CAR_Public/141201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 1, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 238


                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Files Answer to Class Action
ALERE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Case Over Laptop Theft
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Case in Discovery
AMN HEALTHCARE: Settled Wage & Hour Action for Immaterial Amount
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Removes "Raskin" Suit to S.D. New York

AQUA LUNG: Expands Recall of Buoyancy Compensators
ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
ATLAS PIPELINE: Faces Class Actions After Announcement of Merger
AUDIENCE INC: Still Defending Against Shareholder Class Action
AZULEJO INC: Removes "Gallardo" Suit to Florida District Court

B&G FOODS: Recalls Certain Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix
BAILEY FARMS: Recalls 6,215 Lbs. of Fresh Serrano Chile Peppers
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Trial Court Holds Evidentiary Hearing
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Greentech Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Two Lots of Intravia Containers

BCB BANCORP: Final Resolution Actively Pursued in Class Action
BIOSCRIP INC: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complete
CHALLENGER SUPPLY: Recalls Tankless Water Heaters
CHAOTIC LABZ: Recalls Mayhem Dietary Supplement Capsules
CHETAK NEW YORK: Recalls "Deep Raw Cashew Pieces"

CHILDREN'S MEDICAL: Recalls Gel-E Donut Gel Pillow and Squishon 2
CIT GROUP: Defending Claims Related to Train Derailment
COLONIAL GROCERS: Removes "Miller" Suit to Florida District Court
CONVERSANT INC: Stockholder Suits Filed Over Alliance Data Deal
CORGENIX MEDICAL: Facing Merger-Related Class Actions

CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Class Action Ruling Expected End of November
DS WATERS: Removes "Malone" Suit to California District Court
DUKE ENERGY: Accord Reached in Suit Over Progress Energy Merger
DUKE ENERGY: No Date Set for Oral Arguments in High Court Appeal
DUKE ENERGY: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit to Begin July 2015

EDWARD J. GROSSMAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ENDOCYTE INC: Nguyen & Oh Suits Consolidated in Vallabhaneni Case
ENERNOC INC: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 15
ENERNOC INC: Faces Class Action Over World Energy Merger
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Goldstein" Suit Over FDCPA Violations

FIRST SOLAR: Merits Discovery Is Continuing in Smilovits Suit
FORSTER AND GARBUS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
GALAXY ASSET: Debt Collection Actions Violated FDCPA, Suit Claims
GREAT AMERICAN: Recalls 662 Cases of HyVee Mozzarella Sticks
GREENSBORO N.C.: Recalls 11,640 Boxes of Assured Naproxen Sodium

HARID CONSERVATORY: Removes "Moran" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
HAUL-O-WAY TOWING: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Plaintiffs File Motion Seeking Stay
INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS: Removes "Shieh" Class Suit to C.D. California
IXIA: Oklahoma Group Files Amended Complaint

JA CAMBECE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Jan 2015 Fairness Hearing in Wage, Hour Cases
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Claims Administration Process Underway
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Pines Nursing Accepts Offer of Judgment
LUNDBERG FAMILY: Recalls Specific Bags of Sea Salt Rice Chips

LUNDBERG FAMILY: Recalls Specific Bags of Brown Rice Flour
MARIN FOODS: Recalls Organic Raw Almonds
MAXUM CASUALTY: Removes "Faust" Suit to Florida District Court
MEDICINES CO: Had November Deadline to Seek Dismissal of Suit
MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Removes "Tropical" Suit to S.D. Florida

MRS BPO: Faces Suit Alleging Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Hearing Held on Dispute Over $725,000 Judgment
NUTEK DISPOSABLES: Recalls All Lots of Baby Wipes Due to Bacteria
NYK LINE: "So" Class Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Select Lots of Lacteos Santa Martha Products

P&B CAPITAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Bankruptcy Trustee Files Adversary Complaint
PAE GROUP: Removes "Yocupicio" Suit to California District Court
PENNY NEWMAN: "Palacios" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
PENNY NEWMAN: Removes "Palacios" FLSA Suit to E.D. California

PEOPLES BANCORP: Discovery Underway in Class Action
PHL VARIABLE: Trial Expected to Begin on March 2015
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Cost of Insurance Case Trial to Begin in March
PLY GEM: Final Approval Hearing Held in Vinyl Clad Settlement
PLY GEM: Class Certification Discovery Closed in "Memari" Case

PLY GEM: Class Certification Discovery Closed in "Pagliaroni" Case
PLY GEM: Strathclyde Pension Fund Certified as Lead Plaintiff
PPL CORP: 6th Circuit Court Has Yet to Accept Case for Review
REFA ENTERPRISES: Recalls Forever Beautiful Bee Pollen & Infinity
ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Entered Into MOU in in Class Actions

ROME PACKING: Recalls Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Leg
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Attempting to Finalize Settlement
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims in Merger Suit
SCHWARTZ BROTHERS: Recalls "Everything Bagels"
SHUR-GREEN: Recalls Loads of Soyoil Containing Lascadoil

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Approval of Angell Settlement Expected November
SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Smith" Plaintiff Agreed to Terms of Angell Deal
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Approval of Niras Settlement Expected November
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Approval of Dedato Settlement Expected November
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Grants Final Approval of Sayles Settlement

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Defendant in 813 Shape-ups Personal Injury Suits
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Kentucky MDL Encompasses 750 Injury Cases
SKECHERS U.S.A.: LASC Coordinated Cases Involve 62 Injury Suits
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Deal to Resolve Tomlinson Case
SOLGAR INC: Recalls ABC Dophilus Powder

SPARK NETWORKS: Final Approval Hearing of "Kirby" Deal on Feb. 3
SPARK NETWORKS: Calif. Unruh Act Litigation Temporarily Stayed
SPARK NETWORKS: Files Response to Israeli Consumer Actions
STANDARD PARKING: Removes "Yamin" Class Suit to C.D. California
TEMPUR SEALY: Notice of Appeal Filed in Norfolk and Benning Cases

TEMPUR SEALY: Awaits Results of Appraisal Proceeding
TEMPUR SEALY: "Todd" Case at Preliminary Stage
TJX COMPANIES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Plaintiffs Oppose Motions to Dismiss
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Court Sets Final Approval Hearing for Feb. 19

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: No Significant Activity Since MOU Was Executed
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit
UNITED DEBT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
UNITED EGG: Has Conspired to Fix Prices of Eggs, Suit Claims
VENMAR VENTILATION: Expands Recall of Air Exchangers

VENTAMATIC LTD: Recalls Cool Draft Misting Fans Due to Fire Risk
WELCOME MARKET: Recalls Toast Products Due to Undeclared Allergen
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls "Vegan Gingersnap Cookies"
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Court Directs New Class Members to Arbitrate
XPO LOGISTICS: Agreement Reached in Pacer Acquisition Litigation

XPO LOGISTICS: Evaluating California DLSE Claims
Z NATURAL: Recalls 55 Lbs. of Lightly Roasted Organic Carob Powder


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Files Answer to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the Company
has filed its answer to the class action complaint alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On
December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court
entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its
entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012,
purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those
originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently
refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014
Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against
them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those
claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Court has not yet
ruled on this new motion. The Company has filed its answer to the
complaint on May 12, 2014.


ALERE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Case Over Laptop Theft
------------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that on October 7, 2014, the
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., or
AHM, was dismissed with leave to amend the complaint. On October
28, 2014, an amended complaint was filed, to which AHM has until
November 17, 2014 to respond.  The case is related to theft of
laptop.

Alere delivers reliable and actionable information through rapid
diagnostic tests, resulting in better clinical and economic
healthcare outcomes globally.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Case in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
discovery is proceeding in a class action filed by Physicians
Healthsource, Inc., and the plaintiff's deadline to file a motion
for class certification is June 2015.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. The plaintiff's deadline to file a motion
for class certification is June 2015. No trial date has been
scheduled."

Allscripts is a global provider of clinical, financial,
connectivity, hosting, outsourcing, analytics, patient engagement,
and population health solutions and services that empower
consumers, physicians, hospitals, governments, health systems,
health plans, retail clinics, retail pharmacies and post-acute
organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Settled Wage & Hour Action for Immaterial Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that during the
first quarter of 2014, the Company completed the settlement of a
wage and hour class action (and a related action) for an
immaterial amount.

AMN is the innovator in healthcare workforce solutions and
staffing services to healthcare facilities across the nation.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Removes "Raskin" Suit to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Raskin v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et
al., Case No. 157608/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-09215 to the
proceeding.

On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff Frances Raskin, as proposed
administratrix of the estate of her husband, Lester Raskin, filed
a Verified Complaint asserting claims for personal injury against
the Defendants.  She claims that her deceased husband developed
pancreatic cancer and died as a result of his use of the
antidiabetes medicines Byetta or Januvia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, NY 10118
          E-mail: hunter@napolibern.com
                  ssacks@napolibern.com

Defendants Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company are represented by:

          Vincent S. Weisband, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          E-mail: vweisband@omm.com

Defendants Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp&Dohme Corp., Merck Sharp
& Dohme Ltd. and Merck Sharp & Dohme, (Italia) S.p.A. are
represented by:

          Beth L. Kaufman, Esq.
          Silvia S. Larizza, Esq.
          SCHOEMAN UPDIKE KAUFMAN & STERN
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          E-mail: bkaufman@schoeman.com
                  slarizza@schoeman.com

               - and -

          Eva Petko Esber, Esq.
          M. Elaine Horn, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
          725 Twelfth Street N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          E-mail: eesber@wc.com
                  ehorn@wc.com
                  jonathanwilliams@wc.com


AQUA LUNG: Expands Recall of Buoyancy Compensators
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Aqua Lung America, of Vista, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 30,000 in the United States and 11,300 in Canada (an
additional 110,000 were previously recalled in the U.S. in March
2013) Aqua Lung buoyancy compensators with SureLock II weight
pocket handles.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The rubber handles can detach as divers are trying to remove the
weight pockets to rise to the surface in an emergency.  This poses
a drowning hazard.

Aqua Lung is aware of an additional 50 reports of the handles
detaching from the weight pockets.  No injuries have been
reported.

Thw recall involves all Aqua Lung buoyancy compensator vests with
SureLock II rubber handles attached to the weight pockets,
including those with SureLock II handles that were replaced in the
previous recall.  The handles are gray rubber, measure about 2
inches tall by 4 inches wide and extend from the forward end of
the ditchable weight pockets.  SureLock II handles were installed
in most Aqua Lung and one model of Apeks buoyancy compensators
including: all discontinued Black Diamond, Pro QD and Pro QDi3
models with serial numbers lower than BB408620.  The recall also
includes all Apeks Black Ice, Axiom, Axiom i3, Balance, Dimension,
Libra, Lotus,  Pearl, Pearl i3, ProLT and Zuma models with serial
numbers lower than BB408620.  The buoyancy compensator's model
name is embroidered on the inside back pad or on the right lobe.
"Sure Lock" is molded into the back of the weight pocket.  The
serial numbers are located on a tag under the back pad of the
buoyance compensator or inside the pocket.  Earlier models could
have the number printed on a tag behind the hook and loop inflator
hold down on the left shoulder.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/ng6ZBC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Mexico and
sold at sporting goods and scuba diving stores nationwide from
Sept. 2008 through Oct. 2014 for between $460 and $700 for the
buoyancy compensator with the weight pockets.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled buoyancy
compensators and return the two weight pockets to an authorized
Aqua Lung dealer to receive a free inspection and free newly-
designed replacement weight pocket handles.


ARC DOCUMENT: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
ARC Document Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company has received preliminary court approval of the settlement
in a class action lawsuit, and awaits final court approval.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed an action
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Orange. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i)
provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof,
(ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediation
session with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolution
of the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediator
issued a proposal that was accepted by both parties. The Company
has received preliminary court approval of the settlement, and
awaits final court approval.

The Company has a liability of $0.9 million as of September 30,
2014 related to the claim, which represents management's best
estimate based on information available.

ARC Document Solutions, Inc. is the nation's leading document
solutions provider for the architectural, engineering and
construction ("AEC") industry while also providing document
solutions to businesses of all types.


ATLAS PIPELINE: Faces Class Actions After Announcement of Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. on October 13, 2014, announced the
transactions (the "Merger") contemplated by the definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") between
Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC (our "General Partner"), Atlas
Energy, L.P. ("ATLS"), Targa Resources Corp. ("TRC"), Targa
Resources Partners LP ("TRP"), certain other parties and the
Company.  Concurrently with the Merger Agreement, ATLS announced
that it entered into a definitive merger agreement with TRC,
pursuant to which TRC agreed to acquire ATLS through a merger of a
newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary of TRC with and into ATLS
(the "ATLS Merger").

Atlas Pipeline Partners said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in October
2014, three alleged public unitholders of the Partnership (the
"APL Plaintiffs") filed class action lawsuits against the Company,
its General Partner, its managers, ATLS, TRC, TRP, Targa Resources
GP LLC ("Targa GP") and Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC ("Trident MLP
Sub") (the "APL Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits are styled
(a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the
Court of Common Pleas for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania; (b)
William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District Court of Tulsa
County, Oklahoma; and (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v.
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common
Pleas for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania (the "APL Lawsuits").

On October 23, 2014, and November 3, 2014, respectively, two
alleged public unitholders of ATLS (the "ATLS Plaintiffs" and,
together with the APL Plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs") filed class action
lawsuits against ATLS, Atlas Energy Partners GP, LLC ("ATLS GP"),
its managers, TRC and Trident GP Merger Sub LLC ("Trident GP Sub")
(the "ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the APL Lawsuit
Defendants, "Defendants"). These lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane
v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Alleghany County, Pennsylvania; and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas
Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Alleghany
County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS Lawsuits" and, together with the
APL Lawsuits, the "Lawsuits").

Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the
Merger and ATLS Merger.  "The APL Plaintiffs allege that (a) our
managers have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their
fiduciary duties and (b) we, our General Partner, ATLS, TRC, TRP,
Targa GP and Trident MLP Sub have aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of the covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties.
One of the APL Plaintiffs also alleges that (a) we and our
managers breached the Partnership Agreement and (b) we, our
General Partner, ATLS, TRC, TRP, Targa GP and Trident MLP Sub
aided and abetted our alleged breaches of the Partnership
Agreement. Specifically, the APL Plaintiffs allege that (a) the
premium offered to our unitholders is inadequate, (b) we agreed to
contractual terms in the Merger Agreement that will allegedly
dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire us, and
(c) our General Partner's managers favored their self-interests
over the interests of our unitholders," the Company said.

The ATLS Plaintiffs allege that (a) ATLS GP's managers have
breached the covenant of good faith and/or their fiduciary duties
and (b) ATLS, ATLS GP, TRC and Trident GP Sub have aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of the covenant of good faith
and/or fiduciary duties. Specifically, the ATLS Plaintiffs allege
that (a) the premium offered to ATLS's unitholders is inadequate,
(b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that will allegedly dissuade
other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire ATLS and (c)
ATLS GP's managers favored their self-interests over the interests
of ATLS's unitholders.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seeks to enjoin Defendants
from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and ATLS Merger.
To the extent that the Merger and ATLS Merger are consummated
before injunctive relief is granted, Plaintiffs seek to have the
mergers rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys'
fees. Plaintiffs have not yet served Defendants, and Defendants'
date to answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Lawsuits has not yet been set.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the Lawsuits or any others that
might be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can we
predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to
resolve the Lawsuits. Defendants intend to vigorously defend the
Lawsuits," the Company said.


AUDIENCE INC: Still Defending Against Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is
still defending against a shareholder class action complaint.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of its IPO. An amended complaint was filed on
February 25, 2013, which purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in or
traceable to the IPO. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the
board of directors and the underwriters were dismissed without
prejudice.

The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013,
defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer
moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that
demurrer.

On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to dismiss
the amended complaint on other grounds. The Court denied the
demurrer on September 4, 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest the action.
However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense and it cannot currently estimate a range
of any possible losses the Company may experience in connection
with this case. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to
estimate the effects of this complaint on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

Audience provides intelligent voice and audio solutions that
improve voice quality and the user experience in mobile devices.


AZULEJO INC: Removes "Gallardo" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gallardo v. Azulejo, Inc., Case
No. 14-25349 CA 01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:14-cv-24375-PAS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover backpay he alleges he is owed for
alleged violations by the Defendant of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida minimum wage law.  He seeks recovery for
alleged underpayment of the minimum wage, overtime, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stanley Kiszkiel, Esq.
          9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 94
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
          Telephone: (954) 862-2288
          Facsimile: (954) 862-2287
          E-mail: sklaw@kiszkiellaw.com


B&G FOODS: Recalls Certain Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix
----------------------------------------------------
B&G Foods announced it is voluntarily recalling certain Ortega
Taco Seasoning Mix, Ortega Taco Sauce, Ortega Enchilada Sauce and
Ortega Taco Kit products and certain Las Palmas Taco Seasoning Mix
and Las Palmas Taco Sauce products after learning that one or more
of the spice ingredients purchased from a third party supplier
contain peanuts and almonds, allergens that are not declared on
the products' ingredient statements.  People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to peanuts and almonds run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.  There is no health risk associated with these
products for individuals without an allergy to peanuts or almonds.

The recalled products were distributed in retail stores and
foodservice outlets nationwide.

The recall does not apply to any other sizes or varieties of
Ortega Seasoning Mix or to any Ortega Seasoning Mixes in
canisters, all of which are correctly labeled.  For example, this
recall does not include Ortega Fajita Seasoning Mix, Ortega Fish
Taco Seasoning Mix, Ortega Chili Seasoning Mix, Ortega Chipotle
Seasoning Mix or Ortega Burrito Seasoning Mix, all of which are
correctly labeled.  The recall also does not include any Las
Palmas Enchilada Sauce, which is correctly labeled.

"The safety of our consumers is our number one priority.  We are
committed to providing safe, quality products while observing the
highest ethical standards in the conduct of our business," said
William Wright, Executive Vice President of Quality Assurance and
R&D at B&G Foods.  "The core values that we've embodied since the
company was founded in the 1800s -- honesty, integrity and
accountability -- guide our actions as we take the appropriate
measures to address this issue."

The recall was initiated in consultation with the FDA after it was
discovered that ingredients from a single supplier used in the
affected products were contaminated with peanut and almond
allergens.  B&G Foods has since terminated its relationship with
this supplier and is receiving these ingredients from other
sources in anticipation of resuming production shortly.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company's recall hotline at 877-
929-2576 from 8:00 a.m. ET to 8:00 p.m. ET, or visit
www.ortega.com for additional information.


BAILEY FARMS: Recalls 6,215 Lbs. of Fresh Serrano Chile Peppers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Farms, Inc. of Oxford, NC is voluntarily recalling 6,215
pounds of Fresh Serrano Chile Peppers, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditic and arthritis.

The Fresh Serrano Chile Peppers was distributed to Meijer, Inc.
and customers may have purchased this product from October 14th to
October 19th at Meijer stores in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky and Ohio.

In addition this product was distributed to Publix Super Markets
Inc., Merchants Distributors, Inc., Walmart, Food Lion, Flavor 1st
Growers and Packers, US Foods, Military Produce Group, LLC.,C&S
Wholesalers, John Vena, Inc. and Harris Teeter. Consumers who
suspect they may have purchased Fresh Serrano Chile Peppers from
the above listed companies between the dates of October 2, 2014 to
October 21, 2014 should check with the above listed companies to
verify if the product was subject to recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

A random sample was taken by the Michigan Department of
Agriculture on October 13, 2014 from a warehouse in Lansing,
Michigan. Bailey Farms, Inc. received notice that the sample
tested positive for Salmonella on October 20, 2014. This recall is
the result of the possibility that the remainder of these lots
could be contaminated with this bacteria. We are working with the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to
investigate the root cause of the potential contamination.

Bailey Farms, Inc. has notified all of their customers who have
purchased Fresh Serrano Chile Peppers during said dates.

Consumers with questions can contact Bailey Farms, Inc. M-F 8:00
am to 5:00 pm EST 1-888-820-2545.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Trial Court Holds Evidentiary Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that an evidentiary
hearing was conducted by the trial court on the arbitration issue
on October 1, 2014, and the trial court has taken the matter under
advisement.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043.

The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank
have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the
Bank, by improper, unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.
According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank
employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system,
and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and
alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize
overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting
of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in
which such items are presented for payment.

Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers
do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment
policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and misleading. The
complaint in each case alleges that these actions and omissions
constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a
count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the
cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank
account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory
judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee
policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and
the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in
Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints,
disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful
actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive
damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel
arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion
and found that the arbitration provision contained in the
controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable
and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the
result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed
the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.

On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case
to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling
arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions
for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of
Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30,
2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for reconsideration.

In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to
the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the
Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals'
decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to
determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and
the Bank.

At this stage, the trial court must determine (i) whether there is
a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate between the named
plaintiffs and the Bank, (ii) whether the dispute at issue in the
Walker case falls within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate,
and, then, (iii) whether the named plaintiffs have a defense, such
as unconscionability, to invalidate the agreement to arbitrate.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the trial court on the
arbitration issue on October 1, 2014, and the trial court has
taken the matter under advisement.

The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the
proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the hearing in the
Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs'
claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.

Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Little Rock, Arkansas, which operates under the rules and
regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Company owns a wholly-owned state chartered bank
subsidiary - Bank of the Ozarks (the "Bank"), four 100%-owned
finance subsidiary business trusts - Ozark Capital Statutory Trust
II ("Ozark II"), Ozark Capital Statutory Trust III ("Ozark III"),
Ozark Capital Statutory Trust IV ("Ozark IV") and Ozark Capital
Statutory Trust V ("Ozark V") (collectively, the "Trusts") and,
indirectly through the Bank, a subsidiary engaged in the
development of real estate, a subsidiary that owns private
aircraft and various other entities that hold foreclosed assets or
tax credits or engage in other activities.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Greentech Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiff
in the Greentech Action filed an amended complaint alleging, among
other things, inadequacy of the disclosures contained in the proxy
statement/prospectus included in the Registration Statement on
Form S-4 filed by the Company on September 29, 2014.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Greentech Research LLC v. Callen, et al. (the "Greentech Action"),
was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New
York County, by an entity purporting to be a stockholder of
Intervest. On August 19, 2014, a putative class action complaint,
captioned Sonnenberg v. Intervest Bancshares Corp., et al., was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York
County, by an individual purporting to be a stockholder of
Intervest.

Each of the complaints alleges that the directors of Intervest
breached their fiduciary duties to Intervest's stockholders in
connection with the proposed merger between Intervest and the
Company by approving a transaction pursuant to an allegedly
inadequate process that undervalues Intervest and includes
preclusive deal protection provisions; and that Intervest and the
Company allegedly aided and abetted the Intervest directors in
breaching their duties to Intervest's stockholders. The complaints
seek court certification of the respective plaintiffs as class
representatives and request that such proceedings proceed as
stockholder class actions, and various remedies, including
enjoining the merger from being consummated in accordance with its
agreed-upon terms, rescission or an award of rescissory damages in
the event that the merger is consummated, an accounting by the
defendants to the plaintiff class for all damages caused by the
defendants, recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' and
experts' fees relating to the lawsuit, and such further relief as
the court deems just and proper.

As of September 17, 2014, the individual plaintiffs and the
defendants stipulated to the court that the two actions, as well
as any further actions brought in the same court, should be
consolidated for further proceedings in the same court in order to
minimize expense and promote a more efficient proceeding.

On October 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Greentech Action filed
an amended complaint alleging, among other things, inadequacy of
the disclosures contained in the proxy statement/prospectus
included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by the
Company on September 29, 2014.

The Company and the Bank deny the allegations in the complaints
and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Little Rock, Arkansas, which operates under the rules and
regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Company owns a wholly-owned state chartered bank
subsidiary - Bank of the Ozarks (the "Bank"), four 100%-owned
finance subsidiary business trusts - Ozark Capital Statutory Trust
II ("Ozark II"), Ozark Capital Statutory Trust III ("Ozark III"),
Ozark Capital Statutory Trust IV ("Ozark IV") and Ozark Capital
Statutory Trust V ("Ozark V") (collectively, the "Trusts") and,
indirectly through the Bank, a subsidiary engaged in the
development of real estate, a subsidiary that owns private
aircraft and various other entities that hold foreclosed assets or
tax credits or engage in other activities.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Two Lots of Intravia Containers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling
two lots of Intravia containers in the U.S. and Canada due to
complaints received for particulate matter found inside the fluid
path.  Intravenous administration of a solution containing sterile
particulate matter may lead to adverse health consequences.  The
extent and severity of harm depends on the size, number, and
composition of the foreign material, and patient's underlying
medical condition.  There have been no reported adverse events
associated with this issue to date.

Intravia containers are empty plastic containers with PVC ports
and a sterile fluid path.  The recalled lots are Intravia
Container, 150 mL Capacity, Lot Number UR13D15112, Product Code
2B8011, distributed to customers between April 26, 2013 and
June 20, 2013; and Intravia Container, Empty 500 mL Capacity, Lot
Number UR13K14095, Product Code 2B8013, distributed to customers
between Nov. 27, 2013 and March 10, 2014.  Unaffected lot numbers
can continue to be used according to the instructions for use.

Baxter has notified customers, who are being directed not to use
product from the recalled lots.  Recalled product should be
returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare
Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday,
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time.
Unaffected lots of product are available for replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at
onebaxter@baxter.com.  Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


BCB BANCORP: Final Resolution Actively Pursued in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a final resolution
is actively being pursued in a class action lawsuit.

The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its
own corporate capacity, is a named defendant in a shareholder
class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery
Division, General Equity. On May 9, 2012, the Company obtained
partial summary judgment, dismissing three of the five Counts of
the Complaint. On May 9, 2012, plaintiff's counsel was awarded
interim legal fees of approximately $350,000. The Company's
obligation to pay that amount has been stayed.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking the
dismissal of the remaining two Counts of the Complaint. That
motion was denied, without prejudice, on February 19, 2014. The
parties have conferenced in an effort to resolve this case.  A
final resolution is actively being pursued.  The Company is
vigorously defending its interests in this litigation.

The Company has brought a lawsuit against Progressive Insurance
Company ("Progressive"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability
insurance carrier for Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its
merger with the Company on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American
Insurance Company ("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers'
Liability insurance carrier for the Company at the time of the
merger.  The lawsuit seeks, among other claims, indemnification,
payment of and/or contribution toward the above award of interim
attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel, and
reimbursement of the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred by
the Company in defending the Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et
al., case.

Progressive has made a motion for summary judgment seeking the
dismissal of the Company's lawsuit against it. The Company has
opposed that motion. That motion is pending before the court.

Preliminary discovery has been exchanged among the parties.


BIOSCRIP INC: Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complete
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that briefing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action
Litigation in the Southern District of New York is complete.

On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on
behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities
between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013, inclusive.

On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers and certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013
underwritten public offering of its common stock, on behalf of the
putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8,
2011 and September 23, 2013, inclusive.

On December 19, 2013, the United States District Court for the
SDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits
and appointing a lead plaintiff. The Company denies any
allegations of wrongdoing in the consolidated class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
February 19, 2014 against the Company, certain of its directors
and officers, certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013
underwritten public offering of its common stock, and a certain
stockholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint is brought
on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities between November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013,
inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the Company's
securities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten public
offerings of the Company's common stock conducted in April 2013,
and August 2013.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the defendants
made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters
related the Legacy Division's distribution of the Medication as
well as the Company's PBM Services segment. The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

All defendants in the case moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on April 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was
complete on July 28, 2014.

The Company believes all of the claims in these class action
lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims. However, there is no assurance that the
Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will
be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the
litigation costs of these actions. Additional similar lawsuits may
be filed. Moreover, the Company is not able to predict the outcome
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

BioScrip is a national provider of infusion and home care
management solutions.


CHALLENGER SUPPLY: Recalls Tankless Water Heaters
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Challenger Supply Holdings Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas (successor
to Quietside Corp., of Santa Fe Springs, Calif.), announced a
voluntary recall of about 29,000 in the United States and 2,200 in
Canada Tankless gas water heaters.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The water heaters can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Daesung has received 40 reports of the units overheating,
including four involving burns on the wall where the heater was
mounted and two involving fires and property damage.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves all models of single- and dual-purpose Coaire
and Quietside brand tankless gas water heaters.  The recalled
water heaters heat either 4 or 7.2 gallons of water per minute.
They are white and come in the following dimension ranges: 25-28
inches tall x 15-19 inches wide x 8-14 inches thick.  The words
"S-Line Condensing" are on the top front and brand names "Coaire"
or "Quietside" are on the bottom front of the recalled water
heaters.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/TnjXxD

The recalled products were manufactured in Korea and sold at
independent dealers nationwide and on various websites including
Amazon.com from July 2008 through August 2014 for between $500 and
$2,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water heaters
and contact Challenger Supply Holdings to arrange for a free
repair.


CHAOTIC LABZ: Recalls Mayhem Dietary Supplement Capsules
--------------------------------------------------------
Chaotic Labz, Atkins, Arkansas, is voluntarily conducting a
nationwide recall of Mayhem dietary supplement capsules, Lot
#CLM061114 with an expiration date of 06/2016, to the
user/consumer level.  Mayhem's intended use is as a bodybuilding
supplement.  FDA laboratory analysis found that Mayhem Dietary
Supplement contains undeclared dexamethasone, a prescription
corticosteroid commonly used to treat inflammatory conditions, and
cyproheptadine, a prescription antihistamine used for seasonal
allergy treatment, making this an unapproved drug.

Consumers are advised that corticosteroid use can impair a
person's ability to fight infections, cause high blood sugar
levels, muscle injuries and psychiatric problems.  When
corticosteroids are taken for a prolonged period, or at high
doses, they can suppress the adrenal gland and cause withdrawal
symptoms with abrupt discontinuation.  Antihistamines may cause
drowsiness and affect mental alertness.  In addition, these
undeclared drug ingredients in Mayhem may cause serious side
effects when combined with other medications.  To date, Chaotic
Labz has not received reports of these adverse effects related to
this recall.

Mayhem is packaged in a clear bottle with yellow capsules
associated with Lot #CLM061114 with an expiration date of 06/2016.
The product can be identified by the brand known as Chaotic Labz
and product name Mayhem, Appetite for Construction.  This product
was distributed nationwide to various Nutritional Supplement
Retail Outlets and via the internet.

Chaotic Labz is notifying its distributors and customers by a
formal recall notification and arranging for a return of all
recalled products.  Distribution of Mayhem will also be halted.
Consumers, Distributors, and Retailers that have any of the
recalled product should stop using and return immediately to the
place of purchase.  Contact your health care professional if you
have experienced any adverse effects.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Cordy
Hooten, Owner of Chaotic Labz, by phone number at (479) 223-2677
or email at contact.chaoticlabz@gmail.com, Monday - Friday from
9am-5pm central standard time.  No other products distributed by
Chaotic Labz are subject to recall.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by mail or by fax.


CHETAK NEW YORK: Recalls "Deep Raw Cashew Pieces"
-------------------------------------------------
Chetak New York L.L.C. of Edison, NJ is recalling its 5560
packages of 7oz., 3840 packages of 14oz., & 1920 packages of 28oz.
"Deep Raw Cashew Pieces" because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled "Deep Raw Cashew Pieces" were distributed nationwide
in retail stores from March 12, 2014 to Oct. 21, 2014.  The
product comes in a 7 oz., 14oz., & 28oz. clear plastic package
marked with UPC number on the rear of the package.

UPC number for 7oz. is 011433133104
UPC number for 14oz. is 011433133111
UPC number for 28oz. is 011433133128

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
conducted by the FDA.

Consumers who have purchased 7oz., 14oz., & 28 oz. packages of
"Deep Raw Cashew Pieces" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-973-835-1906 from 9 am- 5 pm EST.


CHILDREN'S MEDICAL: Recalls Gel-E Donut Gel Pillow and Squishon 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Children's Medical Ventures, a Philips Healthcare business,
announced that the company has issued a recall of all Gel-E Donut
gel pillow and Squishon 2 gel cushion products due to potential
mold contamination of the products.  This action follows a
previous recall for these products announced in May 2014.  Refer
to the table below for a listing of recalled model numbers and
quantities, which were manufactured and distributed between July
2012 and Aug. 2014.  The model number is printed directly on the
product.

   Model Number      Quantity Affected
   ------------      -----------------
   92025-A           96,311
   92025-B           109,732
   92025-C           50,456
   91033-2           80,196
   Grand Total       336,695

Customers are being asked to discontinue use and dispose of all
Gel-E Donut gel pillow and Squishon 2 gel cushion products in
their facility, even if mold is not visible.  Following these
actions, customers will be asked to return a reply form indicating
that these actions have been completed.  Customers will be given
credit for all products scrapped.

In May 2014, Children's Medical Ventures initiated a recall due to
mold contamination of some products, which occurred during the
manufacturing process.  The mold types detected on the products
have been identified as types which are commonly found in indoor
and outdoor environments.  There is potential for the mold to be
transferred to patient environments once the outer pack is opened.
There is the possibility of fungal infection should patients come
in contact with the mold, which could be superficial or invasive
and life threatening.

At the time of the initial recall, Children's Medical Ventures
implemented a process intended to reduce the presence of viable
mold on the products prior to shipment.  Since then, Philips has
received one new report of the presence of mold on product.
Because the process to eliminate the potential for mold growth has
not been fully effective, the company is announcing this new
recall.

The Children's Medical Ventures Gel-E Donut gel pillow and
Squishon 2 gel cushions are intended to help support an infant's
head or body in a hospital environment.  The products are intended
to be used in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU), Pediatric
Intensive Care Units (PICU), and neonatal care centers.

Countries where affected devices have been shipped include the
United States, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France,
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Reunion, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand and United Kingdom.

Customers who have questions about the recall or require further
information or support concerning this issue, may contact their
local Philips representative at (770) 510-4681 or (770) 510-4684.
Distributors outside of the U.S. should contact their local
Philips representative.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


CIT GROUP: Defending Claims Related to Train Derailment
-------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is
defending claims related to the Lac-Megantic, Quebec Derailment.

On July 6, 2013, a freight train including five locomotives and
seventy-two tank cars carrying crude oil derailed in the town of
Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Nine of the tank cars were owned by The CIT
Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. ("CIT/EF") (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company) and leased to Western Petroleum Company
("WPC"), a subsidiary of World Fuel Services Corp. ("WFS"). Two of
the locomotives are owned by CIT/EF and were leased to Montreal,
Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd. ("MMA"), the railroad operating the
freight train at the time of the derailment, a subsidiary of Rail
World, Inc.

The derailment was followed by explosions and fire, which resulted
in the deaths of over forty people and an unknown number of
injuries, the destruction of more than thirty buildings in Lac-
Megantic, and the release of crude oil on land and into the
ChaudiŠgere River. The extent of the property and environmental
damage has not yet been determined.

Twenty lawsuits have been filed in Illinois by representatives of
the deceased in connection with the derailment. The Company is
named as a defendant in seven of the Illinois lawsuits, together
with 13 other defendants, including WPC, MMA (who has since been
dismissed without prejudice as a result of its chapter 11
bankruptcy filing on August 7, 2013), and the lessors of the other
locomotives and tank cars. Liability could be joint and several
among some or all of the defendants. All but two of these cases
have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Illinois and transferred to the U.S. District Court in
Maine. The Company has been named as an additional defendant in a
pending class action in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.

Other cases may be filed in U.S. and Canadian courts. The
plaintiffs in the pending U.S. and Canadian actions assert claims
of negligence and strict liability based upon alleged design
defect against the Company in connection with the CIT/EF tank
cars. The Company has rights of indemnification and defense
against its lessees, WPC and MMA (a debtor in bankruptcy), and
also has rights as an additional insured under liability coverage
maintained by the lessees.

On July 28, 2014, the Company commenced a lawsuit against WPC in
the U.S. District Court in the District of Minnesota to enforce
its rights of indemnification and defense. In addition to its
indemnification and insurance rights against its lessees, the
Company and its subsidiaries maintain contingent and general
liability insurance for claims of this nature, and the Company and
its insurers are working cooperatively with respect to these
claims.

The Lac-Megantic derailment triggered a number of regulatory
investigations and actions. The Transportation Safety Board of
Canada issued its final report on the cause(s) of the derailment
in September 2014. In addition, Quebec's Environment Ministry has
issued an order to WFS, WPC, MMA, and Canadian Pacific Railway
(which allegedly subcontracted with MMA) to pay for the full cost
of environmental clean-up and damage assessment related to the
derailment.

As the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the foregoing
legal proceedings or whether and the extent to which additional
lawsuits or claims will be brought against the Company or its
subsidiaries, the total damages have not been quantified, there
are a large number of parties named as defendants, and the extent
to which resulting liability will be assessed against other
parties and their financial ability to bear such responsibilities
is unknown, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount or
range of loss that may be incurred in connection with the
derailment. The Company is vigorously defending the claims that
have been asserted, including pursuing its rights under
indemnification agreements and insurance policies. MMA's U.S.
bankruptcy trustee together with its Canadian bankruptcy monitor
are engaged in negotiations in pursuit of a global or close to
global settlement with the various parties, including CIT.

CIT Group Inc., provides financing, leasing and advisory services
principally to middle market companies in a wide variety of
industries primarily in North America, and equipment financing and
leasing solutions to the transportation industry worldwide. CIT
became a bank holding company ("BHC") in December 2008 and a
financial holding company ("FHC") in July 2013. CIT is regulated
by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("FRB")
and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("FRBNY") under the U.S.
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. CIT Bank (the "Bank"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary, is a state-chartered bank located in Salt Lake
City, Utah, and is regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation ("FDIC") and the Utah Department of Financial
Institutions ("UDFI"). The Company operates primarily in North
America, with locations in Europe and Asia.


COLONIAL GROCERS: Removes "Miller" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Miller v. Colonial Grocers, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 14-CA-10298, was removed from the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02879-CEH-MAP
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Schuette, Esq.
          Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq.
          A BALES PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          9700 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., St., Suite 400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (727) 823-9100
          Facsimile: (727) 579-9109
          E-mail: mschuette@johnbales.com
                  ashelver@johnbales.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian David Rubenstein, Esq.
          Jennifer Lulgjuraj, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          4301 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 864-9324
          Facsimile: (813) 286-2900
          E-mail: brian.rubenstein@csklegal.com
                  jen.lulgjuraj@gmail.com


CONVERSANT INC: Stockholder Suits Filed Over Alliance Data Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conversant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is
currently facing pending stockholder class action litigation
relating to its potential acquisition by Alliance Data.

On September 11, 2014, Conversant, Inc., Alliance Data Systems
Corporation and Amber Sub LLC entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger pursuant to which Alliance Data, a leading global
provider of data-driven marketing and loyalty solutions, will
purchase Conversant.

On September 12, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Palkon v. Conversant, Inc., et al., No. 56-
2014-00457860-CU-BT-VTA (Superior Court, Ventura County), was
filed against Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data
and the Merger Subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Ventura County. On October 7, 2014, the plaintiff in
the Palkon action filed a request for voluntary dismissal. The
court issued an order granting the request and dismissing the
action on October 21, 2014.

Additionally, on September 16, 2014, a second putative stockholder
class action complaint, captioned Leinoff v. Conversant, Inc., et
al., No. BC-557818 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County), was filed
against Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data and the
Merger Subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. An amended complaint was filed in Leinoff
on October 21, 2014.

On September 19, 2014, a third putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Blaze v. Conversant, Inc., et al., No. BC-
558100 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County), was filed against
Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data and the Merger
Subsidiary, also in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The plaintiff in the Los Angeles County
Blaze action filed a request for voluntary dismissal on October
17, 2014. The court issued an order granting the request and
dismissing the action on October 29, 2014.

On September 26, 2014, a fourth putative class action stockholder
complaint, captioned Feliciano v. Buzby, et al., C.A. No. 10174-
VCN (Chancery Court, Delaware) was filed against Conversant,
Conversant's directors, Alliance Data and the Merger Subsidiary in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. An amended
complaint was filed in Feliciano on October 9, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, a fifth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Naclerio v. Conversant, Inc., et al., No.
BC559187 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County) was filed against
Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data, and the Merger
Subsidiary, in the Superior Court of the State of California in
Los Angeles County.

On October 3, 2014, a sixth putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Hoffman v. Conversant, Inc., et al., No.
BC559660 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County) was filed against
Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data, and the Merger
Subsidiary, also in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County.

On October 17, 2014, a seventh putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Blaze v. Conversant, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
10253-VCN (Chancery Court, Delaware), was filed against
Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data, and the Merger
Subsidiary, also in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

Also on October 17, 2014, an eighth putative stockholder class
action complaint, captioned Joyce v. Conversant, Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 10254-VCN (Chancery Court, Delaware), was filed against
Conversant, Conversant's directors, Alliance Data, and the Merger
Subsidiary in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On October 22, 2014, the plaintiff in Joyce filed a motion to
expedite proceedings. On October 30, 2014, an order was entered
consolidating the Delaware actions into a consolidated action
captioned In re Conversant, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No.
10174-VCN (Chancery Court, Delaware), and appointing Plaintiffs'
co-lead counsel and liaison counsel for the consolidated action.

Each lawsuit alleges that members of the Conversant board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed sale of Conversant to Alliance Data. Each complaint also
alleges that Conversant, Alliance Data and the Merger Subsidiary
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The
Delaware consolidated action and the amended complaint in Leinoff
also include claims regarding alleged misrepresentations and
omissions made in Conversant's preliminary proxy statement. The
complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, in addition to unspecified fees and costs. The
Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend itself against each of them vigorously.

Conversant and its subsidiaries offer a comprehensive range of
digital marketing services across its Affiliate Marketing and
Media segments. The Company's services help marketers achieve a
variety of strategic objectives, including customer relationship
management, new customer acquisition and branding. The Company
changed its name from ValueClick, Inc. to Conversant, Inc. on
February 3, 2014.


CORGENIX MEDICAL: Facing Merger-Related Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Corgenix Medical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company is aware of two purported class action complaints that
have been filed in connection with the merger with Centennial
Medical Holdings, Inc. and Centennial Integrated, Inc.

One complaint was filed in the Second Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada on September 4, 2014 -- Rauenzhan v. Corgenix,
et al., No. CV14-01907.  An amended complaint was filed in the
Rauenzhan lawsuit on October 14, 2014.

One complaint was filed in the First Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada on October 14, 2014 -- Bradford, et al. v.
Corgenix, et al., No. 14TRT000681B.

Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Rauenzhan and Bradford actions
have agreed to consolidate the actions in the Second Judicial
District Court. However, as of November 6, 2014, a consolidated
Second Amended Class Action Complaint has not been filed.

"The complaints name as defendants us, each member of our board of
directors, Buyer and Merger Sub.  The complaints generally allege
that the board of directors breached its fiduciary duties and that
we, Buyer, the Merger Sub aided and abetted those purported
breaches, in connection with the proposed merger," the Company
said.

The Company said, "The complaints challenge the Merger
Consideration as inadequate, and make a variety of other
allegations, including the following:

     -- given the recent trading price of our Common Stock and
potential future growth, the value of our Common Stock is greater
than the consideration offered to shareholders in the proposed
merger;

     -- proposed merger is the result of a flawed process marred
by conflicts of interest of our board and senior management;

     -- the "no solicitation" and termination fee provisions of
the Merger Agreement preclude us from soliciting, and otherwise
restrict our ability to consider, competing offers; and

     -- our definitive proxy statement, filed on October 21, 2014
with the SEC, omits and/or misrepresents material information."

The plaintiffs in these cases seek an order certifying a proposed
class of our shareholders, certifying the plaintiffs as the class
representatives, granting injunctive relief against the
consummation of the merger, or, if the merger is consummated,
rescinding the merger and awarding damages, directing the
defendants to account for all damages caused by them and all
profits or special benefits obtained by them as a result of their
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and an award of costs,
expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees, and accountants' and
experts' fees.

The Company notified its carriers of its applicable insurance
policies (the "D&O Insurance") regarding these claims. The D&O
Insurance provides coverage for defense costs incurred in
connection with the claims, but is subject to a substantial
deductible, depending on the claim.  The D&O Insurance may not
cover any amount of any judgment or settlement representing the
amount by which the Merger Consideration or price is increased.

The defendants believe the claims asserted are without merit.
Buyer has repeatedly indicated that the Merger Consideration is
the highest amount Buyer is willing to pay to acquire the company
and that it is not willing to increase the amount of the Merger
Consideration.

Corgenix Medical has been primarily involved in the research,
development, manufacturing and marketing/distribution of
diagnostic tests for sale to clinical laboratories.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Class Action Ruling Expected End of November
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a ruling
on petitioners' motion to authorize the class action is expected
by the end of November 2014.

Prior to the completion of the Arrow Acquisition on November 8,
2013, a train transporting over 50,000 barrels of crude oil
produced in North Dakota derailed in Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada
on July 6, 2013. The derailment resulted in the death of 47
people, injured numerous others, and caused severe damage to
property and the environment.  In October 2013, certain
individuals suffering harm in the derailment filed a motion to
certify a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court for the
District of Megantic, Province of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of all
persons suffering loss in the derailment.

In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended motion to
name Arrow and numerous other energy companies as additional
defendants in the class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs have named
at least 53 defendants purportedly involved in the events leading
up to the derailment, including the producers and sellers of the
crude being transported, the midstream companies that transported
the crude from the well head to the rail system, the manufacturers
of the rail cars used to transport the crude, the railroad
companies involved, the insurers of these companies, and the
Canadian Attorney General.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Arrow (i) was a
producer of the crude oil being transported on the derailed train,
(ii) was negligent in failing to properly classify the crude
delivered to the trucks that hauled the crude to the rail loading
terminal, and (iii) owed a duty to the petitioners to ensure the
safe transportation of the crude being transported.  The motion to
authorize the class action and motions in opposition were heard by
the Court in June 2014.

"We anticipate a ruling from the Judge on Petitioners' motion to
authorize the class action by the end of November 2014, the
Company said.  "We believe the claims against us are without merit
and will vigorously defend ourselves.  Moreover, to the extent
this action proceeds, we believe we have meritorious defenses to
the claims.  Because this litigation is in the early stages of the
proceeding, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss in this matter.  We believe this claim is an
insurable event under our insurance policy and we have notified
our insurance company of the claim."

Crestwood Equity Partners LP is a publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP)
Delaware limited partnership that provides midstream solutions to
customers in the crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGLs) and natural
gas sectors of the energy industry.


DS WATERS: Removes "Malone" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Malone v. DS Waters of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 37-2013-00078041-CU-OE-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:14-cv-02776-GPC-BGS to the proceeding.

The complaint arose from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William D. Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
          625 Broadway, Suite 635
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ross H. Hyslop, Esq.
          PESTOTNIK + GOLD, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1025
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 365-9065
          Facsimile: (619) 342-8020
          E-mail: hyslop@tprglaw.com


DUKE ENERGY: Accord Reached in Suit Over Progress Energy Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that parties in the
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation reached an agreement
in principle to settle the litigation.

Duke Energy, the eleven members of the Duke Energy Board of
Directors who were also members of the pre-merger Duke Energy
Board of Directors (Legacy Duke Energy Directors) and certain Duke
Energy officers are defendants in a purported securities class
action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al). This
lawsuit consolidates three lawsuits originally filed in July 2012,
and is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and Exchange Act
claims based on allegations of materially false and misleading
representations and omissions in the Registration Statement filed
on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into other
documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in Chief
Executive Officer (CEO). The claims are purportedly brought on
behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Duke Energy securities between June 11, 2012 and July 9,
2012.

On July 26, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended the District
Court Judge deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 2,
2013, the District Judge heard defendants' objections to this
recommendation. A decision is pending on the motion to dismiss.

On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation for an amount which, net of the expected
proceeds of insurance policies, is not anticipated to have a
material effect on the results of operations, cash flows or
financial position of Duke Energy. The agreement in principle is
subject to the execution of a term sheet, which is being
negotiated, and will be submitted to the court for approval.


DUKE ENERGY: No Date Set for Oral Arguments in High Court Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S.
Supreme Court granted the defendants', including Duke Energy,
petition for certiorari in Price Reporting Cases. No date has been
set for oral arguments.

A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates
and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated,
single federal court proceeding in Nevada.  Each of these cases
contain similar claims that defendants allegedly manipulated
natural gas markets by various means, including providing false
information to natural gas trade publications and entering into
unlawful arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust
laws of the respective states. Plaintiffs seek damages in
unspecified amounts.

On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant's motion for
summary judgment in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke
Energy affiliates are a party. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court's decision. On
July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendants',
including Duke Energy, petition for certiorari. No date has been
set for oral arguments.


DUKE ENERGY: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit to Begin July 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four
plaintiffs, including individual, industrial and nonprofit
customers, filed in January 2008 a lawsuit against Duke Energy
Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into non-public option agreements in exchange for their
withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan (RSP) implemented in early 2005. In March 2014, a federal
judge certified this matter as a class action. Trial has been set
to begin on July 27, 2015.


EDWARD J. GROSSMAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mendel Ansolrod, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Edward J. Grossman, Case No. 1:14-cv-06789
(E.D.N.Y., November 19, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENDOCYTE INC: Nguyen & Oh Suits Consolidated in Vallabhaneni Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court named a
lead plaintiff and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh
Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v.
Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation").
Lead Plaintiff had until November 17, 2014 to file an amended
complaint in the Vallabhaneni Litigation.

On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the efficacy of vintafolide, and
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by, among other things: employing devices, schemes and
artifices to defraud; making untrue statements of material facts
or omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading; or engaging in acts, practices and a
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon
plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection with their
purchases of the Company's securities during the class period. The
complaint also alleges that Mr. Ellis violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, as a control person, by causing the Company to
engage in the wrongful conduct alleged in the complaint. The
complaint alleges that the alleged violations resulted in
plaintiff purchasing the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from March 21, 2014
through May 2, 2014. The plaintiff seeks the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously against the allegations made
in the complaint.

On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff and
consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh Litigation under the
following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v. Endocyte, Inc. and P.
Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation"). The lead plaintiff had
until November 17, 2014 to file an amended complaint in the
Vallabhaneni Litigation.

On July 13, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh
Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh
Litigation").  On September 22, 2014, the Oh Litigation was
consolidated into the Vallabhaneni Litigation, and the Oh
Litigation was administratively closed.

Endocyte, Inc. (the "Company") is a biopharmaceutical company
developing targeted therapies for the treatment of cancer and
inflammatory diseases.


ENERNOC INC: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 15
-------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court has
scheduled a fairness hearing for December 15, 2014, on the
settlement in a class action complaint.

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company (the
Plaintiff) filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
Court) against certain of the Company's officers and directors as
well as the Company as a nominal defendant (the Defendants). The
complaint asserts derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf
of the Company, for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate
assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity
grants (awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded
an annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be
contained in the 2007 Plan. The complaint also asserts a direct
claim, brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class of
the Company's shareholders, alleging the Company's proxy statement
filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed
to disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 30, 2013. Plaintiff
responded to the motion on October 18, 2013 and Defendants replied
on November 22, 2013. No hearing date has been set.

On June 27, 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and reached
agreement in principle on the terms of a potential settlement.
Pursuant to the settlement, defendant members of the Company's
Board of Directors would cause their insurer to make a cash
payment of $500,000 to the Company, and cause the Company to
undertake certain reforms in connection with equity granting
practices. However, the settlement remains subject to numerous
contingencies, including court approval. The Court has scheduled a
fairness hearing for December 15, 2014.

Additionally, the Company's management believes that the
defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims in the complaint, and intends to pursue these defenses
vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that such efforts
will be successful. However, as a result of this agreement in
principle on the terms of a potential settlement, the Company has
determined that it is probable that it will incur a loss related
to this matter principally related to the remaining amount of its
insurance deductible, which was not material and has been accrued
for as of September 30, 2014.

With respect to the $500,000 payment to the Company that would
result under the terms of this settlement, this amount represents
a contingent gain and will be recorded as other income, if and
when, the amount is realized. In addition, regardless of the
outcome of this matter, the matter may divert financial and
management resources and result in general business disruption,
including that the Company may suffer from adverse publicity that
could harm its reputation and negatively impact its stock price.

EnerNOC, Inc. is a provider of energy intelligence software, or
EIS, and related solutions.


ENERNOC INC: Faces Class Action Over World Energy Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
lawsuit was filed on November 6, 2014, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company, World Energy Solutions, Inc. (World
Energy), Wolf Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of
directors of World Energy arising out of the merger between the
Company and World Energy. The lawsuit generally alleges that the
members of the board of directors of World Energy breached their
fiduciary duties to World Energy's stockholders by entering into
the merger agreement because they, among other things, failed to
maximize stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-
protection terms. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company and
World Energy aided and abetted the board of directors of World
Energy in breaching their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks to
stop or delay the acquisition of World Energy by the Company, or
rescission of the merger in the event it is consummated, and seeks
monetary damages in an unspecified amount to be determined at
trial. The Company believes the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and it intends to defend against them vigorously.

EnerNOC, Inc. is a provider of energy intelligence software, or
EIS, and related solutions.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Goldstein" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shulamis Goldstein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-06772 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014) is brought over
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST SOLAR: Merits Discovery Is Continuing in Smilovits Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28, 2012. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects. The action includes claims for damages,
including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees to the putative class. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On February 26, 2013, the court directed the parties to begin
class certification discovery, and ordered a further scheduling
conference to set the merit discovery schedule following a
decision on class certification. On June 21, 2013, the Pension
Schemes filed a motion for class certification. On October 8,
2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension Schemes'
motion for class certification, and certified a class comprised of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of the Company between April 30, 2008, and February 28,
2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and certain
related parties.

The deadline to complete merits discovery is February 27, 2015.
The deadline to file motion(s) for summary judgment is March 20,
2015.

Merits discovery is continuing.

"We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said.


FORSTER AND GARBUS: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jospeh Paperny, and on behalf of all similarly situated consumers
v. Forster and Garbus, LLP, Case No. 1:14-cv-06807 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 19, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GALAXY ASSET: Debt Collection Actions Violated FDCPA, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Galaxy Asset Purchasing, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, and Quantum3 Group, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-09276 (N.D. Ill.,
November 19, 2014) is brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act for a finding that the Defendants' debt collection
actions violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages.

Galaxy Asset Purchasing, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company
that acts as a debt collector.  Galaxy is a bad debt buyer that
buys up large portfolios of delinquent consumer debts for pennies
on the dollar, which it then seeks to collect upon by filing proof
of claims in consumer bankruptcies.

Quantum3 Group, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company, that
acts as a debt collector.  Quantum3 operates a nationwide
delinquent debt collection business, and attempts to collect debts
from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in
the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


GREAT AMERICAN: Recalls 662 Cases of HyVee Mozzarella Sticks
------------------------------------------------------------
Great American Appetizers, Inc. of Nampa, Idaho is recalling 662
cases of HyVee Mozzarella Cheese Sticks because they may contain
undeclared soy flour, yellow #5 and yellow #6.  People who have an
allergy or sensitivity to soy, yellow #5 or yellow #6 can run the
risk of serious allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The HyVee Mozzarella Sticks were distributed to retailers in Iowa,
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin.

The HyVee Mozzarella Cheese Sticks affected are in an 8 oz. (227
g) carton (UPC #075450149913).  The product date codes are printed
on the end of the carton: 14290402 (BEST IF USED BY 4/17/2016) and
14295402 (BEST IF USED BY 4/22/2016). No other date codes are
affected by this recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This incident was discovered in-house by the company's internal
packaging review.  Great American Appetizers, Inc. staff
determined that the new carton did not accurately describe all
allergens present in the product during the packaging update.

The recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased HyVee Mozzarella Cheese Sticks may
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at: 1-800-282-4834 from 8AM
- 5PM Mountain Time, or email inquiries to KalaT@appetizer.com.


GREENSBORO N.C.: Recalls 11,640 Boxes of Assured Naproxen Sodium
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greensboro, N.C., Contract Packaging Resources, a drug repackaging
company, is voluntarily recalling 11,640 boxes of Assured brand
Naproxen Sodium tablets because some cartons actually contain
bottles of Ibuprofen, a different pain reliever.  The Ibuprofen
bottles were placed in the Naproxen Sodium boxes due to a
packaging error.  The affected products are: boxes of Assured
brand Naproxen Sodium Tablets 220mg, 15 count (Lot #FH4102A) [SKU
#122368/UPC #639277223685] containing bottles of Ibuprofen
softgels in 200mg strength.

Consumers who intentionally avoid using Ibuprofen due to allergy,
or other medical conditions, should be advised that they may have
inadvertently purchased Ibuprofen 200mg softgels, believing it was
Naproxen Sodium 220mg tablets.  Allergic reactions can range from
mild irritation or hives to serious reactions such as anaphylaxes
that may be life-threatening.  The firm has not received any
reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled Assured brand drug products were distributed
nationwide to Dollar Tree and sold via the Dollar Tree retail
stores and internet site. Contract Packaging Resources is
notifying its distributors and customers directly and arranging
for replacement of all recalled products.  Consumers may return
the recalled products to the place of purchase or contact the firm
by phone at 336-252-3422, on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am to 4:00
pm (Eastern).

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this drug product.  Adverse reactions or quality problems
experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by
regular mail or by fax.


HARID CONSERVATORY: Removes "Moran" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Moran v. Harid Conservatory of
Music, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014CA013239, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (West Palm Beach).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 9:14-cv-81434-KAM to the proceeding.

Porfirio Moran brings his Complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Constitution to recover allegedly
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Complaint also alleges breach of
contract for allegedly failing to pay the Plaintiff for all the
hours he worked under an agreement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Glenn Michael Rissman, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF &
          SITTERSON, P.A.
          200 East Las Olas Boulevard, 21st Floor (PH-A)
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-9500
          Facsimile: (954) 462-9567
          E-mail: grissman@stearnsweaver.com


HAUL-O-WAY TOWING: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Perez v. Haul-O-Way Towing
Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-26541 CA 01, was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24415-JEM to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges two counts: (1) a Fair Labor Standards Act
wage and hour claim against the Corporate Defendant; and (2) an
FLSA wage and hour claim against Defendant Jorge Garcia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200
          44 West Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Plaintiffs File Motion Seeking Stay
------------------------------------------------------
The financial institution plaintiffs in the case Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation filed a
motion seeking a stay of the briefing schedule on Heartland's
motion pending resolution of their motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, Heartland said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046. On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institutions.

On September 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed
a Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which Heartland moved
to dismiss on October 23, 2009.  The Company said, "On December 1,
2011, the Court entered an order granting in part our motion to
dismiss the financial institution plaintiffs' master complaint
against us, but allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend to re-plead
certain claims. Plaintiffs elected not to file an amended
complaint. The parties then jointly moved for the entry of final
judgment on those claims in the master complaint that the Court
had dismissed. On August 16, 2012, the Court entered final
judgment on the dismissed claims and, on September 17, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that final judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On
September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with
prejudice of the remaining claims pending before the District
Court. Briefing on Plaintiffs' appeal was complete on February 8,
2013."

"On September 3, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that the
economic loss doctrine under New Jersey law does not preclude the
financial institution plaintiffs' negligence claim at the motion
to dismiss stage, but declined to address in the first instance
Heartland's other arguments for affirming the District Court. The
Fifth Circuit remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings.

"On March 14, 2014, the District Court set a schedule for further
proceedings. On July 18, 2014, the financial institution
plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. By Order dated August 1, 2014, the District Court
extended the schedule for further proceedings, with limited
discovery on choice-of-law issues to be completed by August 18,
2014, and motions to dismiss or for summary judgment to be filed
by October 15, 2014. On October 15, 2014, Heartland filed its
Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.
On October 27, 2014, the financial institution plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking a stay of the briefing schedule on Heartland's
motion pending resolution of their motion for leave to file an
amended complaint."

Heartland's primary business is to provide card payment processing
services to merchants throughout the United States.


INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS: Removes "Shieh" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Shieh v. Insomniac
Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. BC559667, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-08947-FMO-JC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unlawful text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular device.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
          Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
          David Zelenski, Esq.
          Christine M. Pham, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
                  abigail@jlglawyers.com
                  david@jlglawyers.com
                  christine@jlglawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
          Witt W. Chang, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
          E-mail: anrothman@venable.com
                  wwchang@venable.com


IXIA: Oklahoma Group Files Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Group filed an amended securities class action
complaint against Ixia on November 5, 2014, Ixia said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On November 14, 2013, a purported securities class action
complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul
Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was filed against
us and certain of our current and former officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's recognition of
revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance
contracts and the academic credentials and employment history of
the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Victor
Alston. The complaint also alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements, and failed to make certain disclosures,
regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects,
including regarding the financial statements and internal
financial controls that were the subject of the Company's April
2013 restatement of certain of its prior period financial
statements. The complaint alleges that the Company lacked adequate
internal financial controls and issued materially false and
misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March
31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June
30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purports to
assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seeks, on
behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief.

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed an amended complaint,
asserting claims against the same defendants under the same legal
theories as were set forth in the initial complaint. The amended
complaint also contains allegations that certain of the individual
defendants increased their trading in the Company's stock during
February, March, April and May of 2011 and during February and
March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to inflate the
Company's reported deferred revenues during the period of February
4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint
in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the Oklahoma
Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint, and the
Oklahoma Group filed an amended complaint on November 5, 2014.

"Although the Company denies the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defenses,
we are in the very early stages of this litigation, and are unable
to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount of or
potential range of loss with respect to this case. However, the
ultimate disposition of the case could have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows. No liability has been accrued in the financial
statements related to this matter," the Company said.

Ixia is a provider of converged Internet Protocol (IP) network
test and network visibility solutions.


JA CAMBECE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elimelach Rubin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. J.A. Cambece Law Office, P.C., Case No.
1:14-cv-06769-ENV-CLP (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Jan 2015 Fairness Hearing in Wage, Hour Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four wage and
hour class action lawsuits are currently pending against the
Company in federal district court for the Central District of
California, and are being addressed together by the court. Each
case pertains to alleged errors made by the Company with respect
to regular pay and overtime pay calculations, waiting times, meal
period waivers and wage statements under California law. The
Company tentatively settled these lawsuits in June 2014, subject
to finalizing settlement details. Preliminary court approval was
obtained in September 2014, with a fairness hearing set for
January 2015. The Company has previously recorded a $4.6 million
loss provision during the nine months ended September 30, 2014
(for a total loss reserve of $16.6 million) related to these
lawsuits.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Claims Administration Process Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a wage and
hour class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations
of federal and state wage and hour laws is pending in federal
district court for the Northern District of Illinois. This lawsuit
pertains to the Company's previous automatic meal break deduction
practice for non-exempt employees in the Company's hospitals
located outside California. The court granted conditional class
certification in part on June 11, 2013. This lawsuit was settled
on January 31, 2014 by the Company's agreement to pay $0.7 million
to claimants from the Company's five Illinois hospitals,
plaintiffs' attorney's fees and certain administrative costs. The
Company had previously recorded a $0.7 million loss provision
related to this lawsuit. The Company expects this lawsuit to be
dismissed upon completion of the claims administration process
currently underway.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Pines Nursing Accepts Offer of Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiff
in a class action, Pines Nursing Home, et al. v. Polaris and
RehabCare Group, Inc., et al., accepted the offer of judgment for
$49,900 from the Company and the Court dismissed the lawsuit.

On January 6, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and one of its subsidiaries. The lawsuit,
styled Pines Nursing Home, et al. v. Polaris and RehabCare Group,
Inc., et al. alleges that one of the Company's subsidiaries sent
"junk" faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991 and the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The complaint
seeks statutory damages, penalties, attorneys' fees and an
injunction prohibiting such conduct in the future.

The court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification on
June 20, 2014. Subsequently, the Company filed an offer of
judgment for $49,900 which was accepted by the plaintiff on July
29, 2014. The court dismissed the lawsuit on August 8, 2014.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates transitional care ("TC")
hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals ("IRFs"), nursing
centers, assisted living facilities, a contract rehabilitation
services business and a home health and hospice business across
the United States.


LUNDBERG FAMILY: Recalls Specific Bags of Sea Salt Rice Chips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lundberg Family Farms announced that it is voluntarily recalling
from distribution in the United States and Canada, specific bags
of Sea Salt Rice Chips due to possible presence of an undeclared
dairy allergen.  The issue was discovered through a consumer
complaint.

The recall applies to only 6 ounce bags (170g) of Sea Salt Rice
Chips packed on Aug. 11, 2014, bearing the code "140811" and a
best before date of "2015 JUN 08" on the upper right-hand corner
of the bag.  The Sea Salt Rice Chips display the following UPC
numbers 0-73416-03530-0 for U.S., or 0-73416-03540-9 for Canada.

Lundberg Family Farms has identified the problem and has taken
immediate corrective action.  Distributors and retailers have been
notified and requested to discard the affected products in stock.
The company notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and is
cooperating fully with the agency.

No serious injuries or illness have been reported from the
consumption of the product.  People who have a severe allergy to
dairy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

Customers who have bags of Sea Salt Rice Chips with the
aforementioned labeling should discard them or return them
unopened to the place of purchase for a refund.  Customers can
call our customer service representatives at 530-538-3555, which
is staffed seven days a week, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time, or
leave a message at other times, with any questions or concerns
about the product, or email recall@lundberg.com.


LUNDBERG FAMILY: Recalls Specific Bags of Brown Rice Flour
----------------------------------------------------------
Lundberg Family Farms announced that it is voluntarily recalling
specific bags of Brown Rice Flour because they have the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems if
consumed raw.  Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain.

The recalled Eco-Farmed Brown Rice Flour (UPC# 0 73416 00550 1)
and Organic Brown Rice Flour (UPC # 073416 00500 6) were
distributed in retail store bulk bins, and 25lb bulk bags, between
Nov. 4th and Nov. 12th, 2014 in these states: CA, HI, MA, AZ, NV,
and through mail order.

The affected 25lb bulk bags contain these lot numbers 141027,
141028, 141029, 141030 located on the bottom seam of the bag.

No serious illnesses have been reported to date from the
consumption of the product.  The potential for contamination was
identified after routine testing and immediate corrective action
has been taken.  Distributors and retailers have been notified and
requested to discard the affected products in stock.  The company
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and is cooperating
fully with the agency.

Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and
contact place of purchase for a refund.  Customers can call our
customer service representatives at 530-538-3555, which is staffed
five days a week, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Pacific Time, or leave a message at other times, with any
questions or concerns about the product, or email
recall@lundberg.com.

Lundberg Family Farms is committed to providing safe and healthy
food, and for this reason, is issuing this voluntary recall.


MARIN FOODS: Recalls Organic Raw Almonds
----------------------------------------
Marin Foods Specialties, Inc. of Byron, CA is voluntarily
recalling Organic Raw Almonds (bitter almonds), due to them
possibly containing elevated levels of naturally occurring
hydrogen cyanide according to laboratory test results.  To date,
no human illnesses have been associated with these products and
they have been pulled from sale.

Bitter almonds are the wild form of the edible "sweet almonds."
Bitter almonds contain a chemical called glycoside amygdalin,
which becomes transformed into toxic prussic acid (hydrogen
cyanide) after they are crushed or chewed.  Eating foods that
contain prussic acid may result in some or all of the following
signs and clinical symptoms within minutes: dizziness, headache,
nausea and vomiting, rapid breathing, rapid heart rate,
restlessness, and weakness.  Exposure to higher quantities of food
containing prussic acid may cause other more serious health
effects including convulsions, loss of consciousness, low blood
pressure, lung injury, slow heart rate, and respiratory failure
leading to death.  Showing these signs and symptoms does not
necessarily mean that a person has been exposed to cyanide.
Treatment with supportive measures and available specific and
efficacious antidotes frequently allows survival.

The products were labeled as "Whole Foods Market Organic Raw
Almonds Imported from Italy" and "Whole Foods Market Organic Raw
Almonds Imported from Spain," and were packaged in 13.5 oz.
plastic tubs.  The recalled products have sell-by dates from
4/18/15 to 6/7/15 and a UPC code of UPC 9-99482-00071-7.  The
recalled product was distributed to Whole Foods Market stores only
in Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Reno, Nevada and
Boise, Idaho including:

Customers who purchased the products at issue in the voluntary
recall should discard the products and return to the store with
their receipt for a full refund.  Please contact 512-477-5566 ext.
20060 with any questions between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm
Central Standard Time, Monday through Friday.


MAXUM CASUALTY: Removes "Faust" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Faust v. Maxum Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 14-CA-002886, was removed from the Circuit Court
of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft.
Myers).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-00674-
JES-DNF to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought to obtain declaratory and injunctive
relief, and secure redress for the alleged systematic denial of
benefits and the misrepresentation of, and failure to disclose,
coverage for medical payments mileage expenses, perpetrated by the
Defendant on the Plaintiff and numerous other persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus W. Viles, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334-3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
          E-mail: marcus@vilesandbeckman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michele Aimee Vargas, Esq.
          Sina Bahadoran, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6044
          Telephone: (305) 358-7747
          Facsimile: (305) 577-1063
          E-mail: mvargas@hinshawlaw.com
                  sbahadoran@hinshawlaw.com


MEDICINES CO: Had November Deadline to Seek Dismissal of Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers had until November 17,
2014 to answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint in a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit
was filed against us and certain of our current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 20, 2013
through February 12, 2014, which we refer to as the class period.
On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our
stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because we and certain current and former
officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor.

"Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that statements made
throughout the class period about the trials were misleading
because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not show
superiority to the drug clopidogrel, that the clinical trials were
unethically and inappropriately administered, that clopidogrel was
not administered optimally, and that cangrelor patients exhibited
higher bleeding rates. The amended complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

"Per a scheduling order entered by the Court, we and certain of
our current and former officers have until November 17, 2014 to
answer or move to dismiss the amended complaint. We believe we
have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, will deny
liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There can be
no assurance, however, that we will be successful. An adverse
resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition or results of operations. We are
presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related
to the lawsuit."

The Medicines Company is a global biopharmaceutical company
focused on saving lives, alleviating suffering and contributing to
the economics of healthcare by focusing on leading acute/intensive
care hospitals worldwide.


MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Removes "Tropical" Suit to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Tropical Trailer Leasing,
L.L.C. v. Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, et al., Case No. 14-
26236CA01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24401-UU to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of "All owners of a trailer or
semitrailer or chassis who within the four years preceding the
filing of this lawsuit were charged a highway toll by MDX because
the driver of the motorized vehicle towing the trailer or
semitrailer or chassis failed to immediately pay the applicable
toll.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Rodger Traynor, Jr., Esq.
          Lawrence D. Silverman, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL, 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: rodger.traynor@akerman.com
                  lawrence.silverman@akerman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael R. Piper, Esq.
          Christopher J. Stearns, Esq.
          JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH, BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, PA
          2455 E. Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
          Telephone: (954) 463-0100
          Facsimile: (954) 463-2444
          E-mail: piper@jambg.com
                  stearns@jambg.com


MRS BPO: Faces Suit Alleging Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Gruenfeld, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-06773
(E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Hearing Held on Dispute Over $725,000 Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novatel Wireless, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a hearing date was
scheduled for November 14, 2014, to adjudicate the class action
plaintiffs' motion claiming that since the Company's stock price
traded intraday below the threshold price, that the $725,000 was
still due and payable. The Company is contesting the plaintiffs'
motion.

On September 15, 2008 and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court") on
behalf of alleged stockholders of the Company. On December 11,
2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action and in
May 2010, the consolidated lawsuits were captioned the case In re
Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation (the "Litigation"). The
Litigation was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between February 27, 2007 and September 15,
2008.

On December 6, 2013, to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, legal counsel for the
defendants entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding.

On June 23, 2014, the Court entered its judgment approving a final
settlement agreement with respect to the Litigation. The
settlement agreement does not admit any liability and the Company
and the individual defendants continue to deny any and all
liability. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the
plaintiff class has agreed to settle all claims asserted in the
Litigation and grant the defendants and released parties a full
and complete release in exchange for (i) a cash payment of $6.0
million to the plaintiff's class, approximately $1.7 million of
which is to be funded by the Company's insurers, (ii) the issuance
of unrestricted and freely tradable shares of the Company's stock
with an aggregate value of $5.0 million and (iii) the issuance of
a $5.0 million secured promissory note, which such note shall have
a 30-month maturity, carry interest at 5% per annum, payable
quarterly, and be secured by the accounts receivable of the
Company.

On July 1, 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to amend the judgment entered on June 23, 2014,
specifically requesting the Court to amend the effective date of
such judgment to June 20, 2014 -- the date the court held the
final approval hearing. The Court granted this motion on July 8,
2014, and the judgment date was deemed entered on June 20, 2014.

Based on a judgment date of June 20, 2014, the Company believes
that it will be relieved from an additional cash payment of
approximately $725,000, which would have been triggered, pursuant
to the terms of the stipulation of settlement, if the date of the
Court's entry of judgment had remained June 23, 2014 (based on the
then-current trading price of the Company's common stock, which
was below a certain threshold price established by the stipulation
of settlement).

On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court
claiming that since the Company's stock price traded intraday
below the aforementioned threshold price, that the $725,000 was
still due and payable. The Company is contesting the plaintiffs'
motion and has not accrued the $725,000 asserted claim in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements. A hearing date was
set for November 14, 2014 to adjudicate this matter.

On July 8, 2014, the Company funded the cash portion of the
settlement with $4.3 million of Company cash and $1.7 million
previously funded into escrow by the Company's insurers. On July
17, 2014, the Company issued 2,407,318 unrestricted shares of the
Company's common stock to the class members in satisfaction of the
$5.0 million stock payment. The Company also issued a $5.0 million
secured promissory note on July 8, 2014, which remains accrued as
of September 30, 2014 in non-current liabilities.


NUTEK DISPOSABLES: Recalls All Lots of Baby Wipes Due to Bacteria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nutek Disposables, Inc. of McElhattan, PA has initiated a
nationwide voluntary product recall at the retail level of all
lots of baby wipes that it manufactured under the brand names
Cuties, Diapers.com, Femtex, Fred's, Kidgets, Member's Mark,
Simply Right, Sunny Smiles, Tender Touch, and Well Beginnings,
because some packages may contain bacteria.  These wipes were
distributed by Nutek prior to Oct. 21, 2014 to these retail
stores: Walgreens, Sam's Club, Family Dollar, Fred's, and
Diapers.com.

After receiving a small number of complaints of odor and
discoloration, Nutek conducted microbial testing that showed the
presence of a bacteria, called Burkholderia cepacia (B. cepacia),
in some of these products.  Soon after, on Oct. 3, 2014, the
company initiated a voluntary withdrawal of lots that had tested
positive for the bacteria, as well as other baby wipes in the
surrounding time frame.  After some additional lots were tested,
as a precautionary measure, Nutek believed it was a prudent
decision to withdraw all its baby wipe products.

B. cepacia poses little medical risk to healthy people.  However,
people who have certain health problems like weakened immune
systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic fibrosis,
may be more susceptible to infections with B. cepacia.  If you
believe you have a weakened immune system or chronic lung disease
and you have used one of the affected wipe products, you should
call your doctor promptly for medical advice.

As of Oct. 3, 2014, the date of the original withdrawal, the
company had received only one report of irritation.  Numerous
reports of complaints have since been received by the company that
include rash, irritation, infections, fever, gastro-intestinal
issues, and respiratory issues, though these reports have not been
confirmed to be related to the use of these products.

The company has not identified the cause of the problem, but is
continuing to investigate.  In the interim, Nutek has stopped
shipping baby wipes manufactured at the facility.

Nutek takes the safety of consumers and the quality of its
products very seriously and is taking all appropriate steps to
address the issue and ensure this does not happen again.

The company is working with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
and the affected retailers and distributors throughout this
process to address the issue.

Consumers who have purchased this product can return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-855-646-4351, Monday-Friday, 7 am-7 pm
CST and Saturday-Sunday, 9 am-5 pm CST.


NYK LINE: "So" Class Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled So v. NYK Line (North America)
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04559, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The
New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07216-
ES-JAD to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as
In Re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for allegedly
engaging in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices and allocate the markets and customers for Vehicle Carrier
Services.  "Vehicle Carriers" transport large numbers of cars,
trucks, and other automotive vehicles including agriculture and
construction equipment across large bodies of water using
specialized cargo ships known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels.

The Defendants provide, market, or sell Vehicle Carrier Services
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4018
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
                  wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
                  nschubert@schubertlawfirm.com


OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Select Lots of Lacteos Santa Martha Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Brands, Inc. of Miami, FL is recalling select lots of
various Lacteos Santa Martha products with Best by dates of
07/01/14 through 12/31/14, because the products has the potential
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled products were distributed in Florida, Georgia,
Tennessee and North Carolina from April 1st through Oct. 14, 2014
to distributors and retail stores.  The products can be identified
by the batch ID code (best used by date) sticker on the label of
the plastic bag of 07/01/14 through 12/31/14.

Queso Seco Centroamericano (Dry White Cheese) 1Lb   -- UPC 876593
001874
Queso Seco Olanchano (Dry Cheese) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349 000840
Queso Seco Hondureno (Dry Cheese) 12oz   -- UPC 876593 001690
Quesito Casero (Fresh Curd) 12oz   -- UPC 635349 000406
My Queso (Latin Flavor Cheese) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349 000406
Queso Cuzcatlan (Salvadorean Flavor Cheese) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349
000406
Queso para Freir (Cheese for Frying) 12oz   -- UPC 635349 000758
Queso Fresco (Fresh Cheese) 12oz   -- UPC 635349 000703
Cuajada en Hoja Queso Casero Hecho a Mano (Fresh Curd) 12oz   --
UPC 635349 000895
Crema Centroamericana (Soft Blend Dairy Spread) 1Lb   -- UPC
876593 001898
Mantequilla Hondurena (Honduran Style Cream) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349
000772
Crema Nica (Grade A Cultured Cream) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349 000468
HonduCrema Olanchana (Olanchana Style Soft Blend Dairy Spread) 1Lb
-- UPC 635349 000598
Crema Guatemalteca (Guatemalan Style Cream) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349
000819
Crema GuateLinda (Guatemalan Style Cream) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349
000390
Crema Cuzcatlan (Salvadorean Style Cream) 1Lb   -- UPC 635349
000444

FDA is investigating illnesses associated with the product.

The recall is the result of routine sampling by The Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Food Inspectors
and subsequent FDA environmental samples that revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes.  The company ceased production
and distribution of the product as FDA and the company continue
their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the Lacteos Santa Martha products are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at (305) 599-0225
Monday thru Friday 9:00 am - 4:30 pm EST.


P&B CAPITAL: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drazi Mermelstein, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v P&B Capital Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06767 (E.D.N.Y., November 18, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Bankruptcy Trustee Files Adversary Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court-
appointed bankruptcy trustee for Berjac of Oregon (the surviving
entity in the merger of Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland)
filed an adversary complaint in the U.S Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Oregon against Pacific Continental Bank, Pacific
Continental Corporation, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and Summit
Bank.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of
Oregon and Berjac of Portland, both currently in Chapter 11
bankruptcy. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state
securities laws and aiding breach of fiduciary duty, names Pacific
Continental Bank, along with Holcomb Family Limited Partnership,
Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Trust, Jones & Roth, P.C.
and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. Claimants seek the return of the
money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus
interest, and costs and attorneys' fees, which are claimed to be
in excess of $10 million.

On August 28, 2014, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for
Berjac of Oregon (the surviving entity in the merger of Berjac of
Oregon and Berjac of Portland) filed an adversary complaint in the
U.S Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon alleging that
Pacific Continental Bank, Pacific Continental Corporation, Umpqua
Bank, Century Bank and Summit Bank provided lines of credit that
enabled continuation of the Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of
Oregon and the two partners of the pre-existing Berjac general
partnerships, Michael Holcomb and Gary Holcomb.  In addition to
seeking an award of punitive damages not to exceed $10 million,
the trustee is seeking the recovery of payments associated with
allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling up to approximately $55.3
million, including up to $23.0 million from Century Bank and up to
$6.3 million from Pacific Continental Bank. The complaint also
alleges that accounting firm Jones & Roth, P.C., is jointly and
severally liable for the return of the allegedly fraudulent
transfers to the bankruptcy estate. Among other claims for relief,
the trustee is seeking the disgorgement of $300,000 advanced to
the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership by Century Bank and
returned to the estate by Court order following the post-petition
cash collateral hearing, and of approximately $1.4 million
received by Pacific Continental Bank from the proceeds of the sale
of stock held by the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership and
securing one of the lines of credit previously held by Century
Bank.

Pacific Continental Corporation is a bank holding company, and its
wholly owned subsidiary is Pacific Continental Bank.  The Bank's
wholly owned subsidiaries are PCB Services Corporation and PCB
Loan Services Corporation.


PAE GROUP: Removes "Yocupicio" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Porfiria Yocupicio vs. PAE Group,
LLC, et al., Case No. BC548550, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-08958-GW-JEM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katherine L.M. Mola, Esq.
          Michael E. Chase, Esq.
          BOUTIN JONES INC.
          555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4603
          Telephone: (916) 321-4444
          Facsimile: (916) 441-7597
          E-mail: kmola@boutinjones.com
                  mchase@boutinjones.com


PENNY NEWMAN: "Palacios" Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Palacios, et al. v. Penny Newman
Grain Inc., et al., Case No. 14CECG02322, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Fresno).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-
01804-SAB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Della Barnett, Esq.
          Cynthia L. Rice, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
          2210 K Street, Suite 201
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 446-7904
          Facsimile: (916) 446-3057
          E-mail: dbarnett@crlaf.org
                  crice@crla.org

               - and -

          Amparo Cid, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
          814 N. Van Ness Avenue
          Fresno, CA 93728
          Telephone: (559) 486-627 8
          Facsimile: (559) 486-3265
          E-mail: amparocid@crlaf.org

               - and -

          John E. Hill, Esq.
          Enrique Martinez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E HILL
          333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 588-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 633-2504
          E-mail: johnhill@hill-law-offices.com
                  emartinez15@comcast.net

Defendant Penny Newman Grain Co. is represented by:

          David R. McNamara, Esq.
          Christina C. Tillman, Esq.
          MCCORMICK BARSTOW SHEPPARD WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
          7647 N. Fresno Street
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 433-1300
          Facsimile: (559) 433-2300
          E-mail: dave.mcnamara@mccormickbarstow.com
                  christina.tillman@mccormickbarstow.com

Defendants Universal Ag Services, Inc. and Juan Zavala are
represented by:

          Paul J. Bauer, Esq.
          WALTER & WILHELM LAW GROUP
          205 E. River Park Circle, Suite 410
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 435-9800
          Facsimile: (559) 435-9868
          E-mail: pbauer@w2lg.com


PENNY NEWMAN: Removes "Palacios" FLSA Suit to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Palacios, et al. v. Penny Newman
Grain Co., et al., Case No. 14CECG02322, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Fresno).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-at-
00842 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
accusing the Defendants of, among other things, failing to pay
overtime compensation and failing to provide meal breaks.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Della Barnett, Esq.
          Cynthia L. Rice, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
          2210 K Street, Suite 201
          Sacramento, CA 95816
          Telephone: (916) 446-7904
          Facsimile: (916) 446-3057
          E-mail: dbarnett@crlaf.org
                  crice@crla.org

               - and -

          Amparo Cid, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
          814 N. Van Ness Avenue
          Fresno, CA 93728
          Telephone: (559) 486-627 8
          Facsimile: (559) 486-3265
          E-mail: amparocid@crlaf.org

               - and -

          John E. Hill, Esq.
          Enrique Martinez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN E HILL
          333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 588-1000
          Facsimile: (510) 633-2504
          E-mail: johnhill@hill-law-offices.com
                  emartinez15@comcast.net

Defendant Penny Newman Grain Co. is represented by:

          David R. McNamara, Esq.
          Christina C. Tillman, Esq.
          MCCORMICK BARSTOW SHEPPARD WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
          7647 N. Fresno Street
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 433-1300
          Facsimile: (559) 433-2300
          E-mail: dave.mcnamara@mccormickbarstow.com
                  christina.tillman@mccormickbarstow.com

Defendants Universal Ag Services, Inc. and Juan Zavala are
represented by:

          Paul J. Bauer, Esq.
          WALTER & WILHELM LAW GROUP
          205 E. River Park Circle, Suite 410
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 435-9800
          Facsimile: (559) 435-9868
          E-mail: pbauer@w2lg.com


PEOPLES BANCORP: Discovery Underway in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that discovery is now underway in a lawsuit filed in the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln County,
North Carolina.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 6, 2013, the Bank filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which was heard in the North Carolina Business Court on
October 1, 2013.  On April 15, 2014, the North Carolina Business
Court denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The
effect of the court's ruling, which is not a determination on the
merits, is to allow the case to proceed to the next stages of the
legal process, including discovery and determination as to whether
class certification is appropriate or not.  That discovery is now
underway.  The Bank believes that the allegations in the complaint
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit,
including the request that the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.


PHL VARIABLE: Trial Expected to Begin on March 2015
---------------------------------------------------
PHL Variable Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that by letter dated
October 1, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York consolidated the Fleisher Litigation, the Tiger
Capital Litigation, and the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations for trial,
which is expected to begin on March 9, 2015.

On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the
"Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A.
No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging
COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011,
which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language
permitting such adjustments. By order dated July 12, 2013, two
separate classes were certified in the Fleisher Litigation; by
subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one
of the classes. The complaint seeks damages for breach of
contract. The class certified in the court's July 12, 2013 order,
as limited by the court's August 26, 2013 order, is limited to
holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York subject to New
York law and subject to Phoenix Life's 2011 COI rate adjustment.
By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher's
motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation in its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix
Life's motion for summary judgment.

Phoenix Life's subsidiary, PHL Variable, has been named as a
defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments
implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. These
six cases, only one of which is styled as a class action, have
been brought against PHL Variable by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A.
No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint
filed on March 14, 2012; the "Tiger Capital Litigation"); (2-5)
U.S. Bank National Association, as securities intermediary for
Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist.
Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No.
1:13-cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on
March 8, 2013; collectively, the "U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations");
(4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint
originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the District of Delaware and
transferred by order dated April 22, 2014, to the District of
Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D.
Conn., complaint filed on September 23, 2014 (collectively the
"U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations")) and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-
cv-8714; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31,
2014; the "SPRR Litigation"). SPRR LLC filed suit against PHL
Variable, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by PHL Variable in
2011.

The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher
Litigation, and discovery in these four actions has concluded. By
orders in both U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations dated May 23, 2014, the
court denied U.S. Bank's motions for summary judgment in their
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motions for summary judgment. U.S. Bank moved for
reconsideration of the court's summary judgment decisions in the
U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, which the court denied by orders dated
June 4, 2014.

By order in the Tiger Capital Litigation dated July 23, 2014, the
court denied Tiger Capital's motion for summary judgment in its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff in the Tiger
Capital Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff
in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the U.S. Bank Conn.
Litigations seeks damages and attorneys' fees for breach of
contract and other common law and statutory claims. The plaintiff
in the SPRR Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract for a
nationwide class of policyholders.

PHL Variable Insurance provides life insurance and annuity
products through independent agents and financial advisors.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Cost of Insurance Case Trial to Begin in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that trial in cost
of insurance cases against affiliates is expected to begin on
March 9, 2015.

On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the
"Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A.
No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging
COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011,
which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language
permitting such adjustments. By order dated July 12, 2013, two
separate classes were certified in the Fleisher Litigation; by
subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one
of the classes. The complaint seeks damages for breach of
contract. The class certified in the court's July 12, 2013 order,
as limited by the court's August 26, 2013 order, is limited to
holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York subject to New
York law and subject to Phoenix Life's 2011 COI rate adjustment.
By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher's
motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation in its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix
Life's motion for summary judgment.

Phoenix Life's subsidiary, PHL Variable, has been named as a
defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments
implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. These
six cases, only one of which is styled as a class action, have
been brought against PHL Variable by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A.
No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint
filed on March 14, 2012; the "Tiger Capital Litigation"); (2-5)
U.S. Bank National Association, as securities intermediary for
Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist.
Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No.
1:13-cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on
March 8, 2013; collectively, the "U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations");
(4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint
originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the District of Delaware and
transferred by order dated April 22, 2014, to the District of
Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D.
Conn., complaint filed on September 23, 2014 (collectively the
"U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations")); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-
cv-8714; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31,
2014; the "SPRR Litigation"). SPRR LLC filed suit against PHL
Variable, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by PHL Variable in
2011.

The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher
Litigation, and discovery in these four actions has concluded. By
orders in both U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations dated May 23, 2014, the
court denied U.S. Bank's motions for summary judgment in their
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motions for summary judgment. U.S. Bank moved for
reconsideration of the court's summary judgment decisions in the
U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, which the court denied by orders dated
June 4, 2014.

By order in the Tiger Capital Litigation dated July 23, 2014, the
court denied Tiger Capital's motion for summary judgment in its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff in the Tiger
Capital Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff
in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the U.S. Bank Conn.
Litigations seeks damages and attorneys' fees for breach of
contract and other common law and statutory claims. The plaintiff
in the SPRR Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract for a
nationwide class of policyholders.

By letter dated October 1, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the Fleisher
Litigation, the Tiger Capital Litigation, and the U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations for trial, which is expected to begin on March 9,
2015.

Complaints to state insurance departments regarding PHL Variable's
COI rate adjustments have also prompted regulatory inquiries or
investigations in several states, with two of such states
(California and Wisconsin) issuing letters directing PHL Variable
to take remedial action in response to complaints by a single
policyholder. PHL Variable disagrees with both states' positions
and, on April 30, 2013, Wisconsin commenced an administrative
hearing to obtain a formal ruling on its position (Office of the
Commissioner of Insurance Case No. 13- C35362). By order dated
October 16, 2014, an administrative law judge granted in part and
denied in part the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance's
motion for summary judgment relating to seven policies subject to
PHL Variable's 2010 COI rate adjustment and authorized
restitution. The regulatory process is ongoing and the
administrative law judge has not entered an order at this time.
PHL Variable does not expect any order would be material.

Phoenix Life and PHL Variable believe that they have meritorious
defenses against all of these lawsuits and regulatory directives
and intend to vigorously defend against them, including by appeal
if necessary. The outcome of these matters is uncertain and any
potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated.


PLY GEM: Final Approval Hearing Held in Vinyl Clad Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a final approval
hearing occurred on October 29, 2014, on the Vinyl Clad Settlement
Agreement.

In John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers,
Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (the "Court"), plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of
the defective design and manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. In
Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc.
("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the
Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows. On
April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn
cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making
similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows, including MW's
V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom 800 windows. The
plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and
compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages,
and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs'
counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 that
would settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a
nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The
Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement on May 23,
2014.

If the Court grants final approval, the Vinyl Clad Settlement
Agreement provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers
submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements,
certain damage to the frames of their MW vinyl clad windows.

Under the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, MW has also agreed to
pay attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in an amount
not to exceed $2.5 million. The Court will make a determination
regarding counsel's fees and costs upon final approval of the
settlement. The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this
settlement would apply to any and all MW vinyl clad windows
manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014.

While a final approval hearing occurred on October 29, 2014, the
Court has not issued a ruling. It is expected that, if the
settlement receives final approval, it will result in the
dismissal of Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al.,
another pending lawsuit that is seeking class certification with
respect to vinyl clad windows manufactured by MW. The settlement
is not final until the Court grants final approval of the
settlement, and the Court may, in its sole discretion, determine
not to grant final approval of the settlement.

If the Court does not grant final approval of the settlement, the
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement will not be binding on the
parties. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlement
and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company,
however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and agreed
to settle the litigation to avoid these.

As a result of this settlement, the Company recognized a $5.0
million expense during the nine months ended September 27, 2014
within selling, general, and administrative expenses in the
Company's condensed consolidated statement of operations and
comprehensive income (loss) in the Company's Windows and Doors
segment. It is possible that the Company may incur costs in excess
of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently expects
that the total net cost to resolve the lawsuits will not exceed
approximately $5.0 million. Approximately $4.6 million of this
liability is currently outstanding, with $2.6 million as a current
liability within accrued expenses and $2.0 million as a noncurrent
liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company's
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 27, 2014.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Class Certification Discovery Closed in "Memari" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported
class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of
MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive
damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

Discovery regarding class certification has closed, however, the
hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled
as this case is currently stayed pending the final approval
hearing in the Gulbankian and Hartshorn matters. While the damages
sought in this action have not yet been quantified, it is expected
that, if the settlement of the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases
receives final approval, it will result in the dismissal of this
action.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Class Certification Discovery Closed in "Pagliaroni" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery
regarding class certification has closed in the case Anthony
Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North
America, LLC.

In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which
was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck")
and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff
seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Discovery regarding class certification has closed, however, the
hearing regarding class certification has not yet been scheduled.
Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has
agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this
claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as
amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek
indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms
of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial
condition, which could change in the future.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PLY GEM: Strathclyde Pension Fund Certified as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Strathclyde
Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel
was appointed.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO.
It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently
prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material information which was
required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. The damages
sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Pursuant to
the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in
connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the
underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably
incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its representation of
the underwriters in connection with this matter.

Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported
federal securities class action is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Ply Gem is a manufacturer of exterior building products in North
America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing
and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors.


PPL CORP: 6th Circuit Court Has Yet to Accept Case for Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to accept the Cane Run
Environmental Claims case for review.

On December 16, 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
Louisville Gas and Electric Company and PPL Corporation in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging
violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976.  In addition, these plaintiffs assert common
law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence.  These plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and
attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.  Under the
common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and
punitive damages for property damage and diminished property
values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of
the plant.  In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek
compensation for alleged adverse health effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, on July
17, 2014 the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all
but one of its Clean Air Act claims, but declined to dismiss their
common law tort claims.  Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district
court certified for appellate review the issue of whether the
common law claims are preempted by statute, but the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to accept the case for
review.

PPL, LG&E and KU Energy LLC, and LG&E cannot predict the outcome
of this matter or the potential impact on operations of the Cane
Run plant.  LG&E has previously announced that it anticipates
retiring the coal-fired units at Cane Run before the end of 2015.


REFA ENTERPRISES: Recalls Forever Beautiful Bee Pollen & Infinity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REFA Enterprises, LLC is voluntarily recalling one lot of each:
Forever Beautiful Bee Pollen (UPC # 6333090804632), Forever
Beautiful Infinity UPC # 633090804649), to the consumer level.
The products have been found to contain undeclared Sibutramine or
a combination of both Sibutramine and Phenolphthalein through FDA
laboratory analyses.  Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that
was withdrawn from the U.S. market in Oct. 2010 (due to increased
risk of seizures, heart attacks, arrhythmia and strokes).
Phenolphthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the-
counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it
is not currently approved for marketing in the United States.
These undeclared ingredients make these products unapproved new
drugs for which safety and efficacy have not been established.
Products containing sibutramine pose a threat to consumers because
Sibutramine can increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some
patients and may present a risk for those with a history of
coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhymias or
stroke.  These products may also interact in life threatening ways
with other medications a consumer may be taking.  Health risks
associated with phenolphthalein could include potentially serious
gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer
with long-term use.  To date, the company has not received any
reports of adverse events related to the recall.

All affected products are marketed as dietary supplements for
weight loss and were packaged and distributed as:

Forever Beautiful Bee Pollen is packaged in bottles of 60
capsules, Forever Beautiful Bee pollen was distributed via
internet to consumers nationwide from July 7, 2014 - Nov. 3, 2014.

Forever Beautiful Infinity is packaged in bottles of 60 capsules.
Forever Beautiful Infinity was distributed via internet to
consumers nationwide from July 7, 2014 - Nov. 3, 2014.

REFA Enterprises, LLC is notifying its customers by email and is
arranging for return of all recalled products.  Consumers that
have product which is being recalled should stop using and return
products to REFA Enterprises, LLC.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact REFA
Enterprises, LLC at (757) 420-1122 Monday - Friday 12:00 p.m. -
6:00 p.m. EST or email support@fbbpshop.com.

Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this product.

Adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product may be
reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program
either online, by regular mail or by fax.


ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Entered Into MOU in in Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Rockwood Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the
plaintiffs providing for the settlement of all claims in the class
actions.

In July 2014, the Company, Albemarle and Albemarle Holdings
Corporation ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement").  On July 22, 2014, a putative
class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Division of the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County relating to the
Merger. On July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action
complaint was filed in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Mercer County relating to the Merger. Both suits
name the same plaintiff but were filed by different law firms.

On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative
class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware relating to the Merger. The lawsuits filed in
New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings Inc., et al., ("Thwaites
I") and Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites
II"), and the lawsuits filed in Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v.
Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc.,
et al., and North Miami Beach Police Officers & Firefighters'
Retirement Plan v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., each name
Rockwood, its directors and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II
and the cases filed in Delaware also name Merger Sub as a
defendant.

The lawsuits (collectively the "Actions"), which contain
substantially similar allegations, include allegations that the
Rockwood board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood
shareholders will receive the maximum value for their shares,
failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their
own interests ahead of Rockwood shareholders. Rockwood and
Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a variety of equitable
relief, including enjoining the Rockwood board of directors from
proceeding with the proposed Merger unless and until they have
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value and rescission of the Merger to the extent
implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants'
alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On
August 27, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the three
Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The
court also ordered that no response to the complaints shall be due
until after plaintiffs in the cases filed in Delaware file an
amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs in the cases filed in
Delaware have yet to file an amended consolidated complaint.

On September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an
amended complaint including additional allegations that the
registration statement failed to disclose material information. On
October 6, 2014, the parties in Thwaites II filed a stipulation
whereby the plaintiff agreed to extend the time for defendants to
answer or otherwise move to dismiss the amended complaint to
December 8, 2014, and the defendants agreed to provide certain
limited discovery without prejudice to any and all defenses prior
to answering or otherwise moving to dismiss the amended complaint.

On November 6, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of all claims in the Actions. Under the MOU, and
subject to court approval and definitive documentation, the
plaintiffs and the putative class settle and release, against the
named defendants and their affiliates and agents, all claims in
the Actions and any potential claim related to (i) the Merger or
the Merger Agreement, (ii) any deliberations or negotiations in
connection with the Merger or the Merger Agreement, including the
process of deliberation or negotiation by the defendants, and any
of their respective officers, directors, principals, partners or
advisors, (iii) the consideration to be received by class members
in connection with the Merger, (iv) the Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
by the Company on October 1, 2014, or any other disclosures made
available or filed relating to the Merger, (v) the statutory or
fiduciary obligations of the defendants and certain related
persons in connection with the Merger, (vi) the fees, expenses or
costs incurred with prosecuting, defending or settling the
Actions, or (vii) any of the allegations in any complaint or
amendment(s) thereto filed in the Actions.

While the Company and Albemarle believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid
the risk of the putative stockholder class actions delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of
defending such actions, the Company and Albemarle have agreed,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the proposed Merger.  The MOU contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
will file a petition in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
the Company or its successor. The settlement, including the
payment by the Company or any successor thereto of any such
attorneys' fees, is also contingent upon, among other things, the
Merger becoming effective under Delaware law. There can be no
assurance that the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County
will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event
that the settlement is not approved and such conditions are not
satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Actions, which the defendants
believe are without merit.

Rockwood Holdings is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer
of technologically advanced and high value-added specialty
chemicals.


ROME PACKING: Recalls Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Leg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rome Packing Co., Inc. has issued a voluntary recall of Ocean's
Catch brand All Natural Jonah Crab Leg Meat after routine product
sampling by the company determined some of the finished products
may have been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes bacteria.
Listeria monocytogenes, is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  Consumers who have
purchased these products are urged not to consume them and return
them to the place of purchase for a refund or discard them.

The lists of recalled products include fresh and frozen products.

The list of fresh recalled products are packaged in round plastic
containers (tub with snap-on lid), sold as refrigerated, includes:

5 ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Fresh Jonah Crab Leg Meat:
lot number 0104804 with a sell by date before 10/15/14;

6 ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Combo Meat:
lot number 0104791 with a sell by date before 10/13/14;
lot number 0104666 with a sell by date before 10/15/14;

8 ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Fresh Jonah Crab Leg Meat:
lot number 0104665 with a sell by date before 10/13/14;
lot number 0104665 with a sell by date before 10/14/14;
lot number 0104804 with a sell by date before 10/14/14;
lot number 0104842 with a sell by date before 10/16/14;

8 ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Combo Meat:
lot number 0104787 with a sell by date before 10/14/14;

16 ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Fresh Jonah Crab Leg Meat:
lot number 0104659 with a sell by date before 10/13/14;
lot number 0104665 with a sell by date before 10/14/14;
lot number 0104842 with a sell by date before 10/16/14;

16 ounce Ocean's Catch All Natural Jonah Crab Combo Meat:
lot number 0104806 with a sell by date before 10/14/14;
lot number 0104845 with a sell by date before 10/16/14;

The list of frozen recalled products are packaged in plastic bags,
sold frozen, includes:

5 pound bags of Ocean's Catch All Natural Frozen Jonah Crab Leg
Meat:

lot number 0104842 with a sell by date before 4/16/16;
The products are distributed in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois and California
to retail stores including but not limited to: Shaw's
Supermarkets, Legal Sea Foods, and Harbor Fish Market.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company's representative, John F.
Whiteside, Jr. at (508)991-3333.

Any consumers who believe they may have become ill after eating
the products should contact their health care provider.

Rome Packing Co., Inc. is cooperating with the Food and Drug
Administration and Rhode Island Department of Health
investigation.  Rome Packing Co., Inc. has initiated corrective
action in their processing plant to prevent this from occurring.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Attempting to Finalize Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company is attempting to finalize the settlement of the
consolidated Santarus Shareholder Litigation in Delaware.

Beginning on November 12, 2013, eleven putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Santarus seeking to
challenge the Company's proposed acquisition of Santarus, which
was announced on November 7, 2013. Nine of these actions were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, one was filed in
California Superior Court (San Diego County) and one was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The Company said, "These actions generally allege that the members
of the Santarus board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Santarus shareholders by failing to maximize the value of
Santarus and by making inadequate or misleading disclosures
regarding the proposed merger, and that Santarus, we and certain
of our subsidiaries aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint in the action pending in California federal
court also asserts causes of action on behalf of the individual
plaintiff for alleged violations of certain sections of the
Exchange Act. These actions generally sought, among other things,
to enjoin the merger, unspecified damages and fees."

On December 9, 2013, Santarus and its directors filed a motion to
stay the action pending in California Superior Court. On December
11, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the nine
actions pending in that court, appointed lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, and designated the amended complaint filed by
plaintiff Imad Ahmad Khalil on December 9, 2013 as the operative
complaint in the consolidated Delaware litigation. On December 20,
2013, the parties in the Delaware litigation reached an agreement
in principle, subject to full documentation, to resolve the
plaintiffs' claims in that action in exchange for certain
supplemental disclosures that Santarus included in an amended
Schedule 14D-9 it filed on that date. The Company completed its
merger with Santarus on January 2, 2014.

The parties in the Delaware litigation executed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement in principle
on January 17, 2014, completed confirmatory discovery in February
2014 and are currently attempting to finalize the settlement. The
settlement of the Delaware litigation will be subject to approval
by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiffs' counsel in the
Delaware litigation has also indicated that the plaintiffs intend
to request an award of attorneys' fees from the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On January 22, 2014, Santarus and its directors filed a renewed
motion to stay the action pending in California Superior Court,
and the Company filed a separate motion to stay that action in
favor of the Delaware litigation. On January 22, 2014, Santarus
and its directors filed a motion to stay the action pending in the
California federal court in favor of the Delaware litigation, and
we filed a joinder in support of that motion on January 23, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the parties in the action pending in
California federal court filed a joint motion to stay that action
pending a decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding
final approval of the proposed settlement of the Delaware
litigation, and the California federal court granted that motion
on February 13, 2014.

On August 11, 2014, the parties in the action pending in
California Superior Court filed a stipulation memorializing their
agreement to stay that action pending a decision by the Delaware
Court of Chancery regarding final approval of the proposed
settlement of the Delaware litigation, and the California Superior
Court granted the parties' request for a stay on August 18, 2014.

The Company is attempting to finalize the settlement of the
consolidated Delaware litigation. The Company believes that all of
the claims asserted against it by Santarus shareholders lack
merit.

Salix Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company
dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing
prescription drugs and medical devices used in the treatment of a
variety of gastrointestinal disorders, which are those affecting
the digestive tract.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims in Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that following
the termination of the merger agreement with Cosmo Pharmaceuticals
challenged, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice.

On July 18, 2014, Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft
M.B.H., a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative
class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company, its directors, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals S.p.A., or Cosmo,
Cosmo Tech and Sangiovese, LLC (Case No. 9909, Delaware Chancery
Court). The Erste-Sparinvest complaint alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger
and reorganization announced on July 8, 2014 among the Company,
Cosmo, Cosmo Tech and Sangiovese, LLC. The complaint also alleges
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The
complaint seeks, among other relief, an order permanently
enjoining the merger and damages in an unspecified amount.

On August 26, 2014, Michael M. Cebrik, another purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a second putative class action
in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger among the Company, Cosmo, Cosmo Tech and Sangiovese, LLC.
The Cebrik complaint names the same defendants as the Erste-
Sparinvest complaint, asserts substantially similar claims and
seeks the same remedies.

On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel submitted a letter to the
Delaware Court of Chancery requesting consolidation of the Erste-
Sparinvest and Cebrik actions and appointment of co-lead counsel,
and the Delaware Court of Chancery granted plaintiffs' request
later the same day.

On October 3, 2014, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement with Cosmo to terminate its previously-announced merger
agreement. Under the terms of the termination, the Company made a
$25 million payment to Cosmo.

On October 16, 2014, following the termination of the merger
agreement challenged in the consolidated Delaware action, the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice.
On October 22, 2014, the Delaware court approved the dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims.

Salix Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company
dedicated to acquiring, developing and commercializing
prescription drugs and medical devices used in the treatment of a
variety of gastrointestinal disorders, which are those affecting
the digestive tract.


SCHWARTZ BROTHERS: Recalls "Everything Bagels"
----------------------------------------------
Schwartz Brothers Bakery of Seattle, Washington is recalling
"Everything Bagels" because product contains milk but it is not
declared as the ingredient on the label.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Product was distributed between 10/9/14 and 11/5/14 through the
QFC retail stores of the Washington and Portland, Oregon areas.

The product was packed in clear 4-pack plastic bag, with visible
image of cheese melted on top of the bagels.  "Everything Bagels"
has the UPC number 7 17887 23121 1 and the "best by" dates of
10/14/14 to 11/10/14.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing Cheese was distributed in packaging with a label that
did not declare "Milk" in the ingredients statement and contains
statement.  The label however has a statement indicating that the
item is "Produced in a facility that processes Egg, Milk, Soy,
Wheat."

The recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased Schwartz Brothers Bakery "Everything
Bagels" at QFC store are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 888-970-6938 from 8:00AM to 4:00PM pacific time.


SHUR-GREEN: Recalls Loads of Soyoil Containing Lascadoil
--------------------------------------------------------
Shur-Green Farms LLC(Ansonia, OH) has voluntarily recalled loads
of Soyoil containing Lascadoil, industrial processing waste oil,
which was intended for non-food product or bio-fuels but may have
been used as a feed ingredient.  This voluntary recall is the
result of death in turkeys.

The recall includes load sold on or before Sept. 17, 2014.

Geographic areas of distribution: United States

If used as feed ingredient, may cause animal death.

Consumers that have recall product should contact Shur-Green Farms
to arrange for return.  If you or any of your customers may have
further distributed this oil, please be notified the company is
recalling this product for improper labeling and for reports of
deaths in turkeys associated with feeding this oil.  This product
is only permitted for bio-fuels.  If you know this product has
been used for purposes other than bio-fuels, please call your
customer to cease this use immediately.

To date, the company has received adverse event reports or product
complaints attributable to the levels of lasalocid sodium in the
oil.  This may be harmful to poultry or livestock.

As such, the company is conducting a voluntary recall as a safety
precaution, and will continue to closely monitor for reports of
adverse events and product complaints.

Brief description of how problem was found: State and FDA
investigations of turkey deaths.

The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.  Notification of the recall has been sent
to purchasers of the oil.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Approval of Angell Settlement Expected November
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
expects the Superior Court of Quebec to issue its formal judgment
approving the settlement in the case Jason Angell v. Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada,
Inc., sometime in November 2014.

On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion to authorize the
bringing of a class action in the Superior Court of Qu‚bec,
District of Montr‚al. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Qu‚bec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear.

The Company said, "Petitioner's motion alleges that we have
marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading
advertisements and representations about the products' ability to
provide health benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's
authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief."

Petitioner's motion was formally presented to the Court on June
29, 2012. At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as
well as the Niras and Dedato actions described below) through
authorization by the Qu‚bec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class. That agreement was finalized by the parties in
December 2013 and thereafter presented to the Qu‚bec Superior
Court for approval. 8

In June 2014, the Court approved the pre-approval notice. On
October 6, 2014, the Court heard the motion for approval of the
settlement, and directed that a few changes be made to the
settlement agreement.

"We expect the Court to issue its formal judgment approving the
settlement sometime in November 2014. Notwithstanding, if the
approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Angell
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Angell action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations or financial position in excess of
the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Smith" Plaintiff Agreed to Terms of Angell Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Davies filed on September 5, 2012, a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The
Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages (including
damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.

On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended Statement of Claim was
filed to substitute a new representative plaintiff, Kourtney
Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege substantially the same
claims as in the original Statement of Claim with respect to all
Skechers toning footwear sold to residents of Canada.

On or about February 28, 2014, representative plaintiff Smith
agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement reached in
the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions, and agreed to
discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the settlement in the
Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is finally approved by the
Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken.

On October 6, 2014, the Qu‚bec Superior Court heard the motion for
approval of the settlement, and directed that a few changes be
made to the settlement agreement.

"We expect the Court to issue its formal judgment approving the
settlement sometime in November 2014," Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

"Notwithstanding, if the motion for approval of the class action
settlement reached in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato actions is
denied or approval is reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the
outcome of the Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of
potential losses or whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action
would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations
or financial position in excess of the settlement."

The case is Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Approval of Niras Settlement Expected November
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
expects the Court to issue its formal judgment approving the
settlement sometime in November 2014 in the case George Niras v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers
U.S.A. Canada Inc.

On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a Statement of Claim in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all residents
of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Shape-ups
Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed these toning shoes through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide health benefits to users. The Statement seeks
damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.
Skechers has not yet responded to the Statement.

At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Niras action (as well as the
Angell action and the Dedato action) through authorization by the
Qu‚bec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That
agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and
thereafter presented to the Qu‚bec Superior Court for approval.

In June 2014, the Court approved the pre-approval notice. On
October 6, 2014, the Court heard the motion for approval of the
settlement and directed that a few changes be made to the
settlement agreement.

"We expect the Court to issue its formal judgment approving the
settlement sometime in November 2014. Notwithstanding, if the
approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Niras
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Niras action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations or financial position in excess of
the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Approval of Dedato Settlement Expected November
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
expects the Court to issue its formal judgment approving the
settlement in the case Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and
Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc., sometime in November 2014.

On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato filed a Statement of
Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-ups or
Resistance Runner footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. Skechers has not yet responded to
the Statement of Claim.

At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Dedato action (as well as the
Angell and Niras actions) through authorization by the Qu‚bec
Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That agreement
was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and thereafter
presented to the Qu‚bec Superior Court for approval. In June 2014,
the Court approved the pre-approval notice.

On October 6, 2014, the Court heard the motion for approval of the
settlement and directed that a few changes be made to the
settlement agreement.

"We expect the Court to issue its formal judgment approving the
settlement sometime in November 2014. Notwithstanding, if the
approval of the class action settlement is denied or approval is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the Dedato
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Dedato action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations or financial position in excess of
the settlement," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Grants Final Approval of Sayles Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the Roneshia Sayles v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

On October 2, 2012, Roneshia Sayles filed a class action lawsuit
against our company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC473067. The
complaint involves a wage and hour claim, alleging violations of
the California Labor Code, including unpaid time for certain
breaks and when retail employees' bags are checked upon leaving
the store at the ends of their shifts. The complaint seeks actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; general and
special damages; civil, statutory and waiting time penalties;
restitution of unpaid wages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees
and costs; pre-judgment interest on unpaid compensation. In
January 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement of Class Action Claims (the "Settlement"). The
Settlement was waiting to be approved by the Court and the Court
has granted final approval of this settlement on September 5,
2014.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Defendant in 813 Shape-ups Personal Injury Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is
named as a defendant in 813 currently pending personal injury
lawsuits involving shape-ups.

On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a
lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are
defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or
manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by our
company, and that the Company failed to provide adequate warnings
of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups.

"In total, we are named as a defendant in 813 currently pending
cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various
courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar
legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as
well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss
of consortium, and fraud. Although there are some variations in
the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory
and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Kentucky MDL Encompasses 750 Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation issued on December 19, 2011, an order
establishing a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products Liability Litigation,
case no. 11-md-02308-TBR, that currently encompasses 750 personal
injury cases that were initiated as individual lawsuits in various
federal courts or in the MDL itself, and 1,393 claims submitted by
plaintiff fact sheets or court-approved questionnaires for
mediation purposes.

Since 2011, a total of 852 personal injury cases have been filed
in or transferred to the MDL proceeding. The Company has resolved
413 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings, comprised of 60
that were filed as formal actions and 354 that were submitted by
plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has also settled 36 claims in
principle--8 filed cases and 28 claims submitted by plaintiff fact
sheets--and anticipates that those settlements will be finalized
in the near term. Thirty-four cases in the MDL proceeding have
been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers and 36
unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been
abandoned.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: LASC Coordinated Cases Involve 62 Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Judicial
Council of California granted a petition by the Company to
coordinate all personal injury actions filed in California that
relate to Shape-ups with the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles cases. The LASC Coordinated Cases currently involve 62
pending personal injury lawsuits

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group have been named as defendants in a total of 66
personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the
State of California that were brought on behalf of 785 individual
plaintiffs (many of whom also submitted court-approved
questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of
those cases, 63 were originally filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases").

On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a
petition by the Company to coordinate all personal injury actions
filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases
(collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases").

On October 6, 2014, three cases that had been pending in other
counties were transferred to and coordinated with the LASC
Coordinated Cases. Four of the actions originally filed as LASC
cases, brought on behalf of a total of 6 plaintiffs, have been
dismissed. The claims of 41 additional plaintiffs have been
dismissed entirely from certain of the lawsuits, and the claims of
16 persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on
motions by Skechers. Settlements with another 3 plaintiffs have
been reached in principle, and Skechers anticipates their claims
will be dismissed in the near term. Thus, the LASC Coordinated
Cases currently involve 62 pending personal injury lawsuits
brought on behalf of a total of 735 plaintiffs.

In other state courts, a total of 11 personal injury actions have
been filed that were not removed to federal court and transferred
to the MDL. Ten of those actions have been resolved and dismissed.
One personal injury action currently pending in Massachusetts
state court is expected to be removed to federal court in the near
term and transferred to the MDL.

The personal injury cases in the MDL and LASC Coordinated Cases
are in many instances solicited and handled by the same
plaintiff's law firms. It is too early to predict the outcome of
any case, whether there will be future personal injury cases
filed, whether adverse results in any single case or in the
aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations
or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover any losses. Notwithstanding, we believe we have
meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations and intend
to defend each of these cases vigorously.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Grabowski/Morga Deal to Resolve Tomlinson Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the settlement in
the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve
the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson and
Boatright.

Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a lawsuit against the
Company company in Circuit Court in Washington County, Arkansas,
Case No. CV11-121-7.  The Company said, "the complaint alleges, on
her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that
our advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied
warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson
action"). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs."

"On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was
pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042
JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action
back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On May 25,
2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court
and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed
the remand pending completion of appellate review.

"On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and
remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the
state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case. On August
13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the
"Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson
action, among other cases.

"On May 13, 2013, the Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions
entered an order finally approving the nationwide consumer class
action settlement, and the time for any appeals therefrom has
expired. The settlement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is
expected entirely to resolve the class claims brought by the
plaintiff in Tomlinson.

Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group

On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and Sharon White filed a
lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:12-cv-87-S.  The
Company said, "the complaint alleges, on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising
for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a
breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

"On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13,
2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action
settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions, and
issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the continued
prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving
the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for
any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright."


SOLGAR INC: Recalls ABC Dophilus Powder
---------------------------------------
Solgar, Inc., of Leonia, NJ, is voluntarily recalling ABC Dophilus
Powder.  The recall was initiated, out of an abundance of caution,
because the product was found to contain Rhizopus oryzae, which
may cause Mucormycosis.  This is a rare infection that may cause
health problems to consumers, particularly pre-mature
infants/infants, children, and those with weakened immune systems.
Although, it may also occur (rarely) in people who are otherwise
healthy.  ABC Dophilus was used as part of the in-hospital course
of treatment for a very preterm infant (<32 week gestation) who
suffered from multiple complications, including intestinal
mucormycosis, and died on October 11, 2014.  Susceptible consumers
should consult with their physician or health care provider if
they have used this product.

Solgar is notifying consumers and customers not to consume this
product

This product was distributed to: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, CO, FL, IA,
IL, IN, MI, ME, MO, MA, NC, NE, NY, NJ, NV, OH, OK, PA, PR, UT,
TN, TX, VT, KY, WI, WA, UK and Israel through pharmacy, retail
stores, wholesale, internet, etc.

Description: Solgar ABC Dophilus Powder NET Wt. 1.75 oz (50 g)
UPC Code: 0 33984 00010 0
Label: Solgar
Lot# 074024-01R1, 074024-01, 074024-02 Expiration
Date 7/31/15

Testing conducted by the Centers for Disease Control revealed the
presence of Rhizopus oryzae in 1.75 oz (50 g) containers of Solgar
ABC Dophilis Powder.

The distribution of the product has been suspended while FDA and
the company continue to investigate the source of the problem.

Risk factors for developing Mucormycosis include: uncontrolled
diabetes; cancer; organ transplant; neutropenia (low white blood
cells); skin trauma (cuts, scrapes, punctures, or burns).
Susceptible consumers should consult with their physician or
health care provider.

Consumers who have purchased Solgar ABC Dophilus Powder are urged
not to consume the product and should return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 888-534-6370, Monday-Friday, 9AM-7PM ET.

Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report
adverse events or side effects related to the use of these
products to the FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse
Event Reporting Program.


SPARK NETWORKS: Final Approval Hearing of "Kirby" Deal on Feb. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court has
scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement on
February 3, 2015 in the case Kirby, et al. v. Spark Networks USA,
LLC.

On October 16, 2012, Kristina Kirby, Christopher Wagner and Jamie
Carper (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles alleging claims against Spark
Networks USA, LLC ("Spark Networks") for violations of California
Business & Professions Code section 17529.5. Plaintiffs allege
that certain e-mail communications advertising websites of Spark
Networks and received by Plaintiffs violate a California statute
prohibiting false and deceptive e-mail communications (namely,
California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5).
Plaintiffs generally allege that they seek damages in excess of
$25,000. The e-mail publishers responsible for distributing the e-
mails at issue in this litigation agreed to furnish a complete
defense to the Spark Networks, through independent counsel at
their own expense, pursuant to contractual indemnification
provisions.  The parties reached a settlement to resolve the
action on a classwide basis.  They have executed a settlement
agreement and filed the necessary approval paperwork with the
court.  The court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement on October 14, 2014.  Notice to
putative class members began on October 24, 2014, and the court
has scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement on
February 3, 2015.

At this time, the Company does not anticipate that its liability
will exceed $75,000 if this settlement agreement is approved by
the court.

Spark Networks is a global media business, focused on creating
iconic niche-focused brands that build and strengthen the
communities they serve.


SPARK NETWORKS: Calif. Unruh Act Litigation Temporarily Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the cases Werner,
et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC and
Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC,
et al. are temporarily stayed while the parties explore whether an
agreed upon resolution is possible.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation.  The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.

On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc.  The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks'
commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.

These matters are temporarily stayed while the parties explore
whether an agreed upon resolution is possible.

Spark Networks is a global media business, focused on creating
iconic niche-focused brands that build and strengthen the
communities they serve.


SPARK NETWORKS: Files Response to Israeli Consumer Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
combined response to the motions to certify the classes was filed
November 1, 2014 in the cases Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks
(Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland
vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981.  Spark
was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as
a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014.  The
plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark
Networks") refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund
for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation
of the Consumer Protection Law.  Spark Networks was served with a
Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in
the Gever action on January 21, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges that
Spark Networks renewed his one month subscription without
receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims that such
renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law. Spark
Networks was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12,
2014.  The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks refused to give
her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month
subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.  In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is
seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group.

On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Networks' motion to
consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated
and will be litigated jointly. Spark Networks' combined response
to their motions to certify the classes was filed November 1,
2014.

"We intend to defend vigorously against each of the lawsuits.
However, no assurance can be given that these matters will be
resolved in our favor and, depending on the outcome of these
lawsuits, we may choose to alter our business practices," the
Company said.

Spark Networks is a global media business, focused on creating
iconic niche-focused brands that build and strengthen the
communities they serve.


STANDARD PARKING: Removes "Yamin" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Eduardo Yamin vs. Standard
Parking Corporation, et al., Case No. BC561757, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
08926-JFW-E to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Assal Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: assal@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Corey P. Hanrahan, Esq.
          THE HANRAHAN FIRM
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 377-6522
          Facsimile: (619) 377-6662
          E-mail: corey@hanrahanfirm.com

               - and -

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY APLC
          9861 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          OLGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com


TEMPUR SEALY: Notice of Appeal Filed in Norfolk and Benning Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the cases:

   (a) Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed
June 20, 2012, and

   (b) Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International
Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012

On June 20 and 25, 2012, the suits were filed against the Company
and two named executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly on behalf
of a proposed class of shareholders who purchased the Company's
stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The complaints
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements and
concealment of material information concerning the Company's
competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per diluted
share and related financial performance for the Company's 2012
fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief. On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two
lawsuits and on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint.

On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 23,
2014, the Judge's memorandum of opinion and judgment dismissing
the case were entered. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the claims.

The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and although
the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss with respect
to these matters, the Company cannot currently predict the manner
and timing of the resolution of the suits, an estimate of a range
of losses or any minimum loss that could result in the event of an
adverse verdict in these suits, or whether the Company's
applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for
these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.

Tempur Sealy is the world's largest bedding provider.


TEMPUR SEALY: Awaits Results of Appraisal Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that with
respect to the Sealy Acquisition, holders of approximately 3.1
million shares of Sealy common stock sent notices to Sealy
purporting to exercise their appraisal rights in accordance with
the Merger Agreement executed on September 26, 2012. In order to
preserve these appraisal rights, any such former stockholder was
required to commence an appraisal proceeding in the Delaware
courts within 120 days after March 18, 2013. Sealy has expressly
reserved its rights to contest that any or all of such notices
were not delivered timely or otherwise not in the form required
under Delaware law.

On June 27, 2013, an appraisal proceeding was commenced in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Appraisal Action").  If the fair
value of the Sealy common stock formerly held by the former Sealy
stockholders seeking the appraisal is determined to be greater
than the $2.20 per share paid pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Sealy would be required to pay such difference, plus interest at
the statutory rate, which could impact the Company's financial
condition and liquidity.

The case is Sealy Mattress Company of NJ, Inc., David Hertz,
individually, as trustee of, respectively, the Allison Lindsay
Hertz Trust, the Samuel Douglas Hertz Trust, the Sydney Lauren
Hertz Trust, the U/A DTD 08/21/97 Andrew Michael Marcus Trust, the
U/A DTD 08/21/97 Julia Robyn Marcus Trust, and the U/A DTD
08/21/97 James Daniel Marcus Trust, and as executor of the Estate
of Walter Hertz, Lisa Marcus, Rose Naiman, Michael Shoobs, and
Diane Shoobs, individually and as custodian of the Robert S.
Shoobs UTMA NJ v. Sealy Corporation, filed June 27, 2013.

Tempur Sealy is the world's largest bedding provider.


TEMPUR SEALY: "Todd" Case at Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
case Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur
Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, is at a very preliminary
stage, and the outcome is uncertain.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries.

The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. This matter is at a very
preliminary stage, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether
the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

Tempur Sealy is the world's largest bedding provider.


TJX COMPANIES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benny Blocker, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., dba TJ Maxx, and LexisNexis
Risk Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01940-ABJ (D.D.C., November
18, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Plaintiffs Oppose Motions to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint in a class action lawsuit.  Plaintiffs
filed their oppositions to the motions on October 24, 2014.
Defendants have not yet filed their replies.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. 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 the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
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 and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court
issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint
shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011.

The 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 July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions on October 24, 2014. Defendants have not yet filed
their replies.

The Company's management believes the claims in the Wilder
Litigation are entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously
defend those claims.

Twenty-First Century Fox is a diversified global media and
entertainment company, which manages and reports its businesses in
five segments: Cable Network Programming, Television, Filmed
Entertainment, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television ("DBS") and
Other, Corporate and Eliminations.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Court Sets Final Approval Hearing for Feb. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Bank by Amber
Hawthorne relating to overdraft fees and the posting order of
point of sale and ACH items.  In March 2014, the parties reached
an agreement to settle the case and have executed a comprehensive
written settlement agreement.  On September 15, 2014, the court
entered an order granting a motion for preliminary approval of the
class settlement and preliminarily set a final approval hearing
for February 19, 2015.

Settlement of this matter on the agreed terms will have no
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

Umpqua Holdings is a financial holding company with two principal
operating subsidiaries, Umpqua Bank and Umpqua Investments, Inc.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: No Significant Activity Since MOU Was Executed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that there has
been no significant activity in the cases since the Memorandum of
Understanding was executed in the lawsuits related to the merger
with Sterling Financial Corporation.

Two separate class action lawsuits were filed in Spokane County,
Washington, Superior Court against the Company and other
defendants arising from the then-proposed merger with Sterling
Financial Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Sterling"),
which the court consolidated. The consolidated litigation
generally alleges that directors of Sterling breached their duties
to the Sterling shareholders by approving the Merger, failing to
take steps to maximize shareholder value, engaging in a flawed
sales process, and agreeing to deal protection provisions in the
Merger agreement that are alleged to unduly favor the Company.

The Company is alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of duty. The consolidated litigation also alleges that
the disclosures approved by the Sterling board in connection with
the Merger and the vote thereon are false and misleading in
various respects. As relief, the complaints sought to enjoin the
Merger and seek, among other things, damages in an unspecified
amount and payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The
defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit.

On January 16, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") that contains the essential terms of a
settlement and dismissal of the consolidated cases. The MOU does
not call for the payment of any money damages, but required the
defendants to make certain additional disclosures relating to the
Merger and to pay the attorney fees, costs, and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel incurred in connection with the action. The
agreed additional disclosures were made and included in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed January 22, 2014. The MOU further
provides that if the parties cannot agree on the amount of fees,
costs, and expenses to be paid by the defendants to plaintiffs'
counsel, such amount shall be decided by the court. There has been
no significant activity in the cases since the MOU was executed.

Umpqua Holdings is a financial holding company with two principal
operating subsidiaries, Umpqua Bank and Umpqua Investments, Inc.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit from the district court's order granting the motion
to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.

On December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action
complaint, captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling and certain of its current
and former officers. On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements
concerning Sterling's business and financial results. Plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On
August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the
court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on August 5,
2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class period,
alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

Umpqua Holdings is a financial holding company with two principal
operating subsidiaries, Umpqua Bank and Umpqua Investments, Inc.


UNITED DEBT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Knowles, as an individual, and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. United Debt Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; Nationwide Services, a New York
Corporation; Hartford Mediation Group, a New York Partnership; and
Payment Management Solutions, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01815-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal., November 19, 2014) is
brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ray Edwin Gallo, Esq.
          GALLO LLP
          1299 Fourth St., Suite 505
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 257-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 257-8800
          E-mail: rgallo@gallo-law.com


UNITED EGG: Has Conspired to Fix Prices of Eggs, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh Supermarkets, LLC v. United Egg Producers, Inc., United
States Egg Marketers, Inc., Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC, Michael Foods,
Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., R.W. Sauder,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06640-GP (E.D. Pa., November 19, 2014)
alleges a conspiracy among the Defendants and certain unnamed co-
conspirators where they agreed to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the prices at which shell eggs and egg products were
sold in the United States, including by controlling the aggregate
supply of domestic eggs.

Marsh Supermarkets, LLC is an Indiana corporation with its
principal offices located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Marsh is
engaged in the retail grocery supermarket business and, by itself
and through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and licenses over 79
supermarkets in Indiana and Ohio.  Marsh sells shell eggs and egg
products to its retail customers.

United Egg Producers, Inc. is a cooperative corporation organized
in Maine with its office and principal place of business in
Alpharetta, Georgia.  United Egg Association is a nonprofit
corporation organized in the District of Columbia, with its
principal place of business located in Alpharetta, Georgia.
United States Egg Marketers, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation
organized in Georgia, with its principal place of business located
in Alpharetta, Georgia.

The Corporate Defendants are business organizations that are
engaged in egg-related businesses, including production,
distribution and selling of eggs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard D. Marcus, Esq.
          Moira E. Cain-Mannix, Esq.
          Brian Hill, Esq.
          MARCUS & SHAPIRA LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 35th Floor
          301 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 471-3490
          Facsimile: (412) 391-8758
          E-mail: marcus@marcus-shapira.com
                  cain-mannix@marcus-shapira.com
                  hill@marcus-shapira.com


VENMAR VENTILATION: Expands Recall of Air Exchangers
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Venmar Ventilation Inc., of Quebec, Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 108,000 in the United States (an additional 77,500
previously recalled in March 2007, Dec. 2007 and June 2011) and
about 207,000 in Canada Air exchangers.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The motor in the air exchangers can overheat, posing a fire hazard
to consumers.

Venmar Ventilation has received four new reports in relation to
this recall expansion.  In the previous recalls, Venmar
Ventilation reported 26 incidents, for a total of 30.  Out of
these 30 incidents, five took place in the U.S. and 25 took place
in Canada.  All incidents resulted in fires and more than $1.1
million in property damages.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves air exchangers with and without heat recovery
sold under different brands that are used to circulate air in and
out of the home.  The metal air exchangers are painted blue or
grey.  Air exchangers with heat recovery included in this recall
were manufactured from Jan. 2002 through May 2008 and have brand
and model information written on a silver or black label on the
outside panel.  Air exchangers without heat recovery included in
the recall were manufactured from Jan. 2002 through July 2009 and
have brand and model information printed on the unit's rating
plate or imprinted on the side of the unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/X2YMo3

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at air
exchangers with heat recovery were sold at heating, plumbing and
building supply distributors nationwide from Jan. 2002 through May
2008 for between $700 and $2,500.  Air exchangers without heat
recovery were sold at heating, plumbing, and building supply
distributors nationwide from Jan. 2002 through July 2009 for
between $350 and $850.

Consumers should immediately turn off and stop using their air
exchangers.  Consumers should contact Venmar Ventilation to
request a free inspection and repair by a Venmar field technician.


VENTAMATIC LTD: Recalls Cool Draft Misting Fans Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ventamatic LTD, of Mineral Wells, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 450 Cool Draft Misting Fans.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fan's wiring is not properly grounded, posing electric shock
and fire hazards.

The firm is aware of two incidents with the misting fans,
including one electric shock injury to a consumer.

The recall involves Cool Draft misting mid pressure and high
pressure misting fans.  The misting fans fit on top of 15 gallon
yellow or orange round Igloo coolers or on top of gray 40 gallon
water tanks.  Cool Draft by Ventamatic is printed on a sticker on
the fan's water tank and cooldraft.com is printed on a sticker in
the center of all of fans.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/xA0Jtl

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at hardware, home improvement, fire and home security retailers,
buying cooperatives, and online at AdvancedSystems.com,
BigFogg.com, Collinssports.com, Cooldraft.com, MistNGo.com and
Propack.com from Nov. 2013 through Aug. 2014 for between $600 and
$1,200.

Consumers should stop using the misting fans immediately, unplug
them and contact Ventamatic for a free repair, free shipping of
the fan to Ventamatic and return back to consumers.


WELCOME MARKET: Recalls Toast Products Due to Undeclared Allergen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome Market, Inc. dba 99 Ranch Market of Union City, CA is
recalling "Taro Toast", "Family Toast", "U-Ta-Ne Toast", "Raisin
Toast", "Green Onion Porksung Toast", "Coconut Toast", "Pineapple
Toast", "Multi-9 Grain", "Cheese Toast", "Wheat Bran Toast", and
"Red Bean Toast" because the product labels failed to declare food
allergen wheat, soy, and/or and milk in the ingredient statement.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat, soy
and/or milk run the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction
that requires immediate medical attention should they consume
these products.

"Taro Toast", "Family Toast", "U-Ta-Ne Toast", "Raisin Toast",
"Green Onion Porksung Toast", "Coconut Toast", "Pineapple Toast",
"Multi-9 Grain", "Cheese Toast", "Wheat Bran Toast", and "Red Bean
Toast" are various flavors of toast, packaged as pre-sliced loaves
in clear plastic bags.  The products were distributed to company
owned stores and each store has a different bar code and address
information specific to each store.  The products have a sell by
date of 11/04/14 or prior.

Consumers in possession of "Taro Toast", "Family Toast", "U-Ta-Ne
Toast", "Raisin Toast", "Green Onion Porksung Toast", "Coconut
Toast", "Pineapple Toast", "Multi-9 Grain", "Cheese Toast", "Wheat
Bran Toast", and "Red Bean Toast" should not eat the product and
should return the product to the place of purchase.

Consumers who have experienced allergic reaction after consuming
this product should contact their health care provider.

99 Ranch Market will be sending recall notices to all of its
direct customers. Please call Wendy Lo at (510) 487-8899 extension
221 for further information.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls "Vegan Gingersnap Cookies"
-----------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling "Vegan Gingersnap Cookies"
produced and sold only in the Melrose, Massachusetts location due
to a labeling error that resulted in undeclared tree nut, milk,
soy and egg allergens.  The product has a "Sell By" date of
Oct. 28, 2014.

The six-packs of cookies labeled as "Vegan Gingersnap Cookies"
contained tree nuts (walnut and almond), milk, soy and egg, known
allergens, which are not declared on the label.  People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to those ingredients run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The cookies were sold in the store between Oct. 23 and Oct. 26,
2014.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
Melrose may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call
617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Court Directs New Class Members to Arbitrate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a court
ordered approximately half of the new class members to arbitrate
their claims and excluded them from the class.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its
subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair
Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA
Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company
violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the
manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan
originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also
seeks to assert these claims as a class.

On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential
class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily
informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class
and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice
recipients joined the class prior to the opt-in deadline of
January 22, 2014.

On September 26, 2014, the Court ordered approximately half of the
new class members to arbitrate their claims and excluded them from
the class.

The Company has reserved an amount for the FLSA Litigation that is
immaterial to its results of operations or financial condition.
Such class action litigation necessarily involves substantial
uncertainty and it is not possible at this time to predict the
ultimate resolution or to estimate whether, or to what extent, any
loss with respect to this litigation may exceed the amounts
reserved by the Company.

Wintrust is a financial holding company that provides traditional
community banking services, primarily in the Chicago metropolitan
area and southern Wisconsin, and operates other financing
businesses on a national basis and Canada through several non-bank
subsidiaries. Additionally, Wintrust offers a full array of wealth
management services primarily to customers in the Chicago
metropolitan area and southern Wisconsin.


XPO LOGISTICS: Agreement Reached in Pacer Acquisition Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the parties have
reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the claims in
the Pacer Acquisition Litigation.

Between January 8 and January 16, 2014, five substantially
identical putative class actions were filed in the Tennessee
Chancery Court against the Company, Pacer and Pacer's directors
challenging the Company's acquisition of Pacer. By stipulation and
order dated February 18, 2014, the Chancery Court for Davidson
County consolidated these cases under the caption In re Pacer
International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-39-IV. The
operative complaint in the consolidated case alleges, among other
things, that the directors of Pacer breached their fiduciary
duties to Pacer's shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Pacer by XPO by agreeing to the proposed merger at
an allegedly unfair price pursuant to a purportedly flawed and
conflicted sales process, by including certain allegedly
preclusive deal-protection measures, and by misrepresenting and/or
omitting certain allegedly material information in the proxy
statement relating to the transaction.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle all
of these claims, which the Company continues to believe are
without merit. The Court has entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The settlement remains subject to final
Court approval. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a definitive settlement agreement or that
the Court will approve the settlement. The proposed settlement is
not material to the Company's financial statements.

XPO Logistics provides premium transportation and logistics
services to thousands of customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: Evaluating California DLSE Claims
------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
Pacer subsidiary, which was acquired on March 31, 2014, received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of 153 owner
operators contracted with certain Pacer subsidiaries have filed
claims with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be
classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors.
These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators' business
expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease
payments. A decision has been rendered by a DLSE hearing officer
in seven of these claims, who awarded a total of $2.2 million to
the seven claimants. Pacer has appealed these awards to California
Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial will be held on
the merits of those claims.

As part of the acquisition accounting process, XPO is currently
evaluating these claims and the recent award to the seven
claimants and will determine the fair value of these claims, if
any, in the forthcoming measurement period. As of September 30,
2014, the Company has not established any reserve with respect to
these matters or other claims involving Pacer, all of which XPO
continues to evaluate as part of the acquisition accounting
process.

XPO Logistics provides premium transportation and logistics
services to thousands of customers.


Z NATURAL: Recalls 55 Lbs. of Lightly Roasted Organic Carob Powder
------------------------------------------------------------------
Z Natural Foods of West Palm Beach, Florida is recalling 55 lbs of
Lightly Roasted Organic Carob Powder because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled Lightly Roasted Organic Carob Powder was available
for sale directly through Z Natural Foods website at:
ZNaturalFoods.  It was not available in retail stores.

The Lightly Roasted Organic Carob Powder was available in a 1 lb
and 5 lb standup resealable foil pouches either bronze (1 lb) or
silver in color (5 lb) and marked with Lot # ZNCARB39513 and a
Best By Date of 12/5/2016 at the bottom of the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date and we are issuing this
recall purely as a precautionary measure.  The potential for
contamination was noted after learning that another customer of Z
Natural's ingredient supplier received a positive test for
Salmonella.  While sampling conducted by the manufacturer did not
indicate the presence of Salmonella, Z Natural's is recalling this
product out of an abundance of caution.  No other Z Natural Foods
products are affected.

All sales of the Lightly Roasted Organic Carob Powder have been
suspended while the FDA, Z Natural Foods and its suppliers
continue their investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased a 1 lb or 5 lb Lightly Roasted
Organic Carob Powder are urged to contact Z Natural Foods to
arrange return of the product and for a full refund.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-888-963-6637 between
the hours of 9am - 6pm, Monday - Friday Eastern Standard Time.


                              *********

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  * * *