglobal.net


FLORIDA: Judge Expects to Rule on Medicaid Class Action This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Galewitz, writing for Standard Examiner, reports that
millions of low-income children are failing to get the free
preventive exams and screenings guaranteed by Medicaid and the
Obama administration is not doing enough to fix the problem,
according to a federal watchdog report.

The report, released on Nov. 13 by the Department of Health and
Human Services' Office of Inspector General, says the
administration has boosted rates of participation but needs to do
more to ensure that children get the regular wellness exams,
dental checkups and vision and hearing tests.  The report notes
that 63 percent of children on Medicaid received at least one
medical screening in 2013, up from 56 percent in 2006, but still
far below the department's 80 percent goal.

Only Iowa and California exceeded that standard last year. Alaska
and Ohio were below 40 percent.  Five more states -- Mississippi,
Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and Wyoming -- were between 40
percent and 45 percent.  The report did not provide a breakdown
that showed where Utah stands.

Child health advocates cite several factors for the low rates,
including a shortage of doctors treating Medicaid patients,
states' low pay for providers and parents' lack of awareness about
the importance of the visits.

Both children and taxpayers pay a steep price when children's
health problems are not caught early.

"We end up with kids who are sicker, with more long-term, serious
medical issues that are more expensive to treat," said Jennifer
Clarke, executive director of Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia.

Some experts say that state officials -- not the federal
government -- bear most of the responsibility for low screening
rates because they administer Medicaid, the state-federal program
for the poor.  They say states need to step up oversight over the
private Medicaid health plans that many contract to cover children
in the program.

"The federal government is working hard on this, but the only
power they have over states is to take away their funding and that
is highly unlikely," said Jane Perkins, legal director of the
National Health Law Program.

Congress introduced the Medicaid benefit, known as the Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program, or EPSDT, in
1967 so that children would get age-appropriate diagnostic tests,
including for vision and hearing, preventive services such as
immunizations and treatments.  About 32 million children on
Medicaid were eligible for the benefit in 2013.

The preventive care program is more generous than those offered by
the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or private health
insurers because it guarantees coverage not just for a wide range
of tests, but also the treatments to address health problems.
Most states follow the guidelines of the American Academy of
Pediatrics, which calls for 13 preventive visits in first three
years of life followed by mostly annual visits until age 21.

Boston pediatrician Michael McManus, a member of the academy's
state government affairs committee, said he is saddened by the
fact that more than a third of children on Medicaid are not
getting at least one regular preventive exam.  "We have a lot of
work to do," he said.

Low participation rates have plagued the program for years,
according to previous reports by the inspector general's office
and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

A 2010 OIG report found that 76 percent of children in nine states
did not receive all required medical, vision, and hearing
screenings, 41 percent of children nationwide did not receive any
of the screenings, and more than half did not receive any vision
or hearing screenings.  All states are required to provide the
benefit.

The latest OIG report praised the U.S. Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services for working to increase screening rates, such as
by distributing guides that enable states and providers to share
their best ideas.  The guides show, for instance, how some states
used websites to educate providers and parents.  Some states such
as New York require Medicaid health plans to educate members about
the benefit and what it covers.  Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode
Island boosted adolescent screening rates by 40 percent by
offering gift certificates for pizza and movie tickets, according
to a 2014 CMS report.

Still, the report said, "the underutilization of medical
screenings is an ongoing concern."  CMS has done "very little" to
encourage providers to complete all five components of an EPSDT
medical screening -- physical exam, medical history,
immunizations, lab test and education, the report said.

CMS had no immediate comment on the report.

Medical screening rates fall off dramatically as children get
older, according to federal data that track states' efforts.  For
example, about 90 percent of children below the age of 1 get at
least one screening. But screening rates drop to 77 percent for
kids between the ages of 1 and 2, and 56 percent for those between
10 and 14.

Ohio, which had the lowest rate of children getting regular exams
in 2013, attributed its problems to the process of getting
Medicaid managed care plans to report their data to the state.

Neva Kaye, interim executive director of the National Academy for
State Health Policy, said data collection is an issue for some
states but it doesn't explain most of the low rates.  In addition
to the shortage of doctors participating in Medicaid, parents
often face transportation and language barriers getting children
in for the exams, she said.

Dr. David Kelley, chief medical officer for Pennsylvania's
Medicaid program, said that state is working to boost the number
of children getting checkups in part by paying bonuses to doctors
to do them.  He said that the rate of Pennsylvania kids getting
the screenings is "in the middle of the pack" and "that is not
good enough."

Mr. Clarke, with the Public Interest Law Center, said low Medicaid
reimbursement to pediatricians means fewer doctors are available
to see poor children and parents face long delays getting their
kids in for preventive visits and treatment, if they can get to
see them at all.

The center filed a federal class-action lawsuit in 2005 against
the state of Florida on behalf of 2 million children in Medicaid
saying low reimbursement for Medicaid pediatricians prevented
children from getting the health services to which they are
entitled.  A judge is expected to rule later this month on the
case.


GLOBAL NOMADS: "Pititto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thierry Pititto, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Global Nomads CCD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and
Catherine De Villada, Case No. 1:14-cv-24337 (S.D. Fla., November
14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Global Nomads CCD, LLC is a real estate company in Miami-Dade
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREAT LAKES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Court entered an order denying a motion to dismiss a securities
class action.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements.

Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and
Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively.

These three actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:13-cv-02115, on June 10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint on August 9, 2013, which the defendants
moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013.

After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the Court entered
an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The
Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend this
action.

The Company is the largest provider of dredging services in the
United States.


GUCCI AMERICA: Faces Intern Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
former David Letterman intern's awkward retreat from a labor
lawsuit against CBS Broadcasting Inc. hasn't stopped plaintiffs
firms from rounding up more interns to sue their employers.

Over the past month, Virginia & Ambinder and Leeds Brown Law have
jointly filed at least three new proposed class actions in New
York on behalf of unpaid interns who claim they were illegally
deprived wages.  Their latest suit, filed on Nov. 18 in state
court in Manhattan, accuses Gucci America Inc. of violating New
York labor laws since at least November 2008 by hiring interns to
work for free.  In October the firms filed similar suits against
Marc Jacobs International LLC, Calvin Klein Inc. and Calvin Klein
parent company PVH Corp.

According to the Nov. 18 complaint, former intern Lindsey Huggins
performed standard shop clerk duties in Gucci America's flagship
Fifth Avenue store in late 2008 and early 2009, putting in 40
hours per week without pay.  "Defendant's unlawful conduct had
been pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of minimizing
labor costs by denying named plaintiff and the putative class
compensation," the suit alleges.

It's been a busy fall in the intern wars, with new cases and a
fair bit of activity in those already pending.  Pioneers in the
litigation at the plaintiffs firm Outten & Golden negotiated the
first two significant settlements for former interns.

NBCUniversal agreed in October to pay $6.4 million to an intern
class, and Conde Nast reached a similar deal worth $5.8 million.
There were some setbacks for the plaintiffs as well: notably the
CBS episode, in which a former Letterman intern backed out of her
newly filed suit in September and accused her lawyers of strong-
arming her.

Still, the main event right now for both plaintiffs and defendants
is a pair of cases that Outten & Golden brought against Hearst
Corporation and Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has consolidated the cases and
tentatively scheduled oral arguments for January to resolve an
existential issue for the fast-expanding litigation: whether
interns deserve wage protections granted to "employees" under
state and federal labor laws.

Outten & Golden's Rachel Bien is lead counsel for the plaintiffs
in the Second Circuit appeal.  Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells
represents Fox, along with lawyers at Proskauer Rose.  Hearst is
relying on an in-house team led by deputy general counsel Jonathan
Donnellan.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Bank, a New York banking corporation, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions
v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14-
cv-03668 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to protect and safeguard customers personal
and financial information.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
retailer, selling a variety of tools, home goods, and construction
supplies in its more than 2200 United States retail stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ranse M. Partin, Esq.
      CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
      1380 West Paces Ferry Road, N.W., Suite 2100
      Atlanta, GA 30327
      Telephone: (404) 467-1155
      Facsimile: (404) 467-1166
      E-mail: Ranse@conleygriggs.com

         - and -

      Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
      Matthew S. Axelrod, Esq.
      Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
      Sally M. Handmaker, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      East Tower, 5th Floor
      1100 New York Ave. NW
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699


INVESTMENT EMPORIUM: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Luis Jessurum Medrano and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. The Investment Emporium LLC d/b/a Jaiba
Cabinets, and Antonio Pena, Case No. 1:14-cv-24314 (S.D. Fla.,
November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufacture of fine
quality kitchen cabinets, custom bathroom cabinets and commercial
cabinetry.

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


ISOPURE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Powder Products, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Tocci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Isopure Company, LLC, d/b/a Nature's Best, General
Nutrition Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-09097 (S.D.N.Y., November 14,
2014), arises out of the Defendant's misrepresentation of Isopure
Zero-Carb and Low-Carb Protein Powder as: being 100% Whey Protein
Isolate, having 50 Grams Of Protein From 100% Whey Protein
Isolate, and having "50 Grams Protein Per Serving, when in fact,
it is spiked with additional and unnecessary free-form amino
acids, non-protein amino acids, and a litany of other non-whey
ingredients.

The Defendants are manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of
dietary products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOSE ARROYO: "Landaverde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Landaverde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Jose Arroyo, L.L.C. and C&S Lease Service,
L.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-01046 (E.D. Tex., November 14, 2014), seeks
to recover  unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available
equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses,
including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants provide a single source for fabrication,
construction, maintenance, remediation and environmental
compliance consulting services to the energy and manufacturing
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S Hommel Jr, Esq.
      WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC
      1404 Rice Road, Ste 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903) 596-7100
      Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
      E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


JPM MANAGEMENT: "Stein" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Stein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JPM Management Group, LLC, a Florida Corporation d/b/a
MMPB Group, LLC, a Florida corporation, and Michael Martin, Case
No. 1:14-cv-24326 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

JPM Management Group, LLC is an asset and investment management
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad Evan Levy, Esq.
      LEVY & LEVY, PA
      300 Southeast 13th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 763-5722
      Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
      E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Primedia Merger Actions
------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. 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 discovery is
ongoing in shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia
merger.

On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of
directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose
directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named
as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other
things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that
the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder
derivative claims included allegations concerning open market
purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR
affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's
redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004
and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates.

With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging
the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied
a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the
Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class
actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7,
2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the
consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint
seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and
rescission of the merger.

On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which similarly alleges that the Primedia board
members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached their respective
fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an
unfair price in light of the value of the dismissed shareholder
derivative claims. That amended complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages. On January 31, 2012, defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to
dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members,
KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other
defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the
grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. On December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted
the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

Discovery is ongoing.

Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions
challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state
courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief
as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions
above. Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the
Delaware action.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


KKR & CO: Feb. 11 Hearing to Approve Definitive Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. 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 a hearing is
scheduled for February 11, 2015 to approve a definitive agreement
to settle the class action by shareholders in certain public
companies acquired by private equity firms.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that
from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly
conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity
financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low
levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity
services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to
any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and
specifically challenges nine transactions.

The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.
On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in
part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery
as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions.

On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth
amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning
the additional eight transactions and the original nine
transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight
purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary
damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original
nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two
of the original nine challenged transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is completed.

On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion.

On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third
stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions
identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but
denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint.

On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of
discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like
their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended
complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain
previously released claims against certain defendants.

On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving
KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged
overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants'
announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a
smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. KKR
filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013,
which the court denied on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for
class certification on October 21, 2013.

Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24,
2014. The court has not yet decided plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On July 28, 2014, KKR entered into a definitive
agreement to settle all claims without the admission of
wrongdoing, which was preliminarily approved by the court on
September 29, 2014, and is subject to the court's final approval,
the hearing for which is scheduled for February 11, 2015.

The amount to be paid by KKR pursuant to the settlement is not
expected to have a material effect on KKR's financial results.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed KFN Shareholders' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. 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 the Delaware Court
of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss a consolidated
complaint in the class action filed by shareholders of KKR
Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN").

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KKR Financial Holdings LLC
("KFN") shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's
board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in
connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to
which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction
was completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court have been consolidated
but an operative complaint has not been filed or designated.  The
complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was
never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed on May
6, 2014.

Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed, and the
remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.  On February 21,
2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated
Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7,
2014.   On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
granted defendants' motions to dismiss.

The complaints in these actions allege variously that the members
of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to
KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders; and failing
to disclose material information necessary for KFN shareholders to
make a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction. The
actions also allege variously that KKR, and certain of KKR's
affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means
of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors
LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in these actions includes,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and the proposed
transaction, rescission, an accounting by defendants, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across
multiple asset classes including private equity, energy,
infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds.


LEANSPA: Settles FTC Suit Over Use of Fake News Websites
--------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and the State of Connecticut have reached a
settlement with LeanSpa for allegedly engaging in consumer fraud
by using fake news websites to promote acai berry and "colon
cleanse" weight-loss products, making deceptive weight-loss
claims, and telling consumers they could receive free trial
products by paying a nominal fee for shipping and handling.

In addition to allegations of creating fake new websites, the
deceptive marketing class action also claimed that the marketers
of the weight loss supplement LeanSpa falsely informed consumers
that they could receive a free trial of the weight loss products
if they paid a small shipping and handling fee.

However, the lawsuit contends that consumers in fact paid nearly
$80 for the "free" trial and were signed up for monthly
subscriptions that were difficult to cancel.  Consumers reportedly
paid more than $25 million to the defendants.

The FTC and the state of Connecticut shut down the alleged LeanSpa
scam operation and charged the defendants with violating portions
of the FTC Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, in 2011.  Then, in
January, 2014 an agreement was reached between the parties in
which the marketers of LeanSpa supplements have agreed to pay up
to $7 million in consumer refunds.

Eligible consumers include people who bought LeanSpa weight loss
or other LeanSpa health supplements such as LeanSpa; LeanSpa with
Acai; LeanSpa with HCA; LeanSpa Cleanse; NutraSlim; NutraSlim with
HCA; QuickDetox; and SlimFuel.


LENNOX NATIONAL: "Prescott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Harvey Prescott, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lennox National Accounting Services, LLC,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00581 (E.D. Va., November 13, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any such
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lennox National Accounting Services, LLC provides hearing,
ventilation, and air conditioning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 930-9091
      Facsimile: (205) 930-9054
      E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com

         - and -

      Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq.
      TAYLOR & WALKER PC
      555 E Main St, Suite 1300
      Norfolk, VA 23510
      Telephone: (757) 625-7300
      E-mail: tgaynor@taylorwalkerlaw.com


LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: 3rd Cir. Hears Argument on Retaliation Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
attorneys in the wrongful termination case of former Luzerne
County Chief Public Defender Albert J. Flora Jr. -- who, before
being forced out, had sued the county for underfunding the office
-- grappled on Nov. 18 with a key issue: whether he filed his
funding suit as a private citizen or as a public official.

Mr. Flora had argued in a complaint filed last April that he was
let go partially in retaliation for a class action suit he filed
in 2012 in which he alleged the county and county manager,
Robert Lawton, showed "deliberate indifference to the funding
needs" of the Adult Unit of the Luzerne County Public Defender's
Office.

Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Nov. 18,
counsel for Mr. Flora argued that he filed the class action as a
private citizen, and therefore he was able to make retaliation
claims under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v.
Ceballos, which held that a public official is protected by the
First Amendment when speaking "as a citizen addressing matters of
public concern."

However, counsel representing Lawton and Luzerne County said
Mr. Flora was acting within the scope of his job description when
he sued.  The case was heard by Third Circuit Judges Kent A.
Jordan, Marjorie Rendell and Richard Nygaard, who participated via
telephone.

Judge Jordan asked Mr. Flora's attorney, Mary Catherine Roper of
the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, how Mr. Flora
was protected when part of his job was to handle the office's
funding.

Ms. Roper said Mr. Flora's class action to obtain funding for
indigent defense went beyond the scope of his employment as a
public defender and lent more to his ethical obligation as an
attorney trying to ensure his clients were adequately represented.

"But when he's fighting for funding as a bureaucrat assigned by
the county, is he not operating within the scope of his job?"
Judge Jordan asked.

Ms. Roper responded that a public defender has responsibilities
independent from his role as a county employee.

"When he steps outside anything that he is paid to do," Ms. Roper
said, "he is acting not as a government employee, but as a private
citizen."

Mr. Flora suing his employer, Ms. Roper said, was outside of
Mr. Flora's normal job description.

Following Ms. Roper's argument, Deborah H. Simon --
dhs@elliottgreenleaf.com -- of Elliott Greenleaf spoke on behalf
of Luzerne County and Lawton.

When Ms. Simon stepped up, Judge Rendell immediately asked her,
"Where is it in Pennsylvania statute that it is the duty of a
public defender to bring a case like that," referring to Mr.
Flora's class action.

Ms. Simon said it was not explicitly stated, but the chief public
defender "has duties to manage the office that are separate and
apart from representing indigents."

Judge Rendell replied, "To say that it is an ordinary part of his
job duties; that's a stretch."

She added that public defenders' offices across the country are
facing funding problems: "Shouldn't they all run out to court?"
Simon said there was a propriety issue over whether that was
possible elsewhere.

With regard to Mr. Flora, Ms. Simon said Mr. Flora mentioned in
briefs that he was acting in his capacity as chief public
defender.  The fact that he did it in a way "that thumbs his nose
at his employer," she added, does not entitle him to First
Amendment protection.

Mr. Flora further alleged in his complaint that his firing was
also done as an attempt "to punish" him for an audit his office
conducted that found that a number of juvenile records the state
Supreme Court had ordered be expunged in connection with the
"kids-for-cash" scandal were not being properly removed from the
docket.

Judge Jordan, recognizing that second portion of Flora's
complaint, asked Ms. Simon how Mr. Flora's expungement claims
could be construed in any way other than those of a concerned
citizen.

Ms. Simon answered that Ms. Flora filed his report to the Supreme
Court on his office's stationery.

"It can't be that the stationery makes the difference, does it?"
Judge Jordan asked in apparent disbelief.

Again, Ms. Simon said Mr. Flora made his claims in an official
capacity.

In March, U.S. District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania agreed with Luzerne County and Lawton.
Judge Mannion said that, despite Mr. Flora's contention that he
was not required as chief public defender to bring the class
action suit, "the issue is not whether the plaintiff's duties as
the chief public defender required him to file the action, but
whether the action related to his official duties as the chief
public defender."

"It is not the average citizen who would file a state-court
funding action in order to ensure that the OPD had adequate
funding to provide indigent criminal defendants with adequate
representation, nor is it the average citizen who would be in
charge of overseeing the proper docketing of juvenile matters,"
Judge Mannion said.  "Instead, the court finds that the plaintiff,
pursuant to his duties as the chief public defender, took these
actions and, as such, was acting as a government employee, not a
private citizen.  His actions are therefore not protected by the
First Amendment and the defendants' motion to dismiss will be
granted with respect to this claim."


MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
De Ivory Smith and Marlie Trujillo v. Manhattan Management Co.,
LLC and Berk-Cohen Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02623 (E.D.
La., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages.

The Defendants own and operate apartment properties in Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON & JACKSON
      201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Telephone: (504) 599-5953
      E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net
              jjackson@jackson-law.net


MERCURY NEW HOLDCO: Plaintiffs Drop Motion to Expedite Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury New Holdco, 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
a consolidated class action sent a letter to the Court withdrawing
the pending motion to expedite hearing on their motion for a
permanent injunction to enjoin the merger transaction.

Following the announcement on March 21, 2014, of the execution of
the merger agreement between Media General, Inc. and LIN Media
LLC, three complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
challenging the proposed acquisition of LIN: Sciabacucchi v. Lin
Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530-CB), International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et
al. (C.A. No.9538-CB), and Pryor v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A.
No. 9577-CB). The litigations are putative class actions filed on
behalf of the public stockholders of LIN and name as defendants
LIN, its directors, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and
Merger Sub 2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and several of its
alleged affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III,
L.P.; HM3 Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund
IV, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.;
HM4-EQ Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse
Family Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim Investors, L.P.
(together with HM Capital Partners LLC and individual director
defendant John R. Muse, which are collectively referred to as
"HMC")).

On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in Engineers Local 132 Pension
Fund voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on
April 21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal.

The operative complaints generally allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
their consideration and approval of the merger transaction, that
the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that
individual director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached
their fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN by
causing LIN to enter into the merger transaction, which plaintiffs
allege will provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaints
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
enjoining the merger transaction.

On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi action filed
an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and
Pryor actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the
plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to
enjoin the merger transaction, requesting, among other things,
that the Court set a permanent injunction hearing for September
2014.  On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and
Pryor actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions,
which was approved by the Court on May 1, 2014.

On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a
letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite.

Mercury New Holdco, Inc. ("New Holdco"), is a Virginia corporation
and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Media General, Inc.
("Media General"). New Holdco was formed on March 19, 2014, solely
to effect the combination of Media General and LIN Media LLC
("LIN") by merging Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., its direct, wholly
owned subsidiary, with and into Media General, and merging Mercury
Merger Sub 2, LLC, its direct, wholly owned subsidiary, with and
into LIN, in each case, as provided for in their merger agreement
dated as of March 21, 2014, as amended on August 20, 2014.

Following the completion of the merger transaction, New Holdco
will be the parent company of Media General and LIN and will be
renamed "Media General, Inc."


MSTREET MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Baxter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MStreet Management Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01934
(D.D.C., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and statutory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MStreet Management Group, LLC owns and operates an exotic dance
club in the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
      836 Bonifant Street
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


MUSCLEPHARM CORPORATION: Sued Over Deceptive Product Presentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Bruaner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Musclepharm Corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-08869 (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2014),
arises out of the Defendant's false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive
and misleading representation of the amount of whey protein in
Musclepharm Combat Protein Powder.

Musclepharm Corporation is a manufacturer and distributor of
dietary supplements in the State of Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elie Ghodsizadeh, Esq.
      Jonathan J. Delshad, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN J. DELSHAD
      1663 Sawtelle Blvd Suite 220
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (424) 255-8376
      Facsimile: (310) 382-2086
      E-mail: eghodsizadeh@delshadlegal.com
              jdelshad@delshadlegal.com


NATIONAL BEEF: Settles Wage & OT Class Action for $350,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an
apparent settlement has been reached in the class action lawsuit
against National Beef brought by workers at its Liberal, Kansas,
meatpacking plant, according to a court filing on Nov. 21.

A joint motion seeks court approval of the proposed deal affecting
some 480 production employees who joined the litigation.  Workers
at the southwest Kansas plant are seeking unpaid wages and
overtime.

National Beef has agreed to pay up to $350,000 to settle all
claims without acknowledging any wrongdoing, court documents show.

At issue is payment to meat-processing workers based on what is
known as gang time, which counts only the time the production line
runs.  The lawsuit claims employees have been systematically
underpaid for the time it takes to take off and put on protective
gear during unpaid meal breaks, walking to and from production
lines, waiting in line for equipment, waiting in line to clean
equipment and cleaning equipment.

The practice is "fairly common in the meat processing industry,"
said Mark Kistler, the Overland Park attorney representing
workers.

National Beef spokesman Keith Welty said he was unaware of the
settlement and had no immediate comment.

Under the proposed agreement, each worker's claim would be paid
according to a formula that factors in the number of weeks each
employee worked, among other things.  The two named plaintiffs,
Valente Sandoval Barbosa and Carolina Gaytan, would receive $3,500
each.

The National Beef lawsuit is the latest in a string of class
action lawsuits brought by Mr. Kistler on behalf of workers
against meatpacking plants and food processing companies.

In the past three years, Mr. Kistler said he has filed five
similar cases against meat processing plants and three other food
processing companies seeking unpaid wages and overtime for their
employees.  In nearly all his cases, the companies settled out of
court, he said.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Drug Agents Conduct Medical Staff Probe
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Peter Cooney, Kevin Murphy and Steve Ginsburg, citing a
Washington Post report, said U.S. drug agents carried out surprise
inspections of the medical staffs of several National Football
League teams on Nov. 16 in an investigation of alleged
prescription drug abuse in the league.

The Washington Post newspaper, citing a senior law enforcement
official, said agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and Transportation Security Administration
searched bags and questioned team doctors.

A DEA spokesman told the Post the investigation followed a class-
action suit filed in May by more than 1,300 retired NFL players
alleging the medical staffs violated the law by giving players
narcotics and painkillers to help them play through injuries,
without prescriptions.

The medical staffs that were questioned included those of the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers and San Francisco 49ers, the newspaper said.
The DEA was expected to inspect a total of six teams on Nov. 16.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said, "Our teams cooperated with the
DEA and we have no information to indicate that irregularities
were found."  He did not say which teams were involved.

The 49ers said in a statement the DEA inspection took place while
the team was in New Jersey to play the New York Giants at MetLife
Stadium.

"The 49ers medical staff complied and the team departed the
stadium as scheduled," it said.

After the Buccaneers played the Washington Redskins, the Tampa Bay
team said on Twitter that "authorities checked with our travel
party" at Baltimore/Washington International Airport.  The team
boarded its plane after a five-minute delay, it said.

The DEA did not respond immediately to requests from Reuters for
comment.

The probe was not limited to those clubs, the official told the
Post.

The official said it was focused on league wide practices,
"including possible distribution of drugs without prescriptions or
labels, and the dispensing of drugs by trainers rather than
physicians," the Post said.

The drug investigation comes as the NFL has been roiled by
allegations of violent off-field behavior by some players.

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson pleaded no contest
this month to a misdemeanor charge of child abuse.

Former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice is appealing his
indefinite suspension from the league imposed after he punched his
then-fiancee.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Hears Grievances Over Concussion Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that the
peculiar fault lines in the case against the NFL split before the
federal judge overseeing the litigation during the highly
anticipated fairness hearing for the settlement in a class action
over head injuries on Nov. 19.

Lawyers for the National Football League and the lead counsel for
the thousands of former players suing the league hailed the deal
they made as historic.  Other plaintiffs' lawyers in the case
challenged the settlement and told the judge that it's not a fair
deal and she shouldn't grant it final approval.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania gave preliminary approval in July to the settlement
after lead counsel, Chris Seeger, and lawyers for the NFL agreed
to do away with the $675 million cap on the amount of money the
NFL would put into the fund from which players with qualifying
diagnoses -- of Alzheimer's disease, dementia and other
neurocognitive diseases -- would draw.

Dozens of lawyers representing former players have since said the
settlement isn't a good one for players, primarily because it
doesn't compensate players who have chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, or CTE.

"This is an insidious disease," Steven Molo, of MoloLamken in New
York, told Judge Brody, arguing that the settlement she finally
approves should cover CTE.

Both Mr. Seeger and lawyers for the NFL, however, told the court
that the diseases and symptoms associated with advanced levels of
CTE are covered in the settlement they've proposed.

"CTE is not per se covered, but the significant symptoms of CTE
are covered," said Bruce Birenboim -- bbirenboim@paulweiss.com --
of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who is on the NFL's
defense team.

"This settlement draws a line at the more significant aspects of
CTE, which are covered under the dementia category, and does not
cover mood and behavioral problems," Mr. Birenboim told the court.

Earlier, Mr. Seeger, who was the first to speak on Nov. 19, told
Judge Brody that the issue now before her -- when she is weighing
final approval of the settlement -- is "not whether it's perfect,"
but, rather, whether it is fair, reasonable and adequate. He noted
that Third Circuit precedent entitles the settlement to a
presumption of fairness.

Referring to the adequacy requirement for class settlements and
the other plaintiffs lawyers' challenges, Mr. Seeger said, "These
aren't objections to adequacy, they're objections to where the
lines were drawn."

He characterized the objecting lawyers as wanting to structure the
settlement their way, by having various subclasses of plaintiffs
rather than the two that are included in the settlement.

Later, when Mr. Birenboim was addressing the judge, he framed the
issue of deciding which CTE-related ailments to cover this way:
"Is the line that was drawn here fair and reasonable; given the
science and, we think, given the causation issues and given the
infancy of the research in the area, the line is clearly a fair
line."

Mr. Seeger, Mr. Birenboim and Brad Karp, who is another Paul Weiss
lawyer on the NFL's defense team, all repeatedly emphasized that
players don't have to prove causation in order to collect for
their qualifying injuries under their proposed settlement.
Proving that the players' neurocognitive ailments were caused by
head injuries they suffered while playing in the NFL had loomed as
one of the major obstacles the plaintiffs would have to overcome
if the case went to litigation.

Mr. Karp characterized the criticisms of the settlement for its
lack of coverage for CTE as a deliberate and fundamental
misunderstanding of the settlement and its scope.  Mood disorders
and depression, both of which some objectors list as symptoms of
CTE, are also distributed across the general population and "have
nothing in the world" to do with football or CTE, Mr. Karp said.

The lines have to be drawn somewhere, he said, and experienced
defense and plaintiffs lawyers recognize that line-drawing is
necessary.

"This is not our first case like it is for some of the objectors'
counsel," Mr. Seeger had said earlier, referring to the
plaintiffs' steering committee.

"If I decide to approve this settlement," Judge Brody had said at
the very beginning of the fairness hearing, she would appoint
Wendell Pritchett and Jo-Ann Verrier, both of the University of
Pennsylvania's law school, to implement the settlement. Both were
present at the fairness hearing.

Judge Brody has expressed her preference for a settlement in the
case since she sent the parties to mediation in the summer of
2013.  She rejected the deal that came out of those first
negotiations because she was concerned that the $675 million cap
on the award fund wouldn't last through the 65-year life of the
settlement, leaving some former players unable to collect down the
road.

Mr. Molo made clear that he, too, wants to see a settlement in the
case, but he and the other objectors don't think that the one in
front of the judge now is fair, reasonable and adequate.

"The question, then, for the court is not whether the settlement
is perfect or whether every condition is compensated for, but
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, given the
strengths and weaknesses of the claims," Mr. Birenboim told the
court.


NEW YORK: "Occupy Wall Street" Demonstrators File Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Meyers, John Baker, Justin Strekal and Miles Walsh v. City
of New York, Michael Rubens Bloomberg, individually and in his
official capacity as former Mayor of the City of New York, former
NYPD Chief of Department Joseph J. Esposito, individually and in
his official capacity, former NYPD Commissioner Raymond
Kelly, individually and in his official capacity, NYPD Patrol
Officers Freddy Ynoa Shield 18851, Hans Francois Shield 25825,
John Zaranis Shield 09645, Vasile Dubovici Shield 28892, Officer
DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-09142 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014),
arises out of the unlawful eviction by the City of New York,
through its New York Police Department, without a prior court
ruling, of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators visiting and camping
in the Manhattan Financial District's Zuccotti Park.

City Of New York is a municipal corporation which, under the
administration of its former Mayor, Michael Rubens
Bloomberg and through its New York Police Department, operated a
number of subordinate law enforcement facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul L. Mills, Esq.
      Park West Finance Branch, PO Box 20141
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (646) 637-3693
      E-mail: plm36@columbia.edu


NEWS CORP: Plaintiffs in Wilder Case Oppose Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in the
Wilder litigation opposed the motions filed by defendants to
dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July
11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Wilder Litigation"). The plaintiff brought claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued
regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of
the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert
Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory
damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff in the litigation and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Avon filed an
amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other
things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group
Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited), and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to comprise February 15,
2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014.
Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30,
2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint,
which generally repeats the allegations of the amended
consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to
comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint, and on October 24, 2014 plaintiffs
opposed those motions. The Company's management believes these
claims are entirely without merit and intends to vigorously defend
this action.

The Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain
payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the
U.K. Newspaper Matters, including all payments in connection with
the Wilder Litigation.


NEWS CORP: Settlement in Canadian Actions Approved
--------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the settlement
agreement relating to the Canadian actions involving HarperCollins
was approved by the relevant courts.

In 2011 and 2012, various civil lawsuits and governmental
investigations were commenced against certain publishers,
including the Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers
L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), relating to alleged violations of
antitrust and unfair competition laws arising out of the decisions
by those publishers to sell their e-books pursuant to an agency
relationship.

The publishers, including HarperCollins, entered into various
settlement agreements to resolve these matters. These included a
settlement with the DOJ, which, among other things, required that
HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain e-book
retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements
subsequently entered into with such retailers. Additional
information about this settlement can be found on the DOJ's
website. The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered
into substantially similar settlements with the European
Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau ("CCB"). The
settlements with the DOJ and the European Commission received
final approval in September and December 2012, respectively. The
consent agreement with respect to the settlement with the CCB was
registered with the Competition Tribunal on February 7, 2014.

However, on February 21, 2014, Kobo Inc. ("Kobo") filed an
application to rescind or vary the consent agreement with the
Competition Tribunal, and, on March 18, 2014, the Competition
Tribunal issued an order staying the registration of the consent
agreement. The stay will remain in effect pending further order of
the Competition Tribunal or final disposition of Kobo's
application.

The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered into
settlements relating to an investigation led by certain state
Attorneys General and a number of purported class action lawsuits
filed in the U.S. and Canada arising out of similar claims. Final
approvals of the settlements relating to the U.S. actions were
granted in February and December 2013.

In May 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
relating to the Canadian actions, and in October and November
2014, the settlement agreement was approved by the relevant
courts.


NEWS CORP: NAM Group Opposes Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------
News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the NAM Group
filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion seeking certification
of a class of all persons residing in the United States who
purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008,
and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with
mandatory arbitration clauses.

On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J.
Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms,
Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum
Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum") allege various claims under federal and
state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America
Incorporated ("NAI"), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM
FSI"), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM
In-Store Services" and, together with News Corporation, NAI and
NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended
complaint on consent of the parties.

The fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust
claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in
connection with plaintiffs' purchase of in-store marketing
services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks
treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted
counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company,
H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21,
2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District Court subsequently
permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its claims without
prejudice, subject to certain conditions.

On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of all persons residing in the United
States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April
5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to
contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not,
however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing
insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs'
motion on October 10, 2014.

While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree
of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group
believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


OKLAHOMA: DUI License Revocation Suit Qualifies as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that an
Oklahoma County judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought refunds
for thousands of drivers who received DUIs using a faulty
affidavit.

However, the judge also ruled that the lawsuit qualifies as a
class-action case, a ruling apparently made in case a higher court
overturns his dismissal, said attorney John Hunsucker.

The plaintiffs claim that the Department of Public Safety lacked
jurisdiction to revoke their driving privileges and charge
associated fees because the affidavits officers signed did not
comply with state law.  Mr. Hunsucker, based in Oklahoma City, and
Tulsa attorney Bruce Edge filed the lawsuit and a similar suit in
Tulsa County.

Ultimately, if the plaintiffs prevail, DPS could be ordered to pay
refunds and interest to an estimated 40,000 drivers whose licenses
were revoked after being cited with alcohol-related driving
offenses between June 2008 and October 2013.  The plaintiffs also
seek to have their driving privileges restored and the cases
expunged from their driving records.

Nine plaintiffs have sued the Department of Public Safety in
Oklahoma County challenging their license revocations, while seven
drivers have sued in Tulsa County.  Mr. Hunsucker said the ruling
on Nov. 13 by Oklahoma County District Judge Roger Stuart does not
affect the Tulsa case, which also seeks class-action status.
"We don't necessarily see it as a defeat.  It's a bump in the
road," Mr. Hunsucker said.  "We had already anticipated it going
to the (state) Supreme Court one way or the other."

As of late Nov. 14, Judge Stuart had not issued a written order
outlining his ruling.

Mr. Hunsucker said attorneys for both sides will try to agree on
the wording of a proposed order.  Judge Stuart set a Dec. 4
hearing if the two sides cannot agree, he said.

Capt. George Brown, a spokesman for DPS, referred comment about
the case to Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office.  A spokesman
for Pruitt could not be reached on Nov. 14.

In a motion filed earlier this year, DPS claims that the suits
should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies and did not challenge the affidavit at
their administrative hearings.

"Plaintiffs were violating state criminal laws by driving on the
roads of Oklahoma under the influence of alcohol or other
intoxicating substance," the motion states.

The license-revocation process is an administrative action
separate from criminal charges filed against the drivers.  Actions
in criminal cases involving DUI arrests would not be affected by
the civil lawsuits, Mr. Hunsucker said.

Most drivers who would be in the class have had their driving
privileges restored or are driving with interlock ignition
devices, he said.

DPS has not provided an estimate of how many people would receive
refunds if the plaintiffs were successful.  A Tulsa World analysis
of DPS records found that at least 37,000 drivers cited for
alcohol-related offenses requested hearings or modifications
during the time in question.

If a court eventually rules the fees must be refunded
retroactively to 2008, DPS could be required to refund at least
$11 million.  That figure does not include interest.

A class-action case in 1995 cost DPS about $10 million.  In that
case, the state Supreme Court ruled that DPS overcharged motorists
for reinstating their driver's licenses from 1990 through 1993.
Mr. Hunsucker noted that in the 1995 case, a trial court judge had
also granted DPS' motion to dismiss but the Supreme Court
eventually ordered the refunds.

In DUI cases, state law requires "a sworn report from a law
enforcement officer that the officer had reasonable grounds to
believe the arrested person" drove or could have driven a car
under the influence of alcohol.

The affidavit that DPS used to revoke licenses in such cases from
June 2008 through October 2013 did not contain that language.
Instead, it contained a description of the driver's behavior,
circumstances of the arrest and a statement by the officer "that
the foregoing is true and correct."

DPS uses the affidavits to revoke driver's licenses and can later
modify or reinstate the licenses, charging fees with each action.

Last year, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the
affidavit was "fatally flawed" and the Supreme Court refused to
hear DPS' appeal of that ruling, meaning the appeals court ruling
stands.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, 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 litigation
relating to hotel taxes, the intermediate appellate court affirmed
on September 10, 2014, the court's denial of the online travel
companies' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The appellate court
reversed the court's certification of a class of municipalities
and its denial of the OTCs' motion to dismiss Nassau County, New
York's claim for imposition of constructive trust.

Orbitz is a global online travel company ("OTC") that uses
innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to
research, plan and book a broad range of travel products and
services including hotels, flights, vacation packages, car
rentals, cruises, rail tickets, travel insurance, destination
services and event tickets.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Leave to Amend Suit in Hotel Booking Case Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, 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
denied leave to amend a consolidated amended complaint, and
dismissed it with prejudice in the case Online Travel Company
Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation.

On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against certain major hotel chains and the leading
OTCs, including Orbitz. The complaint alleged that the hotel
chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated antitrust and consumer
protection laws by entering into agreements in which OTCs agree
not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices that
are less than those found on the hotel chain websites.

Following the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012,
several dozen additional putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in federal courts across the country. These cases were
then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On May 1, 2013, counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 1, 2013, Orbitz filed a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February
16, 2014, the District Court granted Orbitz's motion to dismiss
all of the Claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and
provided the Plaintiffs with leave to seek the opportunity to
amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs moved for
leave to amend the complaint on March 20, 2014.

On October 27, 2014, the District Court denied leave to amend the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and dismissed it with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have the right to appeal the decision.

Orbitz is a global online travel company ("OTC") that uses
innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to
research, plan and book a broad range of travel products and
services including hotels, flights, vacation packages, car
rentals, cruises, rail tickets, travel insurance, destination
services and event tickets.


PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humphrey and Rob Nash, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated v. Percheron Field Services, LLC and Percheron
LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-06556 (E.D. Pa., November 14, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide services for land management projects like
oil, natural gas, and pipeline industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Senoff, Esq.
      CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
      1845 Walnut Street, 15th Fl
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 609-1350
      Facsimile: (215) 609-1351
      E-mail: cmcnally@cbmclaw.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Lawsuits Over Eltroxin in Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 several hearings
on whether or not to certify lawsuits related to the 2011 launch
of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel.  The matter is in
its early stages.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to
certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for
the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated
motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions;
however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the
reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. As this
matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot reasonably
predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any,
associated with these claims.

Perrigo Company plc (formerly known as Perrigo Company Limited,
and prior thereto, Blisfont Limited) is a manufacturer of OTC
healthcare products for the store brand market.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Supreme Court Affirmed Dist. Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 Supreme Court
of Israel affirmed the ruling of the District Court in favor of
the Company in the lawsuits filed against the state of Israel and
the Council of Neot Hovav and as a result, the matter is now
closed.

In March and June of 2007, lawsuits were filed by three separate
groups against both the State of Israel and the Council of Neot
Hovav in connection with waste disposal and pollution from several
companies, including the Company, that have operations in the Neot
Hovav region of Israel. These lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding in the District Court of
Beer-Sheva.  The Council of Neot Hovav, in June 2008, and the
State of Israel, in November 2008, asserted third-party claims
against several companies, including the Company.  The pleadings
allege a variety of personal injuries arising out of the alleged
environmental pollution.  Neither the plaintiffs nor the third-
party claimants were required to specify a maximum amount of
damages, but the pleadings allege damages in excess of $72.5
million, subject to foreign currency fluctuations between the
Israeli shekel and the U.S. dollar.

On January 9, 2013, the District Court of Beer-Sheva ruled in
favor of the Company.  On September 29, 2014, the Supreme Court of
Israel affirmed the ruling of the District Court in favor of the
Company and as a result, the matter is now closed.

Perrigo Company plc (formerly known as Perrigo Company Limited,
and prior thereto, Blisfont Limited) is a manufacturer of OTC
healthcare products for the store brand market.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Defendant in Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 Company and
collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability
lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal
Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection, and
serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in
patients taking Tysabri(R). The Company and Biogen will each be
responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any
Tysabri(R) product liability claims. While these lawsuits will be
vigorously defended, management cannot predict how these cases
will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits
could result in substantial judgments against the Company.

Perrigo Company plc (formerly known as Perrigo Company Limited,
and prior thereto, Blisfont Limited) is a manufacturer of OTC
healthcare products for the store brand market.


PHARMERICA CORPORATION: No Hearing Yet on Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica 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 no hearing has yet
been set on a move for, among other things, certification of a
putative class for the purposes of effectuating a settlement and
preliminary approval of the parties' settlement.

On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines
Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the
Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent
unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or
services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such
communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The
Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the
TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile
communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be
trebled in the event of a willful violation.

On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all
claims raised in the complaint.  The parties moved on September 8,
2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class
for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing
on that motion.  No hearing has yet been set on that motion and
the Corporation awaits a decision on the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Pharmerica Corporation's core business provides pharmacy products
and services to residents and patients in skilled nursing
facilities, nursing centers, assisted living facilities,
hospitals, and other long-term alternative care settings.


PINSTRIPES INC:  Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Pinstripes, Inc. and Dale Schwartz, Case No.
14-cv-09215 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


PRINCIPAL LIFE: Faces "Razo" Suit in Iowa Over Violation of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Rozo v. Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal
Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00463 (S.D. Iowa, November
14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal Financial Group,
Inc. operate as insurance companies with headquarters located in
Des Moines, Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
      Brian O. Marty, Esq.
      HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON P.C.
      5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
      West Des Moines, IA 50265
      Telephone: (515) 223-4567
      Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
      E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
              bmarty@hudsonlaw.net

         - and -

      Todd Jackson, Esq.
      Nina Wasow, Esq.
      Julie Wilensky, Esq.
      LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
      476 9th Street
      Oakland, CA 97607
      Telephone: (510) 839-6824
      Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
      E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com
              nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com
              jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

         - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      Michael McKay, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AZ 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0145
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
              mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Todd Schneider, Esq.
      Mark Johnson, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
              mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Christopher Micheletti, Esq.
      Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 633-1912
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
              hrankie@zelle.com


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lowenbein" Suit Over Breach of FDCA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bashie Lowenbein on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-06733 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. is regularly engaged, for profit,
in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RANCHO SANTO: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Fernando Salas-Sanchez and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Rancho Santo Cristo, Inc. d/b/a
Southcoast Produce Co. and Arnulfo Perez, Case No. 3:14-cv-04041
(N.D. Tex., November 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a fruit and vegetable market
located in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


RAYONIER INC: Sued in Florida Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Rayonier Inc., Paul Boynton,
Hans E Vanden Noort, H. Edwin Kiker, and David L. Nunes, Case No.
3:14-cv-01403 (M.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading financial statements and
failure to disclose cost of sales, operating income, net income,
diluted and basic earnings per share, and other important
financial metrics.

Rayonier Inc. owns, leases and manages working forests in the US
and New Zealand to supply timber to a wide variety of markets.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Rayonier
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP
      38th Floor, 1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
              jerry@blbglaw.com

         - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
      10059 NW 1st Ct
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
      E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com


REXNORD CORPORATION: Class Action Plaintiffs' Attorney Fees Paid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn
Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual
and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The
plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX
plumbing systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.  The settlement received final court approval in
February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is
capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the
seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding
criteria.  The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were
paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014.

Rexnord is a growth-oriented, multi-platform industrial company
with what it believes are leading market shares and highly trusted
brands that serve a diverse array of global end-markets.


REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Defendants Answer Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexford Industrial Realty, 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 defendants
have answered the Second Amended Complaint in the class action by
two pre-IPO investors denying all allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.

On October 3, 2013, two pre-IPO investors filed a putative class
action purportedly brought on behalf of the investors in RIF III
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On February 14, 2014, a
First Amended Complaint was filed adding an additional individual
pre-IPO investor and putative class claims on behalf of investors
in RIF IV.  This complaint also alleged that the communication of
the proposed accommodation (in which Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel
and Ziman, together with certain other pre-IPO owners of the pre-
IPO management companies agreed to return up to $32.1 million that
they received in connection with the Company's IPO and formation
transactions) was materially misleading by not including
disclosures regarding the lawsuit and claims asserted by
plaintiffs.

On July 15, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint was filed withdrawing
the class action allegations and the allegations concerning
communication of the accommodation, and adding four additional
plaintiff investors. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company
entered into settlement agreements with three of these four
additional plaintiffs.  The aggregate amounts paid by the Company
in these settlements was not material.

Plaintiffs assert claims against the Company, RIF III, RIF IV,
RILLC and Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman for breach of
fiduciary duty, violation of certain California securities laws,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the terms of the Company's formation
transactions were unfair to investors in RIF III and RIF IV, that
the consideration received by investors in RIF III and RIF IV in
the formation transactions was inadequate, that the pre-IPO
management companies were allocated unfair value in the formation
transactions and that the disclosure documents related to the
formation transactions were materially misleading.  Plaintiffs
also request to inspect the books and records of RIF III and RIF
IV, which entities no longer exist, and further seek declaratory
relief, unspecified recessionary damages, disgorgement,
compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, an accounting for
unjust enrichment, and an award of costs including pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other unspecified
relief.

Defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint denying all
allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

"While we believe that the action is without merit and intend to
defend the litigation vigorously, we expect to incur costs
associated with defending the action. At this early stage of the
litigation, the ultimate outcome of the action is uncertain and we
cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome, or estimate the
amount of loss, if any, or its effect, if any, on our financial
condition," the Company said.

Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. is a self-administered and self-
managed full-service REIT focused on owning and operating
industrial properties in Southern California infill markets.


SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of Securities Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Weller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scout Analytics, Inc., a Washington corporation,
Service Source International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Mike
Smerklo, Case No. 3:14-cv-05046 (N.D. Cal., November 14, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act.

Scout Analytics, Inc. is a cloud-based customer lifecycle
management solution designed to maximize customer value and
accelerate sustainable growth in revenue and profits.

Service Source International, Inc. provides cloud-based recurring
revenue management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John David Du Wors, Esq.
      NEWMAN DU WORS LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1600
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 274-2800
      Facsimile: (206) 274-2801
      E-mail: duwors@newmanlaw.com


SEVENTH GENERATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tziva Rapoport-Hecht individually on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No.
7:14-cv-09087 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's material misrepresentation and deceptive business
practice of labeling its laundry detergent and dish liquid
products as natural, when in fact they contain synthetic
preservatives benzisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone.

Seventh Generation, Inc. manufactures and distributes Natural
Laundry Detergent, Natural 4x Concentrated Laundry Detergent,
Ultra Plus Natural Laundry Detergent, Natural Dish Liquid, and
Ultra Power Natural Dish Liquid to retailers nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP
      4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202
      Purchase, NY 10577
      Telephone: (914) 417-3400
      Facsimile: (914) 417-3401
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      77 Water Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-4266
      Facsimile: (888) 749-4267
      E-mail: joseph.lipari@wilsonelser.com


SIRIUS XM: Motion for Summary Judgment in Copyright Suit Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Sisario, writing for The New York Times, report that a federal
judge in New York has ruled against Sirius XM over an obscure
copyright issue that has galvanized the music industry: royalties
for recordings made before 1972.

Sirius XM and Pandora Media have both been hit in the last year by
a series of lawsuits over old recordings.  Neither company pays
record labels or performing artists on songs recorded before 1972,
when federal copyright protection was first applied to recordings.
(Both services, however, pay separate royalties for songwriting.)

Last year, members of the 1960s band the Turtles -- who sang hits
like "Happy Together" and "She'd Rather Be With Me" -- sued Sirius
XM in California, New York and Florida, saying that by playing its
songs without permission, the broadcaster had infringed on the
group's rights under state laws.

The Turtles sought class-action status and asked for $100 million
in damages.  But these cases may well have broader implications if
they lead to changes in copyright law.

On Nov. 14, Judge Colleen McMahon of United States District Court
in Manhattan rejected Sirius XM's motion for summary judgment,
saying the Turtles have performing rights to their recordings
under New York State law.  Sirius XM has until Dec. 5 to dispute
remaining facts in the case, the judge wrote, otherwise Sirius XM
will be ruled liable for infringement.

"In short, general principles of common law copyright dictate that
public performance rights in pre-1972 sound recordings do exist,"
Judge McMahon wrote.  A representative of Sirius XM declined on
Nov. 16 to comment on the decision.

The ruling comes after a separate win for the Turtles in
September, when a federal judge in California found Sirius XM
liable for infringement under state laws there.  That decision was
viewed as a major victory for artists and record companies,
although its wider impact was unclear because it applied only to
California.

Judge McMahon's decision bolstered the music industry's position
that old recordings are covered under state laws.  But both
recording and broadcasting executives say the potential for wide
confusion over music licensing -- for example, it may mean that
thousands of AM-FM radio stations, as well as restaurants or
sports arenas where music is performed, may have been infringing
on recording rights for decades -- may require clarification from
Congress.

The cases also come as record sales have continued to decline and
the music industry has become more reliant on income from online
and streaming audio services.  SoundExchange, a nonprofit
organization that collects recording royalties from Internet and
satellite radio, estimates that about $60 million is lost each
year in uncollected royalties from oldies.


SIXT RENT: "Ojeda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Livan Ojeda, and others similarly situated individuals v. Sixt
Rent A Car LLC, a foreign Limited Liability Company, Vincent Todd
Sazera, and Johannes A. Boeingoff, Case No. 1:14-cv-24334 (S.D.
Fla., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a car rental company in Miami-Dade,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SODEXO INC: Faces "Chandler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Chandler, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
Sodexo, Inc., Sodexo Management, Inc., and Heartland Employment
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-06553 (E.D. Pa., November 14,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Sodexo, Inc. is a leading provider of comprehensive service
solutions to corporations, health care, long term care,
retirement, schools, higher education, government and remote
sites.

Sodexo Management, Inc. provides contract based food facility
management services as well as staff development and training,
food catering, menu and nutritional planning and material
procurement services.

Heartland Employment Services, LLC owns and operates 27 skilled
nursing facilities in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net


SOLARCITY CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
SolarCity 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 purported
stockholder class action lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2014, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its officers. The
complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities
from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. The Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss,
if any, associated with this lawsuit.

SolarCity is engaged in the design, manufacturing, installation
and sale or lease of solar energy systems to residential and
commercial customers, or sale of electricity generated by solar
energy systems to customers. The Company's headquarters are
located in San Mateo, California.


SPECTRUM FINANCIAL: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v.  Spectrum Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-
00175 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in a week.

Spectrum Financial Services, LLC is a national employee staffing
company hiring employees across the country to work at its
clients' offices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
      Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
      P.O. Box 1070
      Tucker, GA 30085-1070
      Telephone: (770) 313-5538
      Facsimile: (770) 837-2678
      E-mail Kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com
             tfmartinlaw@msn.com


STARION ENERGY: Faces $50MM Class Action Over Electric Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that a Connecticut energy company faces a potential class action
from consumers who are upset that their electric bills have gone
up instead of down. The claim against Middlebury-based Starion
Energy seeks $50 million.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeks to
recover damages on behalf of consumers estimated in the thousands
from several states in which Starion does business, including
Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.

The primary claim is that Starion made money-saving promises that
didn't come to fruition. The complaint, filed on behalf of lead
plaintiff Diana Windley of the Bronx, N.Y., alleges that Starion
violated the New York's consumer protection act, as well as
contractual agreements with Windley.  According to the complaint,
Windley was "promised" she would save money on her bill from her
former energy provider, Con Edison, but ended up paying three
times more.

"Starion promises customers savings on their energy bills if they
switch their accounts from other energy suppliers," said Jeremy
Heisler -- jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- the managing partner of
Sanford Heisler in New York, the firm representing the plaintiffs.
"In fact, Starion often jacks up its promised rate to two or three
times what customers were paying before making the switch."

The suit claims that Starion targeted elderly and low-income
consumers by offering them savings if they switched from their
current utility, including Con Edison in New York and Connecticut
Light & Power in Connecticut. But instead of savings, the
comsumers paid hundreds of dollars more per year for electricity
than they had before signing on with Starion.

Starion Energy is one of dozens of alternative energy suppliers
that resulted from deregulation of the U.S. electric industry.
The company has 30,000 customers in Connecticut and many thousands
more in Delaware, Maryland Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

According to the company website, Starion, which started in
Connecticut in 2002, is "one of the fastest growing energy
suppliers in the United States."  The company serves residential
and commercial customers by offering fixed or variable ragte plans
to allow consumers to buy electricity.  "You have the ability to
choose a fixed-rate and lock in the prices for a specified period
allowing you budget certainty month to month," the Starion website
says.  "Or you can enroll in our variable rate program to take
advantage of current market conditions of energy that we buy day-
to-day."

Attorney George Jepsen's office has represented the state in a
pair of complaints against Starion lodged with the Department of
Public Utility Control.  According to state records, a settlement
agreement was reached with Starion in 2011 after the company was
accused of violating Connecticut law by switching customers to its
energy service without obtaining confirmation that customers
desired to do so.

Under the settlement, Starion paid fines and also made a $20,000
donation to Operation Fuel, Inc., an energy assistance program in
Hartford for low-income families.

Earlier this year, Mr. Jepsen issued a consumer advisory in which
he informed the public that Starion Energy was on a list of energy
providers doing business in Connecticut that were charging more
than standard rates for electricity.  Mr. Jepsen also stated that
Starion was one of a number of companies that offer variable rate
plans in which low initial ratesa are "quickly replaced by
significantly higher charges without notice.  We have also
received complaints from customers who enrolled in fixed-rate
supply arrangements who were automatically transferred to
exorbitantly high variable rate products at the conclusion of the
fixed-rate term."

Andrew Melzer, another attorney at Sanford Heisler, said
complaints against Starion handled in Connecticut, New York, and
Maryland helped bolster the claims of lead plaintiff Windley, and
prompted the lawyers to file the putative class action.

"Basically, when the complaints were filed against Starion, at
that point they were kind they had just started out and they
really got a little bit of a slap on the wrist," Mr. Melzer said.
"Now they've extended into other states, and a lot more people
have been taken advantage of."

Starion has several weeks to respond to the complaint, which is
the first lawsuit of its kind to be filed against the company.
Phone messages left with Starion executives in Connecticut were
not returned.


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Brodzenski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Stonemor Partners LP, Stonemor Operating, LLC, and
Stonemor GP LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02517 (N.D. Ohio, November 14,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate cemeteries in Ohio and across the
country, and sell cemetery products including but not limited to:
burial lots, lawn and mausoleum crypts, burial vaults, urns,
caskets, memorials, and services to provide for the installation
of the cemetery merchandise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      COHEN, ROSENTHAL & KRAMER
      400 Hoyt Block Bldg.
      700 St. Clair Avenue,
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com


STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ai Ping Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Studio Nails & Spa, Inc, Hartsdale Floris
Spa and Nails Inc. d/b/a Floris Spa & Nail, Kyung Sil Ahn,
Jennifer Doe, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09128 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidates damages, attorney's fees, costs,
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a massage and nail spa doing
business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCITES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, New York 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Napoleon Owens, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Sun-Tec Installation, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a
Sun-Tec Solar Energy and Heng Phu, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-
81429 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of home and commercial
solar panel installation and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Neely" Suit Over Viptera Corn
----------------------------------------------------------
Ivory Neely, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., Case No. 4:14-cv-00669 (E.D. Ark.,
November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain
exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of
planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using
Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Charles Williams, Esq.
      Hank Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
      Little Rock, AR 72212
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      E-mail: jwilliams@cbplaw.com
              hbates@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      2113 Middle Street, Suite 208
      Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
      Telephone: (205) 238-6757
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200
      Oxford, MS 38655
      Telephone: (662) 550-4511
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         -and-

      Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
      Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
      Manmeet Walia, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 51 00
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 651-9366
      Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
      E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com
              vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com
              mwalia@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Portera, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      901 Main Street, Suite 5100
      Dallas, Texas 75202
      Telephone: (214) 754-1900
      Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
      E-mail: jpotera@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, W A 98101
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces RJR Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn
------------------------------------------------------------
RJR Farms, Keeter Farms, Inc. Marge Farms, Jeff Keeter, Eifling
Farm General Partnership, and Clay Eifling individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-00415 (E.D. Ark., November 17, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to
farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting,
transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera
corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Face Gilbert Jones Suit Over Viptera Corn
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Jones & Sons Farm LLC, on its own behalf, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-14384
(E.D. Mich., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul F. Novak, Esq.
      Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Kennedy Square, 777 Woodward Ave., Ste. 890
      Detroit, MI 48226
      Telephone: (313) 309-1760
      E-mail: pnovak@milberg.com
              dgjonaj@milberg.com

         - and -

      Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
      Peggy Wedgworth, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: 212-594-5300
      E-mail: lfeldman@milberg.com
              pwedgwort@milberg.com

          - and -

      Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
      DOYLE LAW PC
      4101 W. St. Joseph Highway, Ste. 1, P.O. Box 16066
      Lansing, MI 48901-6066
      Telephone: (517) 323-7366
      E-mail: tdoy1e@doy1e1awpc.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Defective Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yessica Martinez and Eric Anthony Rosson on behalf of themselves
and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-24346 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), alleges
that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the
Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from
bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Buckner, Esq.
      Seth E. Miles, Esq.
      Brett E. von Borke, Esq.
      GROSSMAN ROTH, P.A.
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 442-8666
      Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
      Email: dbu@grossmanroth.com
             sem@grossmanroth.com
             bvb@grossmanroth.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Shader" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Shader, Barry Balmuth, and Connie Collins, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24343 (S.D. Fla., November
14, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags
manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle
occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode
and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris
and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Scarola, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com

         - and -

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
      Robert Neary, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Joshua L. Plager, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Miami, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              tr@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              tjl@kttlaw.com
              jplager@kttlaw.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Gerhart" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gerhart, John Huebner, Kangyi And Ann Xiaoyan Chen, Judy
Rumlik, and Thomas Williams, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-
cv-01562 (W.D. Pa., November 14, 2014), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              rhonik@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Horton, David Bear Mclaughlin, Mary Christine Rapoza,
David Neto, Corene L. Quirk, Mary B. Johnston, Joyce M. Wichmann
and Richard E. H. Howells, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-04433 (D.S.C., November 14, 2014), alleges that the
Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants
with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
      Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Boulevard
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

         - and -

      Brian M. Knowles, Esq.
      KNOWLES LAW FIRM, PC
      1212 Wappoo Road
      Charleston, SC 29407
      Telephone: (843) 810-7596
      Facsimile: (877) 408-1078
      E-mail: brian@knowlesinternational.com

         - and -

      Robert M. Turkewitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TURKEWITZ, LLC
      2186 Wappoo Hall Road
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Telephone: (843) 628-7868
      Facsimile: (843) 277-1438
      E-mail: rob@rmtlegal.com


TRULIA INC: Dec. 3 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trulia, 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 hearing on the
preliminary injunction motion in the In re Trulia, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation is set for December 3, 2014.

Between August 7, 2014 and August 20, 2014, four plaintiffs filed
purported class action lawsuits against the Company and its
directors, Zillow and HoldCo in connection with the Zillow Merger.
Three of those purported class actions were brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10020 (August 7, 2014), Sciabacucci et al. v.
Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10022 (August 8, 2014), and
Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., Case No. 10049 (August
20, 2014). The fourth of those purported class actions was brought
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CGC 14-540985 (August 7, 2014).

The Company said, "Each of the lawsuits alleges that our directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that
the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking
to sell Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an
unfair price and on unfair terms. The Collier complaint filed in
Delaware and the Sciabacucci complaint (as amended, as described
below) also allege that our directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided
and abetted such breaches, with respect to the contents of
HoldCo's registration statement on Form S-4. All lawsuits seek,
among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the
consummation of the Zillow Merger and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Delaware actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement
(to the extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory
damages, and orders directing the individual defendants to account
for alleged damages suffered by the plaintiff and the purported
class as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing."

"On September 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action
filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially the same claims
and seeking substantially the same relief as in the original
complaint, and on September 24, 2014, the plaintiff filed (1) a
motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a preliminary
injunction, (3) a request for production of documents from
defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 7, 2014, the
plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new complaint in Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10209 (October 7, 2014), alleging substantially the
same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California.

"On October 8, 2014, the plaintiff in the Collier action filed a
request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice. On
October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order
consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter
captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No.
10020-CB and appointed a lead counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014,
the motions were refiled under the consolidated case number. The
hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set for December
3, 2014.

"We believe that the foregoing lawsuits are entirely without merit
and intend to defend against the actions vigorously," the Company
said.

Trulia is redefining the home search experience for consumers and
changing the way that real estate professionals build their
businesses.  Its marketplace, delivered through the web and mobile
applications, gives consumers powerful tools to research homes and
neighborhoods and enables real estate professionals to efficiently
market their listings and attract and manage new clients.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Shareholder Class Action Appeal Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, 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 class action filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of
the court and that appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended
complaint, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of
the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the
Company and the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs.  On
May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of the court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the
appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently estimate the
possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with
this litigation.


UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Reveals Issue on Bogus Courses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Schaeffer Riley, writing for New York Post, reports that a
lawsuit filed by former University of North Carolina football
player Michael McAdoo claims that UNC "systematically funneled its
football student-athletes into a 'shadow curriculum' of bogus
courses which never met and which were designed for the sole
purpose of providing enrollees high grades."

Indeed, a recently released 130-page independent investigation of
the school reports that more than 3,100 students (both athletes
and non-athletes) were taking "paper" courses in the formerly
named African and Afro-American Studies department for 18 years
ending in 2011.  The courses didn't meet and didn't have any
requirements.

While for years the university maintained that only the department
chair of the African-American studies program, Julius Nyang'oro,
understood what was going on, it is clear from this new report
that coaches and athletic tutors were fully aware.  After all they
were funneling their students into the classes in order to boost
their GPAs.

Administrators knew, too.  According to the report, one
administrator "became aware in 2005 or 2006 that Mr. Nyang'oro was
routinely listed as the instructor-of-record for a number of
independent studies -- approximately 300 per year.  Three-hundred?
"That administrator's response was just to ask Nyang'oro to reduce
his independent studies numbers and then to let the matter drop."
As a result these completely fraudulent courses went on for
another five years.

The initial motivation for this widespread fraud was to ensure the
eligibility of UNC athletes -- Mr. Nyang'oro's assistant was a big
UNC sports fan! But the problem was systemic.  UNC was regularly
admitting kids who could not do college-level work.  According to
one researcher, who looked at the reading abilities of 183 UNC-
Chapel Hill basketball and football players, 60% read between
fourth- and eighth-grade levels.  Between 8% and 10% read below a
third-grade level.  Obviously these athletes could not be enrolled
in regular college classes, so they were steered into particular
departments -- communications, exercise studies and African-
American studies -- that would offer an easier ride.

The temptation is to assume that the fake courses offered by the
school are an athletic scandal.  They're not.  What happened at
UNC is an academic scandal through and through.

The reason these courses went unnoticed for so long is the result
of a university culture that is dysfunctional and unserious about
education.  And that starts with the oversight of the faculty.  As
Jane Shaw points out, "There is a mantra that professors are in
charge of their own courses because they have academic freedom."
Shaw, who heads the North Carolina-based Pope Center for Higher
Education Policy, says that academic freedom should not mean there
is no quality control.

Moreover, Ms. Shaw wonders whether the fact that it was a minority
studies department on a campus that is unusually focused on
"multiculturalism" meant that it got a free pass.  No one wants to
be the politically incorrect professor calling attention to the
problem.

Many of these administrators used to be faculty members themselves
so they give professors undue deference too.  And the
administrators also face no oversight.

Anne Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni points
out that obviously the accreditors here proved particularly
useless.  How did they not notice what was going on for almost two
decades?

Fundamentally, she suggests that what happened at UNC is a
governance problem.  Ms. Neal says trustees have been marginalized
to the point where most don't see it as their role to oversee the
academic integrity of a school.  UNC, she says, "is an example of
an institution that has lost its way and really seems to put
reputation and revenues ahead of academic mission."

Ms. Neal compares it to the situation at Penn State a couple of
years ago, but notes that the problem is far broader than just the
way that athletics has corrupted higher education.
"There is a question of academic seriousness here.  Students in
large numbers are not showing significant cognitive gain in
college.  They are spending more time sleeping and socializing
than studying."

And the results are clear.  According to the National Assessment
of Adult Literacy, the vast majority of four-year college
graduates fell below the "proficient" level in prose, document,
and quantitative literacy.  To score proficiently, you need to do
things like compare viewpoints in two editorials and compute the
cost per ounce of food items.  Tough stuff.

Imagine if all the college grads who took "bogus" courses
"designed for the sole purpose of providing enrollees high grades"
decided to sue.  Now that would be a class action.


WELLS FARGO: Fails to Timely File Mortgage Certificate, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony King and Renee King, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:14-cv-06715 (E.D.N.Y., November 14, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to file on a timely basis their
satisfactions of mortgage or certificates of discharge.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a full-service interstate bank that
operates throughout the United States, including in New York
State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Dudley Jordan, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200

         - and -

      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000

         - and -

      Stuart Rossman, Esq.
      Charles Delbaum, Esq.
      NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
      7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 542-8010


WIND RESISTANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Sierra" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Omar Guzman Sierra, Domingo Junior Del Villar and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Wind Resistant
Concrete System Corp., Onevo, LLC, SSCC Group, Inc., Jose L.
Henriquez, and Raul Hinojosa, Case No. 1:14-cv-24355 (S.D. Fla.,
November 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly.

The Defendants are concrete work contractors in Miami-Dade,
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


WOLF OIL: Faces "Bahr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bahr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wolf Oil and Gas, LLC, Jeffery Wolf, and Jesse Wolf,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03071 (D. Colo., November 13, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants provide oil and gas well monitoring services to
energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin Bernard Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 West Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


ZILLOW INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Zillow, 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 has
issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss a
securities class action and Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date
of entry of the judgment to appeal the Court's judgment.

The Company said, "In November 2012, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle against us and certain of our
executive officers seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in June 2013. The complaint purports
to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between
February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that during the period between
February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, we issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding our business practices and
financial results."

"In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 20,
2014, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. Also on October 20,
2014, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint with
prejudice."

Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment to
appeal the Court's judgment dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint with prejudice.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of
September 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013, as we do not believe a
material loss is probable," the Company said.

Zillow operates the real estate and home-related information
marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio
of brands and products to help people find vital information about
homes, and connect with local professionals.


ZILLOW INC: Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing Set for Dec. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow, 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 has
issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss a
securities class action and Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date
of entry of the judgment to appeal the Court's judgment.

In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by
plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra
Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of
Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et
al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however
on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially
the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California.  On October 8, 2014,
plaintiff in the Collier action filed a request for dismissal of
the California case without prejudice.

The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned
Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia,
Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

All four lawsuits allege that Trulia's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell
Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price
and on unfair terms. All lawsuits seek, among other things,
equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of Zillow's
proposed acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Delaware actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement
(to the extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory
damages and orders directing the defendants to account for alleged
damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the purported class as a
result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed
(1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a
preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents
from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions.

On October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an
order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter
captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and appointed
Rigrodsky & Long as lead counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the
above-referenced motions were refiled under the consolidated case
number. The hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set
for December 3, 2014.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to these lawsuits as of
September 30, 2014, as we do not believe a material loss is
probable," the Company said.

Zillow operates the real estate and home-related information
marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio
of brands and products to help people find vital information about
homes, and connect with local professionals.


* Clement, Tribe to Challenge FDA Over Lab Test Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in a not-so-subtle hint that it's prepared to fight, the American
Clinical Laboratory Association on Nov. 18 announced it has hired
longtime U.S. Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement and
constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe to challenge federal
regulators.

The conservative-liberal team isn't working on a cert petition or
an appellate argument.  Messrs. Clement and Tribe have been
retained to fight draft guidance by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to regulate certain laboratory tests -- proposed
nonbinding rules that are open for comment until February.

The unusually aggressive early move by the laboratory trade group
underscores how important the issue is to its members.  They
oppose the FDA's push to bring so-called laboratory developed
tests under its regulatory oversight.

"We are pleased that Laurence Tribe and Paul Clement, two of the
nation's most preeminent experts in constitutional law and
administrative procedure, will advise ACLA in its opposition to
the FDA proposal," said Stephen Rusckowski, president and CEO of
Quest Diagnostics Inc. and ACLA chairman, in a written statement.
Some of the lab tests at issue are relatively simple -- measuring,
for example, a person's cholesterol.  But in recent years, many
tests have gotten more complex, detecting someone's risk for
breast cancer or Alzheimer's disease, for example.  Making matters
more complicated, depending on the manufacturer, some tests for
these conditions are already subject to FDA regulation.

But laboratory-developed tests -- designed, manufactured and used
within a single lab -- are not regulated by the FDA.

Instead, test makers have been regulated for decades by the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments, and by state law.

The FDA wants to change that, arguing that oversight should be
"based on risk to patients rather than whether [the tests] were
made by a conventional manufacturer or a single laboratory."

The agency notes that it is "aware of faulty [laboratory developed
tests] that could have led to: patients being over- or
undertreated for heart disease; cancer patients being exposed to
inappropriate therapies or not getting effective therapies;
incorrect diagnosis of autism; unnecessary antibiotic treatments;
and exposure to unnecessary, harmful treatments for certain
diseases such as Lyme disease."

The laboratory trade group counters that its members' tests are
lab services, not medical devices, and the FDA lacks the statutory
authority to regulate them.

The test makers say that FDA regulation would be burdensome and
stifle innovation.  The current scheme, by contrast, "allows
laboratories to develop tests quickly and to update them regularly
as research and medicine advances, giving patients access to the
most current diagnostic testing available.  Such flexibility would
be lost under the FDA device regulatory framework," ACLA President
Alan Mertz testified before the House Energy and Commerce
Committee's health subcommittee in August.

Mr. Clement, a partner at Bancroft, was solicitor general from
2005 until 2008 and has argued 75 cases in the Supreme Court.
Tribe is a professor at Harvard Law School and well-known
constitutional scholar.

While Mr. Clement said he's usually brought in after an adverse
decision, "From my standpoint, it's a huge luxury to be able to
get involved in an issue at the beginning . . . and have the
ability to shape the argument and debate," he said.  He added,
"We'll try to make the argument in a way that prevents the need
for litigation."


* Oregon Spent $50MM in Resolving Employment Claims in 10 Years
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Hoffman, writing for Statesman Journal, reports that about
once every other day, a state worker files an employment claim
against the state of Oregon.

The claims include discrimination, harassment, wrongful
termination, retaliation for whistleblowing and wage-and-hour
disputes, among other issues.  They come from people who have been
fired, demoted, laid off and from people who still work in state
offices.

Occasionally, those claims lead to large payouts from the state.
Earlier this year, for example, two former employees were paid
$300,000 each, a total of $600,000 in 10 days.  Both were top
officials who were fired and later filed claims against the state
for wrongful discharge.

However, most of the would-be litigants fail, and records show the
state is not in the habit of writing big checks to chagrined
former employees.

Rather, the state is more likely than not to tell them to go away,
and settlements it does reach, on average, are worth about one
year of mid-level salary.

Records provided by the Department of Administrative Services show
the settlements from earlier this year are anomalies in more ways
than one.

In 10 years, workers filed 1,115 claims against the state.  Some
people filed more than one claim during the years.

Three quarters of claims are resolved without the state paying
someone.

Of the remaining one quarter, the average payment was about
$47,000.

The state has spent almost $50 million dealing with claims over 10
years.  However, about $13 million of that was spent on just one
class-action lawsuit that dragged on for 15 years.

Employment cases almost never go to trial.  Just 33 made it to a
courtroom in 10 years.

The state won 24 of those trials.

Trials are more expensive than settling.  Records show the state
spends an average $120,923 on a case it settles, including
attorney fees on both sides.  For a trial, it spends an average
$257,574, more than twice as much.

The decision to settle or go to trial hangs over every case.

Trials carry a bigger financial risk, but there is also the
principle at stake in each case, which can make it unappealing to
settle a case where the state feels it is in the right.

The decision to cut a check or not lies with Department of Justice
and the Department of Administrative Services, whose risk division
analysts decide how likely it is the state would win in a
courtroom after listening to attorneys and looking over the case.

As the numbers show, trials are rare.

"The unknown of it and the cost are what keep you from going there
most of the time," said Department of Administrative Services
Director Michael Jordan.  For the most part, it's about making the
most prudent financial decision.

The state is sometimes faced with a choice between spending more
money to stand on principle or resolving the case more smoothly
with a settlement.  There are times when the moral case wins out,
Mr. Jordan said, as when many people have sued over the same thing
and the state needs to send a message that it believes the claims
are without merit.

Why state worker lawsuits almost never go to trial

"Every once in a while you stand firm on a case and say you're not
going to just roll over and write a check," Mr. Jordan said.

Most of the time however, Mr. Jordan said, the financial risk of a
trial simply isn't worth it.  Even if the state wins, it comes at
a price.  For example, the state won a trial in 2005 against Glenn
Rudner, who sued the Oregon State Police.  Mr. Rudner got nothing,
but the state spent $131,420 fighting his lawsuit.

In fact, most cases don't even make it to the pretrial
depositions, he said.

The two $300,000 settlements that drew so much attention earlier
this year were not quite the largest in the past decade.  The
largest payout went to Douglas Samuels, a demoted vice provost at
Portland State University who sued for racial discrimination and
received $500,000.

The two this year were both among the top five largest, however.

Rob Killgore and George Dunford were officials at Oregon
Corrections Enterprises and the Oregon Employment Department,
respectively. Both were fired in the spring of 2013, and both
claimed wrongful discharge and retaliation for whistleblowing.
Mr. Dunford also claimed defamation.

Mr. Dunford's was settled before he ever filed an official
lawsuit.

His claim is not alone.  Most do not become lawsuits, but most
don't result in any money either.  Mr. Dunford's case was rare in
that he was paid out without ever filing anything in court.

Mr. Dunford's settlement was unusually large, but it was resolved
early in the process, which is typical.

Mr. Killgore's, on the other hand, not only went through months of
depositions, but the jury trial was scheduled when it finally
settled.  About 26 percent of employment claims end in a
settlement, and about 36 percent of those settlements result in
money for the employee.

Mr. Killgore's case was a tricky one.  He sued for $1.5 million
and had a high profile, very public case.  However, Department of
Corrections Director Colette Peters, who fired him, had reams of
documentation for why she made her decision.

Mr. Jordan wouldn't speak to any specific case, but he said some
decisions are very hard to make.  It's not always about who was
right and who was wrong, he said.  The amount of risk and the
likely outcome at trial play a huge role.

Sometimes even the lawyers from the Department of Justice disagree
about the possible outcome.

"Sometimes they're not easy," Mr. Jordan said.  "Sometimes you're
on a razor's edge."

Ultimately, most cases do not turn out like Mr. Killgore's and Mr.
Dunford's.  Most people aren't paid anything, and very few people
are paid as much as they were.

Records show just nine people received payouts worth more than
$250,000.

In total, the state has paid plaintiffs a collective $11,828,013
over those 10 years. However, more than half of that money went to
just 32 people.

The payouts the state does give don't necessarily reflect what
really happened behind the scenes, Mr. Jordan said.  The decision
of what to do ultimately falls with the state's lawyers and the
Department of Administrative Services risk department, not the
agency involved in the case.

Money for the plaintiff doesn't necessarily mean guilt on the
state's behalf, he said, nor do those "admit no fault" clauses in
every settlement mean the state was actually blameless in every
case.

"It would be naive of people to think we never do anything wrong,"
Mr. Jordan said.


* Some FLSA-Related Suits Subject to Dismissal Over Lack of Facts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick T. Ryan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the number of lawsuits alleging uncompensated work time has
skyrocketed in recent years, as employees in many industries, such
as health care, retail, food service, manufacturing and financial
services, allege that employer practices or policies
undercompensate them for required activities.  Most of the
lawsuits are brought as potential collective actions under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and many include claims under
analogous state wage laws.  The FLSA does not define what
constitutes "work" or a "workweek," and courts have been forced to
address these issues in an increasing number of cases alleging
unpaid overtime for work performed beyond the statute's 40-hour
threshold.

Recent decisions are beginning to make clear that some of these
complaints are subject to dismissal for failure to allege enough
specific facts to state a claim under the FLSA.  On Aug. 26, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided in Davis v.
Abington Memorial Hospital, 765 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2014), that the
FLSA claims of plaintiffs who alleged that they "typically" worked
between 32 and 40 hours per week and that they "frequently" worked
extra time during meal breaks or after their shifts ended were
properly dismissed for failing to allege enough facts in their
complaints.  The court adopted an approach taken last year by the
Second Circuit in Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island,
711 F.3d 106 (2013), on how much factual specificity is required
to survive a motion to dismiss in an FLSA case.

The need for more factual specificity in federal court complaints
stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal.
In May 2007, in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the
Supreme Court tightened the federal court pleading requirements by
construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) to require a
plaintiff to include "enough factual matter" to plausibly show
that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he or she seeks.  Two
years later, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the court
emphasized that it is not sufficient to plead facts that, if true,
make it possible that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff.  A
complaint must allege enough facts to allow the court "to draw the
reasonable inference" that, if the claimed facts are true, "the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

The need to plead enough facts to make the claim plausible has
caused plaintiffs to include more facts in their complaints and
prompted defendants to seek dismissal of complaints they assert
are inadequate under the Twombly/Iqbal -- sometimes colloquially
shortened to "Twiqbal" -- standards.

In Davis, the Third Circuit applied those pleading standards in an
FLSA case alleging that an employer is not properly compensating
employees for overtime work.  The court affirmed the dismissal of
complaints against five hospital systems alleging failure to
compensate nurses and other patient-care professionals for hours
worked in excess of the FLSA's 40-hour-per-week threshold.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the hospital employers failed to
compensate them for work done during meal breaks, at required
training programs, and before and after their scheduled shifts.

The deficiency the Third Circuit found in each plaintiff's
complaint was a failure to allege that in any single workweek when
the plaintiff worked at least 40 hours the plaintiff also worked
additional uncompensated time that was over the 40-hour threshold.
Instead, each plaintiff alleged that he or she typically worked
shifts between 32 and 40 hours, occasionally worked longer shifts,
and frequently worked extra hours that were not compensated.  Some
alleged they were not paid for work done during meal breaks or
outside scheduled shifts.  Others alleged that they typically
missed or had interrupted lunch breaks.  But, the court explained,
"none of the named plaintiffs has alleged a single workweek in
which he or she worked at least 40 hours and also worked
uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours."

The plaintiffs argued that in light of their allegations about
what typically and frequently occurred, it was plausible that at
least some of the uncompensated time involved work done in excess
of 40 hours, but the Third Circuit disagreed.  The court
emphasized that it was not requiring a plaintiff to "identify the
exact dates and times that she worked overtime" and was not
adopting a standard that required FLSA plaintiffs to allege
approximately how many hours of uncompensated time over the
40-hour threshold they worked.  But under the pleading standards
announced in Twombly and Iqbal, the plaintiff had to plead enough
facts for the court to infer that the plaintiff worked
uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours in one or more weeks.
The court explained: "A plaintiff's claim that she 'typically'
worked 40 hours per week, worked extra hours during such a 40-hour
week, and was not compensated for extra hours beyond 40 hours he
or she worked during one or more of those 40-hour weeks, would
suffice."

In other words, what a plaintiff's complaint must do is "connect
the dots between bare allegations of a 'typical' 40-hour workweek
and bare allegations of work completed outside of regularly
scheduled shifts, so that the allegations concerning a typical
40-hour week include an assertion that the employee worked
additional hours during such a week."

The need for an FLSA plaintiff to "connect the dots" is not a
tremendously onerous pleading burden.  Under Davis in the Third
Circuit and Lundy in the Second Circuit, there is no need for the
complaint to itemize or even approximate how many unpaid overtime
hours the plaintiff worked.  But the need to be able to allege
unpaid (or underpaid) hours of work in one or more weeks in which
the plaintiff also worked at least 40 hours may pose some
obstacles in some circumstances. For example, the FLSA permits
former employees to sue for unpaid overtime, and indeed -- perhaps
not surprisingly -- many of the ever-increasing number of FLSA
lawsuits being filed in the past few years are brought by former
employees.  A former employee is likely to recall how many hours
he or she typically worked each week and that certain activities
occurred before the shift started or after it ended, but the
passage of time may make it more difficult to be sure that any
extra time occurred in a week that was already over the FLSA
overtime threshold of 40 hours.

By contrast, a current employee contemplating an FLSA lawsuit can
document that unpaid time is occurring in weeks when the employee
is already working at least the 40-hour threshold.  Indeed,
lawyers can advise their prospective FLSA clients to wait and
record those instances of engaging in extra activities before the
complaint is filed.

Decisions like Davis and Lundy do not mean that every FLSA
overtime case should be met with a motion to dismiss.  But, thanks
to Twombly and Iqbal, Rule 8(a)'s pleading requirement has some
teeth in it.  Boilerplate complaints alleging more conclusions
than facts should be scrutinized to see if, in the rush to join
the recent trend of filing FLSA overtime cases, enough facts are
properly alleged to show that the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief the statute provides.


* US DOJ Collects $24.7 Billion in Penalties From Big Banks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that the U.S.
Department of Justice in fiscal 2014 secured $24.7 billion from
its cases, more than tripling its haul from fiscal 2013, U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced on Nov. 19.

The money flows mostly from deals JPMorgan Chase & Co. and
Citigroup Inc. reached to settle financial fraud claims stemming
from the 2008 financial crisis.  The settlements with the banks
accounted for $20 billion of DOJ's collection.

The Justice Department also pulled in millions of dollars from ATM
maker Diebold Inc. in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case and
auto parts manufacturer Bridgestone Corp. in a price-fixing case,
among other matters.

Mr. Holder said in a statement:

Every day, the Justice Department's federal prosecutors and trial
attorneys work hard to protect our citizens, to safeguard precious
taxpayer resources, and to provide a valuable return on investment
to the American people.  Their diligent efforts are enabling us to
achieve justice and recoup losses in virtually every sector of the
U.S. economy.

Mr. Holder in his statement urged "leaders from both parties to
come together to increase investments in this critical work -- so
we can ensure that the Justice Department will continue to have
the resources we need to build on these efforts."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, said Congress should support the Fighting Fraud to
Protect Taxpayers Act, which he and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa,
the top Republican on the panel, introduced to boost government
efforts to combat fraud.

"Congress can and should do more to ensure that law enforcement
can prosecute these crimes," Mr. Leahy said in a written
statement.  Of the $24.7 billion collected, $13.7 billion went to
the Justice Department and $11 billion ended up outside the agency
in the coffers of other agencies and entities.

DOJ collected about $8.1 billion in fiscal 2013.  The department
kept $5.5 billion, while the remaining $2.6 billion went to other
recipients, including state governments.


                              *********

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  * * *