CAR_Public/141209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 244


                             Headlines

ACCOR BUSINESS: Fails to Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
ACH FOOD: Recalls Beehive Corn Syrup Due to Pieces of Plastic
ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Residents Request Approval of Claim
AEROTEK INC: Sued in Md. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chicharron Due to Undeclared Wheat

AKI'S FINE: Recalls Certain Aki's Pickle and Chutney Products
ALVIN AILEY: Violates Plaintiff's Civil Rights, N.Y. Suit Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Misrepresents Price of Stuff It Sells, Suit Says
AMERICAN INT'L: Two Witnesses Address Key Question in Class Action
AMINCOR INC: Tyree Holdings Faces ERISA "Violation" Lawsuit

APPLE INC: Trial in iPod Class Action to Commence
AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit by TRT Third Party Payors
BAKER HUGHES: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Halliburton
BLUE CROSS: Named as Defendant in Antitrust Class Action
BONSOY: Settles Soy Milk Class Action for AU$25 Million

BRADENTON YACHT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
CABLECOM LLC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Wisconsin
CHEVRON CORP: Bid to Junk Suit Over Oil Blaze in Nigeria Denied
CHINA GERUI: Accused of Squandering $234MM on Antique Porcelain
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Securities Suits

CORGENIX MEDICAL: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Suit in Nevada
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 122SD Model Due to Possible Valve Leaking
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Marketing
DHW WELL: "Bouchard" Suit Transferred From S.D. to W.D. Texas
DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Stays Order on "Church Plan" During Appeal

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Judgment Bid in Kickback Suit Denied
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved From Washington to Fla.
EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Consumer Lawsuit Remains Pending in California
EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" RICO "Violations" Lawsuit Pending in Calif.
ELI LILLY: Sued for Injuries Suffered Relating to Use of Cymbalta

EXXON MOBIL: Blamed by Residents for Oil Spill in Mayflower
FRANK TOWNSHIP: Court to Hear Arguments in Bus Service Class Suit
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Accord With Policyholders Gets Final Okay
FIREEYE INC: Faces "Collins" Shareholder Suit in California
FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 and FLEX Models

FORD MOTOR: Recalls Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Town Car
FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Model Due to Defective Brake Lamp Switch
GFB ENTERPRISES: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Harassment
GROWLIFE INC: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Calif. Stock Suit
HEADWATERS INC: Utah Court Dismisses "Edwards" Shareholder Suit

HEINEN + LOWENSTEIN: Recalls LeoniPlus and LeoniPlus With HFO
HEMOCUE: Recalls Glucose 201 Microcuvette
HUTCHINSON SEALING: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Va.
INNOVATIVE FOOD: Bid to Trim Down Suit v. The Fresh Diet Granted
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D. Indiana

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Motions to Consolidate 3 Securities Suits Filed
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Banes" Securities Suit in Indiana Court
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Still Faces "Gallien" Labor Suit in Calif. Court
JC BUNNY: Recalls Sesame Paste Product Due to Undeclared Peanut
JP MORGAN: Removes "Sheehan" Suit to New Jersey District Court

KEURIG GREEN: Oral Argument v. Dismissal of Stock Suit Held
KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs in US Antitrust Suit to Amend Lawsuit
KEURIG GREEN: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit by Club Coffee in Canada
KEYCORP: Supreme Court Won't Hear Plaintiffs' Class Suit Appeal
KUO HUA: Recalls 3:15 PM Coffee Products Due to Undeclared Milk

LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation
LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Unifood Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Coq Roti Bolognese Meat
MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
MICROSOFT CORP: HealthVault Web site Accused of Spamming Users

MODEL N: Faces Securities Litigation in Calif. Superior Court
MOL GLOBAL: Sued for Not Delivering 3rd Quarter Financial Results
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Customers Have Until Jan. 27 to Join Fee Suit
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Removes "Wilson" Class Suit to C.D. California
NATUS MEDICAL: Recalls neoBLUE LED Phototherapy

NOVARTIS CORP: Judge Dismisses Excedrin Migraine Drug Class Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Shareholders Have Until Feb. to Seek High Court Writ
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Class Wage Deal Is Unfair, Cheerleader Claims
OSCEOLA REGIONAL: Removes "Francis" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
OSP GROUP: Removes "McEwan" Suit to California District Court

PACCAR: Recalls 220, K270 and K370 Models
PHILIPS ULTRASOUND: Recalls Auto 2D Quantification Software
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reserves $7.8MM for Note Purchasers' Lawsuit
RICHMAN PROPERTY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
RIGHTSCORP INC: Faces TCPA Action in California Over Robo-Calls

SAGE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SHOPKICK INC: Faces "Kozlow" Suit in Tennessee District Court
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Dimension Vista 1500 and 500 Lab
SP AUSNET: Bush Fire Victims Await Approval of Settlement
SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Has Agreement to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Faces Suit in Mo. for TCPA Violations
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: US Trustee Wants Discovery v. Bank
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Two TCPA Violations Litigations
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Quarles" Suit Over Trademark Infringement
TALLGRASS DISTRIBUTING: Recalls 52.5 g. Megafood Daily Energy

TAKATA CORP: Faces "Clow" Suit Arising From Defective Airbags
TARGET CORP: Judge Refuses to Toss Claims in Data Breach Suit
TETRA TECH: Montreal Court Keeps Dismissal of Taxpayers' Suit
TRULIA INC: Inks Agreement to Settle Shareholder Litigation
VENOCO INC: Trial in Suit Over Going Private Deal Set for 2015

YOUNG AMERICA: Didn't Cover Accidents With Uninsured Drivers
W.A.R. LLP: Lawyer Enjoined From Submitting Further Court Filings
WALGREEN CO: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
WHITE & BLUE: Sued for Selling Dirty Needles & Ink in Tattoo Kits


                            *********


ACCOR BUSINESS: Fails to Minimum and Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Zioueche, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Accor Business & Leisure Mgmt LLC d/b/a Sofitel New York a/k/a
Gaby Restaurant Francais, Didier Bosc. Alan J. Rabinowitz, Rebecca
Lennard and Greg Steven Toon, Case No. 1:14-cv-09441 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 26, 2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully failing and
refusing to pay the Plaintiff and the class at the legally
required minimum wage for all hours worked and one-and-one-half
times this rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and
allowing non-tipped employees to share in their tips.

Accor Business and Leisure Mgmt, LLC, is a foreign business
corporation organized under the laws of France, and authorized to
do business under the hotel brand name "Sofitel," which is located
in New York City.  The hotel is operated by Accor and the
Individual Defendants are principals and managers of the hotel.
Accor also operates a restaurant called Gaby Restaurant Francaise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON-TENENBAUM, PLLC
          87 Walker Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 620-0938


ACH FOOD: Recalls Beehive Corn Syrup Due to Pieces of Plastic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           ACH Food Companies, Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    9412

Affected products: 55 gal. Beehive Corn Syrup with 76172-019121
UPC


ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Residents Request Approval of Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
A financial claim and a request for approval of the claim as a
class action were filed by residents of Moshav Nir Galim and
Ashdod alleging damages caused by odor and noise, according to
Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd.'s Nov. 18, 2014, Form F-1 filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On July 24, 2011, a financial claim and a request for approval of
the claim as a class action were received in the offices of Agan,
which were filed by two residents of Moshav Nir Galim and a
resident of Ashdod alleging damages caused due to odor and noise
nuisances. To the extent the claim will be approved as a class
action, the plaintiffs assess that the amount claimed from Agan is
about NIS 642 million ($185 million). On December 8, 2013, a
decision was rendered by the District Court in Be'er Sheva
rejecting the request for certification of the claim as a class
action and charging the plaintiffs for expenses. Subsequent to the
date of the statement of financial position, on February 10, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the said court decision to the
Supreme Court.


AEROTEK INC: Sued in Md. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Craig Mitchell, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Aerotek, Inc. and Allegis Group, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-03691-WMN (D. Md., November 25, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS.
          102 W Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825-2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
          E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com


AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Chicharron Due to Undeclared Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Afod Ltd., Corinthian Distributors Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9426

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 31, 2014, has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Jack 'N Jill brand Chicharron products from
the marketplace because they contain wheat which is not declared
on the label.  People with an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to
gluten should not consume the recalled products described.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to wheat or sensitivity to gluten, do not
consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities.  The
CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to
the recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: Jack 'N Jill Chicharron ni Mang Juan with all
codes where wheat is not declared on the label


AKI'S FINE: Recalls Certain Aki's Pickle and Chutney Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aki's Fine Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9422

The food recall warning issued on Nov. 4, 2014 has been updated to
include additional distribution information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Aki's Fine Foods Ltd. is recalling certain Aki's brand pickle and
chutney products from the marketplace because they contain mustard
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
mustard should not consume the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home.  Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


ALVIN AILEY: Violates Plaintiff's Civil Rights, N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin E. Byrd v. Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-09392 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014) seeks damages for the
Defendant's alleged unlawful and discriminatory employment
practices and concomitant violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human
Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for-
profit corporation headquartered in New York City.  The Defendant
operated The Ailey Extension program at The Joan Weill Center for
Dance, a continuous, ongoing program intended to make dance and
fitness classes more accessible to the general public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Ratchik, Esq.
          KRAMER & DUNLEAVY, L.L.P.
          61 Broadway, Suite 2220
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 226-6662


AMAZON.COM INC: Misrepresents Price of Stuff It Sells, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Amazon.com misrepresents the
list price of stuff it sells so it can exaggerate consumers'
"savings," a class action claims in Superior Court.


AMERICAN INT'L: Two Witnesses Address Key Question in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Scism, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the headlines in the long-running trial over the bailout of
American International Group Inc. have been dominated by three
heavy hitters who testified -- and one who didn't.

But as testimony was expected to likely wrap up Nov. 24 after
eight weeks, legal observers said two low-profile witnesses from
early in the proceedings addressed what may be the key question:
whether the government correctly interpreted a 1930s-era section
of the Federal Reserve Act to allow it to acquire a sizable equity
stake in AIG to help compensate taxpayers.

That issue stands out as one that former longtime AIG Chief
Executive Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg has the best chance of
winning, said attorneys and legal scholars.

The lawsuit is at its strongest as "a test of the scope of a
government agency's authority: Did it do things it was authorized
to do by law, or did it exceed those boundaries?" said
Anthony Sabino, a professor of law at St. John's University.  "The
government is vulnerable on that argument."

The nearly two months of testimony in the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims delivered few bombshells.

The most-scrutinized moments involved Mr. Greenberg's lawyer,
prominent litigator David Boies, squaring off against former
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury
secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner.

But their verbal jousting was largely incidental to the statutory-
authority legal dispute.

Mr. Greenberg is seeking $40 billion on behalf of AIG shareholders
in the lawsuit.

Mr. Greenberg, who is 89 years old and leading a new global
insurance conglomerate, Starr Cos., was on the government's
witness list but was never called.

Justice Department lawyers changed their mind about calling
Mr. Greenberg as they streamlined their arguments amid urging from
Judge Thomas Wheeler for the parties to avoid duplicative
testimony.

Even with testimony essentially finished, a ruling may be months
away.  The two sides are expected to file legal briefings in
coming weeks that Judge Wheeler can consult in his deliberations.

The losing side is expected to appeal.

Mr. Greenberg, who built AIG into a global titan before departing
in 2005, was AIG's biggest individual shareholder when it nearly
collapsed in September 2008.

His lawsuit claims that the government didn't have statutory
authority to demand a 79.9% ownership stake in AIG in exchange for
providing an $85 billion loan at the height of the financial
crisis.  He maintains the law in question restricted the Fed to
collecting interest on its loan.

Early in the trial, Mr. Boies called Scott Alvarez, general
counsel for the Fed, and Thomas Baxter, general counsel for the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Over the course of their combined four days on the stand,
Mr. Boies used internal emails, memos and other documents to seek
to show uncertainty and debate within the Fed and New York Fed as
to whether the government was on solid legal footing in acquiring
the AIG equity stake.

Mr. Alvarez said staff at the Fed, which historically has
regulated banks, started analyzing options for dealing with
nonbanks in early 2008, as housing and financial markets were
deteriorating.  He said he prepared a memo concluding that the
Federal Reserve Act gave the Fed flexibility in designing loan
terms, going beyond merely charging interest.

In justifying the AIG equity stake, the government's legal filings
cite phrasing in the act including that the Fed can make loans to
nonbanks "subject to such limitations, restrictions and
regulations" as it deems necessary, and it puts the equity stake
in that bucket.

Mr. Bernanke testified he relied on Messrs. Alvarez and Baxter and
other Fed lawyers to determine the legality of the AIG rescue
package.

Even if Judge Wheeler rules that the government overreached its
authority, it is unclear that Mr. Greenberg and about 300,000
other shareholders in the class action would receive any of the
$40 billion being sought.  Judge Wheeler could rule in favor of
Mr. Greenberg on the legal question but conclude shareholders
didn't suffer an economic loss, because their alternative to the
bailout was being wiped out in bankruptcy court, the lawyers and
scholars said.

The lawsuit also alleges other wrongdoing, including that the
government violated shareholders' constitutional rights by taking
their property without just compensation.

But legal experts said there is a high hurdle to clear to win on
this claim, as former AIG directors have testified they
voluntarily accepted the bailout to avert the insurer's
bankruptcy.


AMINCOR INC: Tyree Holdings Faces ERISA "Violation" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyree Holdings Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed by a former
employee in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to Amincor, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On September 9, 2014 a former employee of Tyree commenced a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against Registrant its Tyree subsidiaries and
their officers alleging various ERISA violations and seeking class
action certification.  The alleged amounts in controversy are not
material and management believes that class action certification
will not be granted.


APPLE INC: Trial in iPod Class Action to Commence
-------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that depending
on who you ask, Apple Inc.'s 2006 iTunes update was either a
"significant enhancement" that gave users "amazing new features,"
or it was a ruse created solely to feed the company's monopoly
over the MP3 music industry.

That critical distinction lies at the center of a trial commencing
in Oakland federal court.  It's a battle 10 years in the making,
which pits Apple's legal team of Jones Day and Boies, Schiller &
Flexner against a class of iPod buyers represented by Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd.  Barring a last-minute settlement, which
neither side seems to think is likely, opening arguments was set
to begin on Dec. 2 before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers.

Apple's 2006 upgrade made it so new iPods would only play music
purchased from the company's iTunes music store.  Plaintiffs
lawyers say that change helped Apple maintain nearly complete
control over the MP3 market, which drove up prices for iPod
buyers.  Now jurors must decide whether seizing market share was
the upgrade's main purpose or whether it also provided a real
benefit to consumers -- and is therefore protected from antitrust
claims.

It's a delicate question, and one Judge Gonzalez Rogers has said
left her "treading in uncertain waters."  On the one hand she's
tasked with holding Apple accountable for any illegal
anticompetitive behavior, while on the other she must be cautious
not to infringe upon the company's right to develop new products.

Courts are still figuring out how to toe the line, said Jonathan
Jacobson -- jjacobson@wsgr.com -- an antitrust partner in Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's New York office.

"The entire issue is a struggle," he said, and courts must find a
balance between "bending over backwards to encourage innovation,
but striking down tactics that use faux innovation purely as a
pretext for eliminating rivals."

Plaintiffs lawyers have estimated damages at $350 million, which
would be tripled to $1 billion if they win at trial.

But their case has significant hurdles.  Monopoly suits tend to be
more difficult than the price-fixing class actions that dominate
the antitrust sector, Mr. Jacobson said.  If plaintiffs can prove
a price-fixing conspiracy, it's assumed the cartel hurt the
market.  Monopolies aren't inherently illegal, however, so
plaintiffs in the iTunes case must prove Apple's behavior injured
consumers.

"Plaintiffs will have to convince the jury if Apple had not made
these software changes, a significant portion of consumers would
have utilized a cheaper alternative," said Robert Bunzel --
rbunzel@bzbm.com -- of Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller in San
Francisco.  "And that is ultimately a lot of what-ifs that have to
be overcome."

Plaintiffs have enlisted economist Roger Noll, a Stanford
University professor who played a key role in O'Bannon v. NCAA,
the summer's highly publicized trial that granted college athletes
the right to profit from television and video game contracts.
Plaintiffs also will call several Apple executives, and plan to
play a video deposition of Apple's late co-founder and former CEO
Steve Jobs.  The trial is expected to last two weeks.

Bonny Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller, who has
spent a decade working on the case, said she long figured it would
need to be tried.

"Apple has always fought us very hard at every step of the
litigation," she said.

FINETUNING ITUNES

Apple launched the iTunes music store in 2003. By 2004, rival
RealNetworks Inc. had found a way around Apple's antipiracy
encryptions, allowing iPod users to play RealNetworks' music.
Apple's 2006 update shut down that interoperability.

Apple is adamant the update also was an improvement. iTunes 7 made
more than 75 movies available for download, according to a 2006
company release, and offered "stunning new features" such as a
tool that let users browse their digital libraries more easily.

The update also prevented the technical problems that had plagued
iPod users who tried to play unauthorized RealNetworks songs,
Apple senior director Augustin Farrugia said in a deposition.

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, 05-0037, predates the
2006 software update but has morphed considerably over the years.
U.S. District Judge James Ware, who presided over the case before
retiring in 2012, dismissed part of the suit based on an earlier
enhancement but allowed claims against the 2006 update to proceed,
saying there was conflicting evidence as to whether the new
software was an improvement.

For plaintiffs lawyers, the case now hinges on convincing the jury
that the update had no consumer benefits.

"There's evidence that we believe shows that the purported fix
didn't match the purported problem," Sweeney said. "So we think
Apple's justifications are pretextual."

In October, the court made public a handful of internal Apple
emails that provide a glimpse at how company executives responded
to competition in the MP3 music industry.

In an early 2004 email, Apple's late CEO touted the company's
position as the "largest, most successful standard" in the MP3
market.  "Let's leverage this position now!!!!" Mr. Jobs wrote.

Apple executives sounded alarmed later that year when RealNetworks
circumvented the iTunes protections, calling the company
"aggressive" in internal emails and accusing it of "hacking" and
"hijacking" Apple software, as they kept an eye on their
competitor's rising sales.

And around that time, iTunes Vice President Eduardo (Eddy) Cue
told Jobs and other executives that record labels were worried
Apple was growing too big, and were pushing the company to license
its encryption model to RealNetworks.  That seems to conflict with
assertions from Apple lawyers that the update was needed to
satisfy the labels' concerns about piracy.

HITTING THE RIGHT NOTE

Established case law says redesigning a product in a way that
benefits consumers is not an antitrust violation, even if the
redesign hurts competitors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added a nuance to
that standard in 2010, ruling in Allied Orthopedic Appliances v.
Tyco Healthcare Group that the court cannot determine an antitrust
violation by weighing the benefits of a product redesign against
the injuries it caused competitors.  It must be a "yes or no"
standard -- was the redesign an improvement?

That precedent seemed to cause a headache for Gonzalez Rogers
during a pretrial hearing in October, as she grappled with how to
allow plaintiffs to present evidence that the update was not an
improvement, but exclude evidence that would lead the jury to
weigh the update's merits against its effect on competitors.  In
the end, she said she'd instruct the jury to focus on whether
Apple's update provided a genuine product improvement.

"The task we're asking the jury to engage in is tough for lawyers,
much less for nonlawyers," Judge Gonzalez Rogers said, "because
they have to slice that evidence so thinly to use it
appropriately."


AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit by TRT Third Party Payors
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint (Case Number 1:14cv8857) was
filed on behalf of Medical Mutual of Ohio and similarly situated
third party payors in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois against 19 manufacturers of testosterone
replacement therapies products, including Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Auxilium" or the "Company") and
FCB I Holdings Inc. ("FCB") have been litigating various matters
with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") related to
Upsher-Smith's filing of Paragraph IV certifications in connection
with a 505(b)(2) New Drug Application (the "505(b)(2) NDA") and an
Abbreviated New Drug Application, in each case, using Testim as
the reference product.  Subsequent to the withdrawal of Auxilium's
appeal in the litigation regarding the 505(b)(2) NDA, as
previously disclosed, Upsher-Smith filed a motion with the
District Court seeking reimbursement of its legal fees by
Auxilium.

On November 10, 2014, the Company and Upsher-Smith entered into a
Settlement and Mutual Release of Claims whereby the parties
released each other from, and agreed to dismiss, any claims
arising out of any of the pending litigations between them,
including any claim by Upsher-Smith for attorneys' fees and costs,
and pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay Upsher-Smith
$750,000.

In addition to the recent studies of testosterone replacement
therapies ("TRT"), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA")
class labeling changes for TRT products, the accumulating product
liability suits against the manufacturers and marketers of TRT
products, and the FDA Advisory Committee on TRT products, on
November 5, 2014, a putative class action complaint (Case Number
1:14cv8857) was filed on behalf of Medical Mutual of Ohio and
similarly situated third party payors in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois against 19
manufacturers of TRT products, including the Company (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint alleges substantially similar facts
to those being alleged in the TRT product liability suits to which
the Company and many of the other defendants are currently a
party.  The Complaint requests relief for damages, attorneys'
fees, and equitable relief on behalf of the putative class for
alleged violations of the federal civil RICO statute, state
consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice act laws, negligent
misrepresentation, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.  The
Complaint seeks damages from Auxilium for these alleged violations
with respect to its Testim and TESTOPEL products and against the
other 18 defendants for their respective products.  The Complaint
defines the class, in relevant part, as "[a]ll health insurance
companies, third party administrators, health organizations, self-
funded health and welfare benefit plans, third party payors and
any other health benefit providers, in the United States of
America and its territories, which paid or incurred costs for the
drug AndroGel, Testim, Testopel, Axiron, Fortesta, and/or
Androderm for purposes other than resale, since their respective
approval dates."  The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  The Company is in the process of examining the
allegations in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend the
allegations made in the Complaint.


BAKER HUGHES: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Halliburton
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Rovner, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr.,
Martin S. Craighead, Lynn L. Elsenhans, Anthony G. Fernandes,
Claire W. Gargalli, Pierre H. Jungels, James A. Lash, J. Larry
Nichols, James W. Stewart, Charles L. Watson, Gregory Brenneman,
William H. Easter III, Halliburton Company, and Red Tiger LLC,
Case No. 4:14-cv-03416 (S.D. Tex., November 26, 2014) is brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of Baker Hughes arising out
of the Defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty or the
aiding and abetting of those breaches in connection with the
Board's agreement to sell the Company to Halliburton and its
wholly owned subsidiary Red Tiger LLC.

The Plaintiff, the owner of Baker Hughes common stock, seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary
duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company at an unfair
price through an unfair and self-serving process to Halliburton.

Baker Hughes is a publicly traded Delaware corporation
headquartered in Houston, Texas.  Baker Hughes is a leading
supplier of oilfield services, products, technology and systems to
the worldwide oil and natural gas industry.  The Company provides
industrial products and services to the downstream chemicals, and
process and pipeline industries.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Halliburton is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Houston, Texas.   Merger Sub is a Delaware limited
liability company and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
Halliburton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Named as Defendant in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
VTDigger reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont has been
named in a class action suit alleging the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association and its regional affiliates violate federal antitrust
law.

The suit accuses the association and its affiliates of price-
fixing, anticompetitive market allocation and a "boycott
conspiracy" that ensures "every other Blue gets the benefit of the
artificially reduced prices that each Blue pays to healthcare
providers."

The individual Blue Cross affiliates, such as Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Vermont, are often referred to as "Blues."

The plaintiffs in the suit are health care providers, medical
device and equipment makers and people insured by the Blues.
VTDigger was not immediately able to confirm if any of the
plaintiffs are from Vermont.

The Blues have an "explicit agreement" to divide the country into
regional service areas that allows each company to reduce what it
pays health care providers, fix those prices across their
association and boycott providers outside their service areas,
according to an amended complaint filed on Sept. 30.

Each affiliate is an independent company, and if it weren't for
their association, they would compete with one another for market
share, according to the suit.

"We believe the claims are without merit and we have joined with
the other defendants to vigorously defend against them," officials
from BCBS Vermont said in a statement to VTDigger.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has 37 affiliates in the
U.S., which cover more than 105 million people, or one out of
three Americans, according to the association's website.

More than 91 percent of U.S. health care providers and more than
96 percent of U.S. hospitals contract directly with the Blues,
according to figures attributed to the association in the legal
complaint.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont is the largest health insurer in
the state, covering close to 200,000 Vermonters, or nearly one-
third of the state's population.

The company has significant market power in areas of the state,
according to the suit, which cites its 42 percent market share in
Burlington and South Burlington as an example.

The class action suit is being litigated in U.S. District Court in
Alabama, where it originated.


BONSOY: Settles Soy Milk Class Action for AU$25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Farrell, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class
action suit against the manufacturer, exporter and distributor of
Bonsoy soy milk has ended with what may be a record AU$25 million
settlement to compensate victims who said they suffered serious
health side-effects.

Nearly 500 people joined a major legal action in 2010 after
concerns were raised that they may have suffered serious health
consequences as a result of dangerous levels of iodine in Bonsoy
from a seaweed product in the milk.

Some of the participants reported heart palpitations, losing
muscle function, unconsciousness and other serious health effects.

Bonsoy was recalled and then reformulated in 2010.  Maurice
Blackburn, the leading law firm, brought a case in the Victorian
supreme court against the brand owner Spiral Foods.  The class
action suit was later widened to include two Japanese companies --
the manufacturer Marusan-ai Co Ltd and exporter Muso Co Ltd.

Maurice Blackburn issued a release on Nov. 24 and said the funds
would be placed in a fund and then distributed to the class action
participants.  The defendants did not admit liability in the case
and no formal court finding was made against them.

Jacob Varghese, class action principal, said: "We began this case
in 2010 and it reinforces just how tough it is to pull these class
actions together, to run them and fight them this hard for this
long, and ultimately, how difficult it is to achieve a resolution
for victims, hundreds of victims in this case.

"We believe this is the highest settlement of a food safety class
action in Australia's history and it reinforces how important it
is for people to have access to a mechanism that can help remedy a
mass wrong, and in the process, place a check on corporate
conduct."

Erin Downie, one of the class action participants, said it was a
welcome outcome.  Ms. Downie became bedridden due to losing muscle
function and needed a full-time career.

"I've been through a lot due to drinking Bonsoy, and so have
hundreds of others all over Australia.  [It] means a lot because
we've been able to get a result that tells us we were right to
stand up to the companies involved, despite it being a long, tough
road," she said.

A spokeswoman for Spiral Foods said in a statement: "Spiral Foods
is pleased to confirm that a mutual settlement has been reached
with the plaintiffs in a case with regards to the levels of
naturally sourced iodine, via an ingredient called Kombu -- which
was used in Bonsoy during 2004-2009."

It said it had voluntarily recalled the product in late 2009 and
reformulated it to exclude Kombu.


BRADENTON YACHT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Arbuckle, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Bradenton Yacht Club, Inc., a Florida corporation, and
Kenneth Nyhus, an individual, Case No. 8:14-cv-02970-CEH-AEP (M.D.
Fla., November 26, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff and
the class, and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kendra D. Presswood, Esq.
          SHANKMAN LEONE, PA
          707 N Franklin St., Suite 500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-1099
          Facsimile: (813) 223-1055
          E-mail: kpresswood@shankmanleone.com


CABLECOM LLC: Faces Overtime Class Action in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action claims that Cablecom LLC switched the pay
scale on its splicers -- workers who test and repair cables and
wires -- and failed to compensate them for time spent responding
to work emails and phone calls.

In Hatton v. Cablecom former employee Jayson Hatton alleged in a
complaint filed on Nov. 22 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin
that the Milwaukee-based cabling company effectively slimmed down
his paycheck by paying him a daily wage without acknowledging
additional work hours.

The suit, brought on Fair Standards Labor Act grounds, alleges
that Mr. Hatton was hired in June to work as a splicer for $34 per
hour.  But he was subsequently asked to sign a "Compensation Plan
Review" that re-valued his wage at a flat $272 per day.  The
company has been subjecting all its splicers to the new pay plan
for at least three years, according to the suit.

Cablecom also did not compensate splicers for the time spent
responding to work emails and phone calls on off- days, or for
their work during the half-hour meal period.  "[S]plicers do not
take meal periods where they are completely relieved from duty,"
according to the complaint.

Moreover, the company did not include some of these additional
work hours to calculate overtime compensation, the suit alleges.
Mr. Hatton is also invoking a Wisconsin statute, Sec. 103.455, to
protest Cablecom's policy of reducing splicers' wages in the event
of "poor workmanship," without the workers' written authorization.

According to Mr. Hatton, Cablecom fired back at his complaints by
raising the bar for his bonuses.  While the company promised a $2
bonus for each cable burned in addition to the baseline of 25 per
day, it retroactively eliminated the bonus for Mr. Hatton on days
when he burned less than an average 18 cables per hour.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are with The Previant Law Firm.


CHEVRON CORP: Bid to Junk Suit Over Oil Blaze in Nigeria Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonny Bonner reports that a
federal judge refused to dismiss a $5 billion class action against
Chevron over a six-week-long oil rig blaze in Nigeria.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti ruled on Nov. 25 that he was
"ill-suited" to address specifics of the injuries. It was the
plaintiffs' third go-round with Conti, who'd slammed them in no
uncertain terms twice this year.

Lead plaintiff Foster Ogala sued Chevron in January, seeking to
represent an estimated 65,000 residents of the Niger Delta region
of southern Nigeria.  The KS Endeavor, an offshore natural gas rig
drilling in the North Apoi Field exploded on Jan. 16, 2012,
causing a fire that burned for 46 days.  Ogala claims that he and
others suffered "losses to their livelihood, environmental damage,
and health problems as a result of the explosion and fire."

Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. (CUSA) were
named as defendants, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Chevron Investments.

Conti dismissed the lawsuit in May for failure to state claims
against the defendant companies as alter egos of Chevron Nigeria
Ltd.

"Plaintiffs claim that defendants are liable for CNL's actions,"
Conti wrote.  "However, '[i]t is a general principle of corporate
law deeply ingrained in our economic and legal systems that a
parent corporation . . . is not liable for the acts of its
subsidiaries.'"

Conti also found that the plaintiffs failed to "claim anywhere in
the complaint to represent a class."

In August, Conti slammed the Nigerians' amended complaint, finding
that it copied the original complaint "almost verbatim."

Conti found, again, that the plaintiffs failed to state specific
injuries.

"Plaintiffs 'must allege and show that they personally have been
injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified
members of the class to which they belong and which they purport
to represent,'" Conti wrote.  "Plaintiffs appear to be aware of
that requirement.  But their FAC [first amended complaint]
includes only allegations of injury to unidentified class members.
Nowhere does the FAC ever describe any injury to any of the named
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs must describe a specific injury to each of
the named plaintiffs.  Because they fail to do so, their FAC is
insufficient to establish standing for their negligence claims."

On Nov. 25, Conti granted in part Chevron's motion to dismiss or
strike a second amended complaint.

Having twice dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state injury
specifics, Conti again scolded the plaintiffs and dismissed their
public nuisance claim with prejudice.

"Plaintiffs generally claim that members of the alleged class
suffered four types of injuries: illness, contamination of fish
stocks, pollution of water supplies, and contamination of
farmland," the 9-page ruling states.  "None of the named
plaintiffs asserts any injury different in kind from those
injuries generally suffered throughout their communities.  The
court has now directed plaintiffs to fix this defect in their
pleadings twice.  Plaintiffs have failed to do so both times.
Accordingly, plaintiffs' public nuisance claim is dismissed with
prejudice."

Conti granted Chevron's motion to strike, to the extent that the
second amended complain asserted claims on behalf of communities
rather than the communities' individual members.  But he denied
Chevron's motion to strike a paragraph that refers to the
"individuals" and "residents" who live in the Niger Delta.

Conti rejected Chevron's claim that material discharged from the
Endeavor explosion polluted ocean, rivers and air around the site
of the rig.

Ogala claimed, specifically, that contamination caused by the
explosion destroyed five of his fish ponds and polluted his farms
in Yenogoa City, 60 miles from the coast.

"Chevron's argument that it is impossible for the explosion to
have caused the alleged injury is improper at this stage," the
ruling states.  "Indeed, the court is ill-suited to make that sort
of determination; this is precisely the sort of matter on which
expert testimony is warranted.  The court cannot conclude that
plaintiffs' allegations of causation are facially implausible."

The case is Foster Ogala, et al. v. Chevron Corporation, Case No.
14-cv-173-SC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


CHINA GERUI: Accused of Squandering $234MM on Antique Porcelain
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shares in a leading Chinese steel processor dropped 20 percent
overnight after the company squandered $234 million on antique
porcelain, a federal class action alleges, according to Barbara
Leonard at Courthouse News Service.

China Gerui Advanced Materials Group, abbreviated in the complaint
as CHOP, "is a leading niche niche and high value-added steel
processing company," lead plaintiff Aram Pehlivanian says.

Though CHOP had made it a point earlier this year to "tout[] its
significant cash reserves," shareholders are now beginning to
learn the truth, according to the Nov. 26 complaint.

Pehlivanian says that CHOP had reported in March 2014 that it held
$230.7 million in unrestricted cash.

On Sept. 4, however, "CHOP disclosed that, at some point between
March 31, 2014, and June 30, 2014, it had purportedly spent $234
million of its unrestricted cash reserves to acquire a collection
of antique Chinese porcelain that it valued at $905 million," the
complaint states.

This announcement allegedly came with the disclosure "that as of
June 30, 2014, it had a mere $3 million in unrestricted cash."

Pehlivanian says CHOP has remained silent on "when or from whom
the porcelain was purchased, where the collection was being
stored, whether it is insured, and who appraised and authenticated
the collection."

"This supposed purchase of antiquities was all the more shocking
because, in the years and months leading up to the announcement,
CHOP had consistently and unambiguously communicated to the
investing public that its goals for growth included an expansion
and diversification of its product lines, identification of the
overseas markets, and business combinations with competitors," the
complaint states.

CHOP's Sept. 4 announcement caused its price to close that day at
49 cents a share shares, down 20 percent overnight, according to
the complaint.

Noting that NASDAQ has a $1 per share listing requirement and that
the exchange was primed to delist CHOP, Pehlivanian says CHOP's
board of directors approved a one-for-10 reverse stock split on
Nov. 6.

"However, the utter failure of CHOP's directors and officers to
make any clarifying disclosures since Sept. 4, 2014, regarding
CHOP's purported antiquities purchase has caused the investing
public's total loss of confidence in CHOP's corporate governance,
which has resulted in the price of CHOP's shares declining to a
reverse split-adjusted low of $1.70 per share on Nov. 12, 2014, a
mere fraction of the reverse split-adjusted Sept. 3, 2014, price
of $6.10," the complaint states.

Pehlivanian enumerates several alleged misleading statements by
CHOP, including that it purportedly had more than $200 million in
unrestricted cash.

"Further, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the company in
fact planned to squander virtually its entire unrestricted cash
holdings in order to -- purportedly -- purchase Chinese porcelain;
and (2) that later, the company had largely disposed of its cash
in order to -- purportedly -- purchase Chinese porcelain," the
complaint continues.

Though CHOP is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and has
its main offices in Xinzheng City, Zhengzhou, China, the class
says that jurisdiction arises from CHOP's Manhattan contacts.

CHOP allegedly uses the Manhattan office of the public-relations
firm Grayling, for example, where it also has meetings, according
to the complaint.  Grayling is not a party to the action.

"Additionally, Harry Edelson, a member of CHOP's board, wrote in
2012 that CHOP's Hong Kong auditor transmits its financial audit
to a 'highly capable' New York affiliate for further review," the
complaint states.  "Finally, CHOP CFP Edward Meng has served as a
panelist at the American Metal Market's Steep Success Strategies
Conferencce in Manhattan in 2012, 2013, and 2014, each of which
was sponsored in part by CHOP."

Both Edelson and Meng are listed as defendants, alongside CHOP,
five other directors and CEO Mingwang Lu.

CHOP allegedly said that its porcelain acquisition dates back more
than 1,000 years to the Song Dynasty.

Claiming that the collection's previous owner gave it a major
discount because of financial pressure, CHOP purported that it
would "sell all 206 pieces over time to reinforce our cash
position and earn a substantial return," the complaint states,
citing CHOP's Sept. 4 announcement.

CHOP allegedly said at the time that "steel and iron ore prices
have reached all-time lows over the past few years, [but that]
prices of antique porcelain have risen sharply over the same time
period."

Pehlivanian hopes to represent investors who bought CHOP stock
between Jan. 11, 2012, and Sept. 4, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Inks MOU to Settle Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Concur Technologies Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the stockholder lawsuits captioned In re
Concur Technologies, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Delaware Court
of Chancery, C.A. No. 10167-CB and In re Concur Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Superior Court of Washington, King County,
Case No. 14-2-26630-8, according to the company's Nov. 18, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

The Company said, "Five stockholder class action complaints have
been filed in connection with the Merger, two in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court")
(collectively, "Delaware Complaints") and three in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington, King County (collectively,
"Washington Complaints"). The Delaware Complaints have since been
consolidated in the action entitled In re Concur Technologies,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A.
No. 10167-CB ("Delaware Class Action"). The Washington Complaints
have now been consolidated in the action entitled In re Concur
Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Superior Court of
Washington, King County, Case No. 14-2-26630-8 ("Washington Class
Action, and together with the Delaware Class Action, "Actions").
Each of the Actions challenges the proposed sale of Concur to SAP
as a putative class action filed on behalf of our stockholders and
names Concur, our directors, SAP and Merger Sub as defendants."

"The Actions allege that by agreeing to sell Concur to SAP
pursuant to the Merger Agreement, our directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly failing to
maximize stockholder value in connection with such sale, agreeing
to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude competing
offers from emerging, allegedly putting their personal interests
ahead of those of Concur's stockholders, allegedly unfairly
depriving our stockholders of the true value inherent in Concur,
allegedly failing to disclose all material information regarding
the Merger, allegedly failing to maximize stockholder value in
connection with such sale, and allegedly ignoring or not
protecting against the conflicts of interest of our directors. The
Actions also allege that Concur, SAP and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

"The plaintiffs in the Actions seek, among other things, class
action status, an injunction preventing the completion of the
Merger, a declaration that the Merger is in breach of the
fiduciary duties of the defendants and therefore the Merger
Agreement is unlawful and unenforceable, an award of damages to
the plaintiffs if the Merger is consummated prior to the final
judgment, disclosure of all material information about the Merger,
an order requiring a new process to evaluate our value and
maximize strategic alternatives, an accounting from the defendants
for all profits and any special benefits they may have obtained as
a result of their alleged unlawful conduct, pre- and post-judgment
interest, an imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the
plaintiffs and members of the class upon any benefits improperly
received by the defendants, an injunction against any material
transactions or changes in our business and assets until a new
process is conducted to evaluate our strategic alternatives, an
injunction rescinding the Merger Agreement, an injunction against
the consummation of the Merger, and the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses.  On November 10, 2014, we entered into a memorandum
of understanding ("Memorandum of Understanding") with the
plaintiffs in the Actions, regarding the settlement of these
Actions."


CORGENIX MEDICAL: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corgenix Medical Corporation signs Memorandum of Understanding
regarding settlement of a shareholder litigation and announces
plan to adjourn special meeting to December 10, according to the
company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Corgenix Medical Corporation (OTC QB: CONX.OB) (the "Company")
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs'
counsel in the consolidated Nevada putative shareholder class
action lawsuit described in the Company's definitive proxy
statement dated October 21, 2014, as supplemented (the "Proxy
Statement"), in connection with the Company's proposed merger with
an affiliate of Orgentec Diagnostika (the "Merger").

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the action.
The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.  Pursuant to the memorandum
of understanding, the Company will file with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") additional materials that
supplement the Proxy Statement.

In order to allow shareholders time to review the supplemental
proxy materials, the Company also announced today that it has
decided to convene the special meeting scheduled for 9:00 a.m,
Mountain Time, on November 20, 2014, but then immediately adjourn
it, without a vote being taken on the Merger and the merger
agreement, until 9:00 a.m., Mountain Time, on December 10, 2014.
The meeting on November 20, 2014, and the reconvened meeting on
December 10, 2014, will each be held at the Westin Westminster,
10600 Westminster Blvd, Westminster, CO 80020.  Only shareholders
of record at the close of business on October 14, 2014, the record
date for the special meeting, are entitled to vote.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 122SD Model Due to Possible Valve Leaking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           19
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014507TC
ID number:                2014507

On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release with
double check valves, used to control park/spring brake
application, the valve may leak internally.  This could cause
unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which
could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products: 2015 Freightliner


DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DePaul University law school graduates cannot sue the school for
allegedly inflating alumni employment and salary figures, reports
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing an Illinois
appeals court ruling.

Nine licensed attorneys who graduated with law degrees from DePaul
University College of Law between 2007 and 2011 sued the school in
2012, claiming the university deceptively overstated the
percentages of graduates who obtained full-time attorney positions
with salaries of $70,000 or more.

The attorneys allege that they relied on DePaul's employment and
salary statistics when they decided to go to law school, but they
were not told that the data was based on voluntary surveys of a
small fraction of graduates.  In addition, the school calculated
graduates' average salary by only using full-time salary figures,
excluding graduates who only found part-time work.  As a result,
plaintiffs claim they "graduated with a J.D. degree from DePaul
with near-term and lifetime job prospects that are, statistically,
less than they would have been had they obtained a degree from a
DePaul with the employment numbers DePaul claimed to have."

The plaintiffs all say they have had difficulty finding legal
employment that pays them enough to pay off their hefty student
loans.  They sought to recover damages as a percentage of their
tuition payments, as well as additional lifetime income, which
they claim they would have earned had DePaul's employment data
been accurate.

However, an Illinois appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the
attorneys' action in November.

"We find that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead any omission
or misrepresentation by DePaul constituting a deceptive act or
practice," Justice Mary Rochford said, writing for the three-
justice panel.  "Plaintiffs expressly acknowledged in their first-
amended class action complaint that they were aware '[t]he
Employment Information was based upon surveys sent to then recent
DePaul graduates.'  Thus, as plaintiffs admittedly were aware of
the basis for the data contained in the employment information,
their claims of deception regarding DePaul's failure to inform
them of that basis necessarily fails."

While the information published by DePaul could have certainly
been more specific, the complaint does not identify any
affirmative misrepresentation by the school of its post-graduation
employment statistics, according to the judgment.

And even if, "but for" DePaul's allegedly misleading information,
plaintiffs would have enrolled in other law schools with better
actual employment statistics, that would not be enough to win
damages, given the multitude of factors that affect a lawyer's
earnings over the course of a lifetime, the court said.

"At the time of plaintiffs' enrollment in DePaul, one could not
foresee their subsequent academic records and practical
experiences while at DePaul, the geographic areas in which they
would seek employment, their efforts put into obtaining legal
employment, their interview abilities, and the economic climate
and overall availability of jobs during the period of their job
searches, all of which would impact their job searches and
salaries," Rochford said.

Even if the attorneys expected to make more money with their
DePaul law degree, the school's published statistics did not
consist of a promise or projection of plaintiff's future earnings,
and any amount of damages plaintiffs claim is wholly speculative,
the court said.

The case is Phillips v. DePaul University, Case No. 2014 IL App
(1st) 122817, in the Appellate Court of Illinois.


DHW WELL: "Bouchard" Suit Transferred From S.D. to W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bouchard v. DHW Well Service,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00418, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas (San Antonio).
The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01045
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by improperly failing to pay Safety Technicians and
other workers overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com
                  lawrence@themoralesfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gayla Corley, Esq.
          Erica Escobar Valladares, Esq.
          LANGLEY & BANACK, INC.
          745 E Mulberry, Suite 900
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 736-6600
          Facsimile: (210) 735-6889
          E-mail: gcorley@langleybanack.com
                  evalladares@langleybanack.com


DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Stays Order on "Church Plan" During Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Dignity
Health convinced a judge to put on hold a ruling that its pension
plans are not a "church plan" exempt from ERISA requirements while
it appeals that finding.

The dispute stems from a class action filed by former Dignity
Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins in April 2013, claiming
that Dignity Health's pension benefits plan was underfunded in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Dignity countered that its plan need not conform to ERISA
standards because it is a church plan.

Enacted in 1974, ERISA establishes minimum funding standards and
disclosure obligations for employee benefit plans, among other
requirements, to ensure that employees receive the benefits they
are promised.

ERISA specifically exempts "church plans" from its requirements.
The term "church plan" means "a plan established and maintained by
its employees by a church or a convention or association of
churches."

Last December, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson found that
Dignity does not have statutory authority to establish its own
plan and must follow ERISA regulations, a ruling that Dignity
tried to appeal only for Henderson to refuse.

In July, Henderson found the plan was not exempt from ERISA
requirements because it was established by Catholic Healthcare
West, Dignity's predecessor, which is not a church. He rejected
arguments that the plan should be exempt because the Internal
Revenue Service has consistently considered it exempt or because
various religious women's orders controlled CHW when the plan was
established in 1989, reasoning in July that an "erroneous IRS
ruling . . . should not be permitted to trump a court's
interpretation of a statute" and that even if the religious groups
exhibited some control over CHW, "that alone is insufficient to
set aside CHW's separate identity."

In October, Rollins moved for a permanent injunction and class
certification.  The court stayed the motions in November, after
which Dignity Health again moved to certify the July order for
interlocutory appeal.

Finding that the trajectory of the litigation will change
significantly depending on the appellate court's ruling, Henderson
now considers the appeal to be an "exceptional situation"
justifying interlocutory appeal.  He noted that should the appeals
court reverse his earlier ruling, for example, his court might
have to determine if Dignity or its predecessor was "associated
with" or "controlled by" a church while it maintained the plan,
according to the ruling.

The judge also found that other courts have disagreed with his
interpretation, including a ruling from the District of Colorado
that held that a plan can be exempt if it is maintained by a
church but not established by one and a ruling from the Western
District of Washington that held that the "term 'church plan' is
somewhat misleading because even a plan established by a
corporation controlled by or associated with a church can also
qualify as a church plan."

Furthermore, according to Henderson, allowing an interlocutory
appeal will "materially advance the termination of the
litigation."

Henderson decided to stay the case over Rollins' objections that
her class would lack ERISA protections for retirement benefits,
noting that the defendants had put forth evidence indicating the
plan is adequately funded for the next decade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Rinaldi, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PPLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barry S. Landsberg, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4259
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: blandsberg@manatt.com

The case is Starla Rollins v. Dignity Health, et al., Case No.
3:13-cv-01450-TEH, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Judgment Bid in Kickback Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Haitian immigrant workers at a public school bus terminal in
Washington can pursue claims that they had to pay kickbacks for
overtime, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

Mica Saint-Jean, Guerline Bourciquot and Marie Dorlus brought the
class action against the District of Columbia in 2012, alleging
they were barred from working overtime hours at a D.C. school bus
terminal unless they paid illegal kickbacks to their former
supervisor, Michelle Smith.

Saint-Jean and Dorlus say they each paid Smith $75 to $150 per pay
period to obtain overtime assignments.  When they stopped paying
Smith in September 2007, she refused to assign them overtime
hours, selectively enforced Division of Transportation policies
against them, and issued "repeated and unnecessary warnings,"
according to the complaint.  Smith even suspended Bourciquot
without pay, the complaint states.

Smith was allegedly suspended for six weeks scheme in October 2006
after several Haitian employees told Transportation Administrator
David Gilmore about her scheme.

The plaintiffs say they reported Smith's conduct to the mayor's
office, the Offices of the Inspector and Attorney General, and the
FBI in late 2007, and to the Division of Transportation's
assistant manager in March 2008.

Later that year, two supervisors allegedly issued four written
warnings and a written reprimand to Saint-Jean and Bourciquot for
refusing a directive and padding the clock.

The plaintiffs say they told Gilmore that Smith discriminated
against Haitians, accepted bribes in exchange for paying employees
for hours not worked, and let her boyfriend use division buses for
personal purposes.

Days later, the division's Deputy Terminal Manager Michael Roberts
allegedly suspended Bourciquot and Dorlus without pay for five
days.  They were cited for failure to "report they would be late
[to work] on July 18," and had a security guard escort them off
the property later that day, according to the complaint.

Within weeks, the division notified the pair of their "proposed
termination[s]" for insubordination to an immediate supervisor,
effective Aug. 14, the complaint states.

As for Saint-Jean, the division allegedly placed her on a 10-day
administrative leave for insubordination on Sept. 10, with notice
that she would be fired two weeks later.

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
local statutory and common law.

D.C. moved for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment,
arguing that the division is not liable because it was under a
receivership during the relevant time period.

Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts denied the motion on
Nov. 21.

"The district's conclusory assertion that a transportation
administrator is the same as a receiver sheds no light on whether
the district can be held liable for actions undertaken while
Gilmore was the transportation administrator," Roberts wrote.
"The district's analysis assumes that Gilmore was a receiver, and
makes only cursory arguments about why Gilmore is a receiver."

The judge later added: "Even if Gilmore's position of
transportation administrator was functionally the same as that of
a receiver -- a proposition that the district has not proven --
the district fails to show that it nevertheless cannot be held
liable for the actions undertaken during Gilmore's tenure.  The
district fails to cite a single case where the organization under
the leadership of a functional equivalent of a receiver was held
not liable."

The case is Mica Saint-Jean, et al. v. District of Columbia, Case
No. 08-1769 (RWR), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved From Washington to Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gonzalez v. Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00634, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24502-
DPG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James Lee Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com
                  jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com


EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" Consumer Lawsuit Remains Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer case entitled Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et
al. is currently pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's
Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT
Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of one or more of the Company's products against
the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.  The amended complaint, filed
on July 11, 2014, alleges, among other things, violation of unfair
competition law and false advertising law and fraud.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief.  The case is currently pending.


EFT HOLDINGS: "Li" RICO "Violations" Lawsuit Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case Li, et al. v. Qin, et al., alleging violations of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
is pending, according to EFT Holdings, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin,
et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
amended complaint, filed on July 11, 2014, adds certain other
persons and entities as defendants and alleges, among other
things, operation of an endless chain scheme, fraud, corporate
waste and gift, and violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The complaint seeks, among
other things, compensatory and punitive damages.  The case is
currently pending.


ELI LILLY: Sued for Injuries Suffered Relating to Use of Cymbalta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Ali v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-01615-GBL-TRJ (E.D. Va., November 26, 2014) alleges
personal injuries and damages that the Plaintiff allegedly
suffered as a result of Lilly's failure to provide adequate
instructions for stopping Cymbalta and an adequate warning that
fully and accurately informed the Plaintiff about the frequency,
severity, and duration of symptoms associated with Cymbalta
withdrawal.

Cymbalta (generically known as duloxetine) is a prescription
antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Lilly.

Eli Lilly and Company is an Indiana corporation with its
headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Lilly is a pharmaceutical
company involved in the research, development, testing,
manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and
sale ofnumerous pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Andrew Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LEGAL LLC
          175 S Pantops Drive, Third Floor
          Charlottesville, VA 22911
          Telephone: (434) 529-6909
          E-mail: pmiller@millerlegalllc.com


EXXON MOBIL: Blamed by Residents for Oil Spill in Mayflower
-----------------------------------------------------------
ExxonMobil exacerbated the 2013 Pegasus pipeline rupture by not
immediately reporting the spill, creating the "worst crude oil and
tar sands spill in Arkansas history," dozens of families claim in
a class action, reports Erik de la Garza at Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Jason Hays and nearly 60 residents of Mayflower
sued ExxonMobil, three pipeline subsidiaries and an operations and
maintenance technician on November 25, in Faulkner County Court.

The 60 year-old underground pipeline burst in the small town of
Mayflower, pop. 2,200, about 25 miles northwest of Little Rock on
March 29, 2013.  The pipeline runs 850 miles through four states,
taking crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

The families say authorities learned about the oil rupture when
local citizens began calling 911 "to report the fact that crude
oil was leaking through Mayflower."

More than 27,000 barrels of oil flowed through residential
communities and waterways beginning at 1:15 p.m., according to the
lawsuit.

"Exxon failed to report the Mayflower oil spill until 4:06 p.m.,
nearly three hours after the drop in pressure.  Exxon failed to
act because it did not immediately report the problem to the
National Response Center so local officials in Arkansas could be
notified and mobilize to Mayflower," the complaint states.

The families say that while the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality responded to the local calls and tried to
evacuate citizens, "defendants were still deciding what to do with
their information about the pipeline failure and how to suppress
the truth from the public, including plaintiffs and class members
affected by the oil spill."

"Once the pipeline failed, the Canadian Tar Sands with toxins
spread quickly through residents and affected a large area around
Mayflower, including the plaintiffs' and class members' property.
The Tar Sands migrated into a storm drain and by 3:09 p.m. was
migrating toward Lake Conway.  The Canadian Tar Sands released
from the Pegasus Pipeline emitted dangerous and poisonous toxins
into the air contaminating the air quality, making it difficult to
breath and violating air quality standards for residents in the
community forcing residents to evacuate their homes."

The families say Exxon deceived the public by reporting that the
pipeline pumps had been shut down in 16 minutes, though in reality
they were not shut down "for well over 98 minutes."

"The pipeline continued leaking for two days, contrary to
information publicly provided by the defendants to the public and
media.  Defendant suppressed material facts about the Tar Sands
spill, omitted significant material information provided to the
public, and failed to provide full disclosure of relevant and
material information," the families say.

They say the spill affected air quality, water sources, and
consequently their health and property.  They seek punitive
damages for strict liability, nuisance and negligence.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rob Pointer, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM
          900 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 725
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          Facsimile: (501) 228-0415


FRANK TOWNSHIP: Court to Hear Arguments in Bus Service Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Indiana Supreme Court is
preparing to hear oral arguments in the case of an Indianapolis
school district whose decision to outsource bus transportation was
ruled unconstitutional.

The justices were scheduled to hear arguments on Nov. 24 in the
class-action lawsuit filed by parents against Franklin Township
Community School Corp.

The district outsourced transportation in 2011-2012 to a private
company that charged parents fees.  The state Court of Appeals
ruled earlier this year that the move was unconstitutional and
that state law required districts to provide free bus service.

Schools Superintendent Flora Reichanadter argues that if that's
the case, Indiana should be required to fully fund transportation.
She tells The Indianapolis Star she hopes the case will press the
Legislature to offer relief to school districts strapped by
property tax caps.


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Accord With Policyholders Gets Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Guaranty Life Insurance Company obtained final approval
of a settlement with a nationwide class consisting of all persons
who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal
life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March
31, 2014, inclusive, according to Fidelity & Guaranty Life's Nov.
19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On July 18, 2011, a putative class action Complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:2011-cv-05871. The Plaintiff
asked the Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf
of both a nationwide and a California class defined as certain
persons who were sold OM Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed
universal life insurance policies.

The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members
of the putative class relied on defendants' advice to purchase
unsuitable insurance policies. After extensive motion practice,
the federal court dismissed the federal causes of action, with
prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013, declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissed the state law
claims, without prejudice, and granted the Plaintiff leave to re-
file the state law claims in California state court.

On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life
Insurance Company, et al. in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), at No. BC-514340. The state
court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and
members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in
purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. The
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as "all persons who
reside or are located in the state of California who were sold OM
Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance
policies as an investment."

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims
of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all
persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed
universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007
through March 31, 2014, inclusive.  As part of the settlement, FGL
Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for
settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was
filed with the Court on June 5, 2014 as part of the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and
Conditional Class Certification. On June 19, 2014, the Court held
a hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Settlement and Conditional Class Certification and entered its
Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement ("Order"). The Superior Court set a hearing date of
October 3, 2014 for final approval of the settlement.

The deadline for members of the settlement class to opt out of or
file objections to the class settlement was September 2, 2014. FGL
Insurance would have had the right to unilaterally terminate the
settlement if either: (i) 100 policyholders or (ii) policyholders
representing more than one percent (1%) of the total premiums paid
opted out of or objected to the settlement.  However, only two
objections and one opt out were submitted. The deadline for class
members to submit claim forms expired on October 2, 2014. Over one
thousand claim forms were filed.

On October 2, 2014, the Court adjourned the October 3, 2014 date
for the final approval hearing for the class settlement, and
rescheduled the final approval hearing for November 18, 2014.  On
November 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class
settlement, subject to entry of a Final Order and Judgment.  The
Court ordered the parties to submit a proposed Final Order and
Judgment consistent with her ruling, by November 25, 2014.

At September 30, 2014, the Company estimated the total cost for
the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9.9 and established a liability for the unpaid
portion of the estimate of $4.8. Based on the information
currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost
for settlement, legal fees and other related cost to differ
materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking
indemnification from OMGUK under the First Amended and Restated
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock
Purchase Agreement") between HFG and OMGUK related to the
settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy
litigation in both the federal and state courts. The Company has
established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of
$4.9, the collection of which the Company believes is probable.
The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less
than the Company's estimate, but the Company anticipates that the
amount recovered will not be materially different than its current
estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to
this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is
presented net in the income statement in the caption "Benefits and
other changes in policy reserves."


FIREEYE INC: Faces "Collins" Shareholder Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Directors of network security firm FireEye pumped the share price
with false and misleading statements then sold their own shares
for "tens of millions of dollars" before the price plummeted by
two-thirds, shareholders say in a class action, according to
Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff John E. Collins sued FireEye and its four top
officers on Nov. 24, in Federal Court.

Collins claims FireEye raised $325 million in a Sept. 20, 2103
IPO, at $20 a share.

FireEye stock rose to its all-time high of $95.63 on March 5 this
year, after the company acquired Mandiant Corp. On March 6,
FireEye raised $1.1 billion in a follow-on stock offering, at $82
a share, according to the complaint.

"Mere days after the follow-on offering, a significant number of
the company's insiders sold their shares at $79.54, earning tens
of millions of dollars in profits. In the ensuing weeks, the
company's stock began a steady decline," the complaint states.

FireEye announced its first-quarter 2014 results on May 6: its
revenue of $24.5 million fell "meaningfully short" of analysts'
estimates of $31 million, according to the complaint.

By Oct. 10, the stock was trading at $25.76, down 74 percent from
its high.

Collins claims that throughout this time, the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse
facts.

"Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (a) the company's business model had
radically changed from that of a software company with high fixed
costs but low marginal costs that would not escalate with
increases in subscriber base, to an end-to-end service provider;
(b) that the company's secret strategy would require highly
trained professional staff to respond to network security
breaches, their number increasing with the customer base; and (c)
the company's costs would therefore escalate incrementally with an
increased customer base so that the company's future profitability
was in serious doubt," according to the complaint.

Collins seeks class certification and damages for securities
violations.

Defendants include CEO and Chairman of the Board David D. GeWalt;
CFO and Senior Vice President Michael J. Sheridan; founder, former
CEO, chief technology officer and Vice Chairman of the Board Ashar
Aziz; and COO and Senior Vice President Kevin Mandia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachelle Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: rickert@whafh.com


FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 and FLEX Models
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats And Restraints
Units affected:           19975
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014504TC
ID number:                2014504
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14C10

On certain vehicles, a defect in the manually-adjustable seat
tracks may cause the occupant classification system to incorrectly
register the weight of the seat occupant.  This could affect or
disable the airbags and other supplemental restraint systems, and
could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant in a crash
that warrants airbag deployment and/or other supplemental
restraint system function.

Correction: Dealers will adjust seat track spacing and recalibrate
the occupant classification system.

Affected products: 2014 F150 and FLEX Ford


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Town Car
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           1757
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014502
TC ID number:             2014502
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S25

Certain vehicles serviced as part of recall 2013-287 (13S08) or
special service campaign 13R01 may require re-inspection and
repair.  The service procedure may have resulted in over-extension
of one part of a collapsible joint in the intermediate steering
shaft.  This could potentially result in the shaft becoming
disconnected, resulting a loss of steering, which could increase
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will inspect the intermediate shaft connection
and replace the intermediate shaft if necessary.

Affected products:

   Maker     Model             Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----             ----------------------
   FORD      CROWN VICTORIA    2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                               2011
   LINCOLN   TOWN CAR          2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                               2011
   MERCURY   GRAND MARQUIS     2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
                               2011


FORD MOTOR: Recalls F150 Model Due to Defective Brake Lamp Switch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           328
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014503
TC ID number:             2014503
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14C09

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices.  The brake light switch may have been
improperly adjusted and could result in the brake lamps failing to
illuminate during a service brake application, contrary to the
requirements of the standard.  This could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will adjust the brake lamp switch.

Affected products: 2014 FORD F150


GFB ENTERPRISES: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paulette Maynard v. G.F.B. Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Lexus of
Kendall, Case No. 1:14-cv-24516-MGC (S.D. Fla., November 26, 2014)
alleges unlawful discrimination and harassment based on race.

The Plaintiff is a 51-year-old Black female from St. Kitts.

G.F.B. Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Lexus of Kendall, is a
Florida corporation, having its main place of business in Miami-
Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant.  The Defendant operates as car dealer located in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GROWLIFE INC: Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Named in Calif. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Bryan Chong was appointed as Lead Plaintiff, Laurence
M. Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was appointed as Lead Counsel
and all three shareholder cases against Growlife, Inc. were
consolidated into one, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On April 18, 2014, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
federal securities laws was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court, Central District of California
(Randy Romero v. Growlife, Inc., et al.; Case No.: 2:14-cv-03015)
(the "Romero Action").

On May 30, 2014, the United States District Court, Central
District of California (the "Court") ordered the Romero Action
consolidated with another class action alleging securities
violations also filed with the Court against the company entitled
Gerald Young v. Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-03183)
(the "Young Action").  The Young Action was filed on April 25,
2014 but not served on the company.  Per the Court's May 30, 2014
order, any subsequently filed securities law class actions were to
be consolidated into the actions. The Court further ordered a
hearing to determine the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel prior to the filing of a single, consolidated
complaint for the company to defend against.

On June 5, 2014, the Company entered a general appearance in
connection with a third class action alleging securities
violations filed with the Court entitled Rochelle Wolf v.
Growlife, Inc., et al. (Case No.: 2:14-cv-04112)(the "Wolf
Action").  The Wolf Action has also been consolidated into the
Romero Action as was done with the Young Action based on the
Court's standing order and procedural rules.

A hearing was held on July 21, 2014 in United States District
Court in Los Angeles on a Motion for Appointment of Lead Counsel
and Lead Plaintiff and to consolidate cases. The purpose of the
hearing was to choose a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel and to formally consolidate the three actions into one.
At the hearing, shareholder Bryan Chong was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, Laurence M. Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. was
appointed as Lead Counsel and all three cases were consolidated
into one.

Lead Counsel will have 60 days to file a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint with the input of the other two plaintiffs and their
counsel. This Consolidated Complaint will combine the claims of
all three matters into one single pleading for the company's
response.  After being served with the Consolidated Complaint the
Company will have 60 days to file a responsive pleading.


HEADWATERS INC: Utah Court Dismisses "Edwards" Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah entered
an order of final judgment approving a settlement and dismissing
the stockholder lawsuit filed by James W. Edwards against
Headwaters Incorporated, according to the company's Nov. 18, 2014,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In May 2013, James W. Edwards, purportedly a stockholder of
Headwaters Incorporated, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah against current and former
members of the Board of Directors of the Company and against
Headwaters Incorporated. The complaint alleged that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in
connection with the Compensation Committee's grant of certain
stock appreciation rights to the Company's Chief Executive Officer
in November 2011 under the 2010 Incentive Plan (Plan). The
complaint alleged that the 2011 grant exceeded Plan limits and
that the 2013 Proxy Statement in connection with the Company's
2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders contained false and misleading
information concerning the 2011 grant. The complaint sought to
rescind the 2011 grant, unspecified damages and other remedies,
plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. The complaint was brought
derivatively on behalf of Headwaters Incorporated and as a
purported class action on behalf of all shareholders of record as
of December 31, 2012. Defendants filed their initial response to
the complaint in January 2014. The parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement in February 2014 on terms including
(i) the cancellation of stock appreciation rights granted to the
CEO allegedly in excess of the Plan, with authority for the
Compensation Committee to assess and compensate the CEO for the
value of the cancelled award; (ii) certain training and controls
in relation to future grants under the Plan; and (iii) payment of
plaintiff's attorney fees in the amount of $500,000. In May 2014,
the District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval
of settlement and Headwaters published notice of the proposed
settlement. In September 2014, the District Court entered an order
of final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case
with prejudice.


HEINEN + LOWENSTEIN: Recalls LeoniPlus and LeoniPlus With HFO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Posting date:             November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42219

Recalled products: LeoniPlus and LeoniPlus with HFO

If contrary to the instruction for use, the display is cleaned
with liquids instead of wiping with an approved cleaning agent,
ingress of such liquids may lead to malfunction of the keypad
identified as a permanent or a mission function of the keys.  Do
not use machine.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Heinen + L”wenstein GmbH & Co.
                    KG, Arzbacher Strabe 80
                    Bad Ems 56130
                    Germany


HEMOCUE: Recalls Glucose 201 Microcuvette
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Posting date:             November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42165

Recalled Products: HemoCue Glucose 201 Microcuvette

Batches of Hemocue Glucose 201 Microcuvette show discoloration and
provide results outside the specification at the end of their
shelf life, approximately after 6 months.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Hemocue AB,
                    Kuvettgatan 1
                    Angelholm 26271
                    Sweden


HUTCHINSON SEALING: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hill, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc. and Randstad North America L.P.
dba Randstad US, L.P., Case No. 7:14-cv-00638-GEC (W.D. Va.,
November 25, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Mark Falabella, Esq.
          Rebecca Hope Royals, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com
                  rebecca.royals@butlerroyals.com


INNOVATIVE FOOD: Bid to Trim Down Suit v. The Fresh Diet Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of 109 drivers as an
increase from the 29 in the case against The Fresh Diet Inc. was
denied; and Innovative Food Holdings, Inc.'s motion to decertify
the case from 29 down to the 8 named defendants was granted,
according to Innovative's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On June 1, 2012, nine persons, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a Collective and Collective and Class
Action Complaint against The Fresh Diet Inc. and certain
individuals and on or about October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint adding additional defendants seeking to recover
unpaid wages on behalf of drivers for The Fresh Diet and/or Late
Night Express who delivered meals in New York Tristate area.  In
an Opinion dated September 29, 2014 the Plaintiff's motion for
summary Judgment was denied as was the company's cross motion for
Summary Judgment; the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of 109
drivers as an increase from the 29 in the case was denied; and the
company's motion to decertify the case from 29 down to the 8 named
defendants was granted.  The Company has recorded a contingent
liability of $250,000 representing the estimated potential amounts
payable pursuant to this litigation, but believes the actual
amount may be much less.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., Kevin M.
Modany and Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Case No. 1:14-cv-01948-SEB-DML
(S.D. Ind., November 25, 2014) seeks relief under the Securities
Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Offer Korin, Esq.
          KATZ & KORIN P.C.
          The Emelie Building
          334 North Senate Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 464-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 464-1111
          E-mail: okorin@katzkorin.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Motions to Consolidate 3 Securities Suits Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the Banes Litigation, Tarapara Litigation and
Jindal Litigation against ITT Educational Services, Inc. filed a
stipulation to consolidate the Tarapara Litigation and Jindal
Litigation into the Banes Litigation, according to the company's
Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's
current executive officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation"). On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class
action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the
company's current executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under the following
caption: Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation"). On July 25, 2013,
the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation and MLAF Litigation
under the caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation (the "Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers
and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On
October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities
Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint
was filed in the Securities Litigation. The second amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

     * the company's failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA,
2009 RSA and PEAKS Program;

     * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

     * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;

     * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

     * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of the
company's common stock;

     * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs
and the purported class, regarding, among other things, the
company's artificially inflated statements of financial strength
and understated liabilities; and

     * causing the company's common stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class
members to purchase the company's common stock at inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of the company's
motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to
state a claim for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014,
the company filed the company's answer to the second amended
complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties
are currently engaged in discovery.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Banes" Securities Suit in Indiana Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. is facing a securities suit filed
by David Banes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, according to the company's Nov. 19,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's
current executive officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana under the caption: David Banes,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by:

     * misleading investors regarding the integrity of the
company's financial reporting, including the reporting of the
PEAKS Trust;

     * knowingly or recklessly making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse
facts about the company's business operations and prospects,
including that:

     * the company's financial statements contained errors related
to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and the PEAKS Program; and

     * the company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting;

     * knowingly or recklessly engaging in acts, transactions,
practices and courses of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit upon the plaintiff and the purported class;

     * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of the company's common
stock;

     * deceiving the investing public, including the plaintiff and
the purported class; and

     * artificially inflating and maintaining the market price of
the company's common stock and causing the plaintiff and other
putative class members to purchase the company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013
through September 19, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified damages, interest, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court
deems proper.

                        "Tarapara Litigation"

On October 3, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's
current executive officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana under the caption: Babulal
Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Tarapara
Litigation"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or recklessly
making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations,
prospects and financial results. In particular, the complaint
alleges that:

     * the company failed to consolidate the PEAKS Trust in the
company's consolidated financial statements;

     * the company's consolidated financial statements contained
errors related to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS
Program;

     * the company improperly accounted for the company's
guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Guarantee;

     * the company's financial results were overstated;

     * the company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls;

     * the company's consolidated financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times;

     * the company artificially inflated and maintained the market
price of the company's common stock, causing the plaintiff and
other putative class members to purchase the company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices;

     * the company deceived the investing public, including the
plaintiff and the purported class; and

     * the company employed devices, schemes and artifices to
defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of the company's
common stock.
The putative class period in this action is from February 26, 2013
through September 18, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things:

     * the designation of this action as a class action;

     * an award of unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest;

     * an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees; and

     * such other relief as the court deems proper.

                     "Jindal Litigation"

On October 9, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and two of the company's
current executive officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana under the caption: Kumud Jindal,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by knowingly or recklessly making false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse
facts about the company's business, operations, prospects and
financial results. In particular, the complaint alleges that:

     * the company's financial statements contained errors related
to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program;

     * the company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting;

     * the company's financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times;

     * the company engaged in acts, transactions, practices and
courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
plaintiff and the purported class;

     * the company employed devices, schemes and artifices to
defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of the company's
common stock; and

     * the company artificially inflated and maintained the market
price of the company's common stock, causing the plaintiff and
other putative class members to purchase the company's common
stock at artificially inflated prices.
The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013
through September 19, 2014. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. All
of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend,
themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.
On November 7, 2014, the parties in the Banes Litigation, Tarapara
Litigation and Jindal Litigation filed a stipulation to
consolidate the Tarapara Litigation and Jindal Litigation into the
Banes Litigation.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Still Faces "Gallien" Labor Suit in Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. continues to face the "Gallien"
labor lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's Nov. 19,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against the company in
a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles under the following
caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an
individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"). The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, the company:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by the company during the period of December 17, 2009 through
December 17, 2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
equitable and appropriate.


JC BUNNY: Recalls Sesame Paste Product Due to Undeclared Peanut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           JC Bunny Bunny Trading Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9428

JC Bunny Trading Co. Ltd., is recalling a sesame paste product
from the marketplace because it contains peanut which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to peanut should
not consume the recalled product.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home.  Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities.  The CFIA is conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products: 400 g. (Chinese Characters Only) name Sesame
Paste with all codes where peanut is not declared on the label


JP MORGAN: Removes "Sheehan" Suit to New Jersey District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sheehan v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
NA, et al., Case No. GLO L 001237 14, was removed from the
Gloucester County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Camden).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07385-RMB-JS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845-1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, is represented by:

          Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: fcorrado@morganlewis.com


KEURIG GREEN: Oral Argument v. Dismissal of Stock Suit Held
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit scheduled an oral argument for December 1, 2014
in an appeal against the dismissal of the suit Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, according
to Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Sept. 27, 2014.

One putative securities fraud class action is presently pending
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
along with two putative stockholder derivative actions. The
pending putative securities fraud class action was filed on
November 29, 2011. The first putative stockholder derivative
action is a consolidated action pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont that consists of five
separate putative stockholder derivative complaints, the first two
were filed after the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on
September 28, 2010, while the others were filed on February 10,
2012, March 2, 2012, and July 23, 2012, respectively. The second
putative stockholder derivative action is pending in the Superior
Court of the State of Vermont for Washington County and was
commenced following the Company's disclosure of the SEC inquiry on
September 28, 2010.

The putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs'
amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its inventory accounting practices. The amended
complaint sought class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought to represent all
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2011
and November 9, 2011. The initial complaint filed in the action on
November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations of (1)
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May
2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants. Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3),
plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve
as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications
were filed and the Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees
of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement
System, Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the
Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012.
Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed
a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiffs'
amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities
Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the
Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary
common stock offering. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court
issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice.
On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal
the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by
the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June
23, 2014. The Second Circuit has scheduled an oral argument for
December 1, 2014. The underwriters previously named as defendants
notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from
the Company pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5,
2011 in regard to the claims asserted in this action.


KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs in US Antitrust Suit to Amend Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
All plaintiffs in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB) informed Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. of their decision to amend their complaints rather
than oppose the Company's motions to dismiss, according to Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 27, 2014.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods,
LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through
its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection
with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer. The
TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative
class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief
have been filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect
purchasers of the Company's products in various federal district
courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted a motion to transfer these various actions,
including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial
district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in
the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain
Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB).

On June 23, 2014, TreeHouse and JBR filed a joint motion to
expedite discovery, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part on July 23, 2014. On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed. The Court
held a hearing on September 3-4, 2014, and by order dated
September 19, 2014, the Court denied JBR's motion for a
preliminary injunction. On September 24, 2014, JBR filed a notice
of appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On October
28, 2014, JBR moved to expedite its appeal, and on November 7,
2014, the Company filed an opposition to JBR's motion for
expedited treatment. A briefing schedule for the appeal has not
yet been set.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The
Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the
complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 3, 2014. On
October 27, 2014, all plaintiffs informed the Company of their
decision to amend their complaints rather than oppose the
Company's motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs' amended complaints are
due November 25, 2014.


KEURIG GREEN: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit by Club Coffee in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario,
Canada are facing a lawsuit by Club Coffee L.P. claiming damages
of $600 million for alleged antitrust practices, according to
Keurig Green's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept.
27, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the
Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee
L.P. ("Club Coffee"), a Canadian manufacturer of single-serve
beverage packs, claiming damages of $600 million and asserting a
breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by
the Company. On October 21, 2014, Club Coffee filed an amended
statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada, Inc.
claiming the same amount of damages as in the original statement
of claim and asserting essentially the same breaches of
competition law and false and misleading statements by the
Company.


KEYCORP: Supreme Court Won't Hear Plaintiffs' Class Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pensions & Investments reports that the U.S. Supreme Court
declined two cases involving defined contribution plans.

On Nov. 10, the court declined a petition that it review Tussey et
al. vs. ABB Inc. et al., a fiduciary breach case that has been
closely watched by the defined contribution plan community.

The court's decision -- denying certiorari -- means the complex
ruling in March by a federal appeals court in St. Louis remains in
effect regarding complaints by participants in two 401(k) plans
run by ABB, Cary, N.C.

The request for Supreme Court review was filed in August by the
lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Jerome J. Schlichter, founding
and managing partner of law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton.  He
sought the review because he claimed various appellate courts used
different standards to decide complaints about fiduciaries'
"statutory duties of prudence and loyalty," according to his
Supreme Court petition.

In an interview Nov. 10, Mr. Schlichter said the next step will be
for the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., to set a date
to retry a portion of the original suit that was sent back for
further consideration by the appellate court.

The retrial is based on the appellate court's vacating a ruling --
and a $21.8 million judgment against ABB -- focusing on ABB's
mapping one investment in the 401(k) plans' menu, Vanguard's
Wellington Fund, to the Fidelity Freedom Funds target-date series.

On Nov. 18, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by
participants in a class-action lawsuit against Cleveland-based
KeyCorp and fiduciaries of the firm's $1.5 billion 401(k) plan,
alleging company stock was an imprudent investment.

In March, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
applied a more stringent standard for pleading stock-drop cases
alleging "artificial inflation" of employee stock investments than
one addressed by the Supreme Court in its June 25 decision in
Fifth Third Bancorp et al. vs. Dudenhoeffer et al. In Fifth Third
vs. Dudenhoeffer, an "alternative investments" case, the Supreme
Court removed a presumption of prudence standard used by defined
contribution plans sued for fiduciary breaches when the company
stock sank.


KUO HUA: Recalls 3:15 PM Coffee Products Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kuo Hua Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9382

Affected products: 3:15 PM coffee products with all codes where
milk is not declared on the label


LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heriberto Caban v. Las Vegas Valley Water District; and Does XI
through XX and Roe Corporations XXI through XXX inclusive; Case
No. 2:14-cv-01970 (D. Nev., November 25, 2014) alleges
discrimination and retaliation.

Mr. Caban was employed as a Training Specialist in the Human
Resources Department of the Defendants at the time of his
termination.

Las Vegas Valley Water District is a public, quasi-municipal
corporation created by the Las Vegas Valley Water District Act.
The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of
the Doe and Roe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Q. Callister, Esq.
          Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq.
          CALLISTER & ASSOCIATES
          823 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 330
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 385-3343
          Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
          E-mail: mqc@call-law.com
                  mbisson@call-law.com


LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Unifood Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments Unifood Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9425

Affected products: 10 kg. Les Aliments Unifood Inc. Boneless
Skinless Chicken Breast


LES ALIMENTS: Recalls Coq Roti Bolognese Meat
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments O Sole Mio Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9404

Affected products: 2.5 kg. Coq Roti Bolognese Meat Sauce with all
codes where mustard is not declared on the label


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Hernandez" Suit to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned Hernandez v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case
No. CT-004963-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby
County, Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-
02921-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-
label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s
Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: HealthVault Web site Accused of Spamming Users
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft
promoted its HealthVault Web site and app with unsolicited emails,
a class action alleges.

Harold Hoffman, a lawyer who has brought hundreds of class actions
against various companies over the last few years, is the lead
plaintiff in the complaint against Microsoft in Bergen County
Court.  He filed the 12-page action on Nov. 19, one day after
receiving an email about Health Vault, which Microsoft describes
as a "trusted place for people to gather, store, use, and share
health information online," the complaint states.

"The subject of the email was 'Your latest Microsoft Health Vault
account summary,'" according to the complaint.

Hoffman says "the email contained numerous hyperlinks, most of
which allowed Hoffman to view his profile, log in to an account,
or otherwise utilize HealthVault goods and/or services."

The problem, Hoffman says, is that he "never requested to receive
an email from HealthVault and . . . he has never created a
HealthVault account or otherwise provided any personal
information, or even an email address, to Health Vault."

Microsoft's wording of the email allegedly "insinuated that
Hoffman had previously created a HealthVault account and could
easily unenroll or opt out of the HealthVault Account Summary
email through a simple click."

But Hoffman says that the unsubscribe Web site was very
convoluted.

"The website contained a header 'Notifications' which allowed for
checking or unchecking two options: 'Send me informational updates
and reminders that are related to my HealthVault account,' and
'Send me the Health Vault newsletter.'  Nowhere did 'unsubscribe'
or 'unenroll' appear on the website," the complaint states.

When both options listed under "Notifications" are unchecked, "the
website merely advises that 'your notification settings have been
updated,'" Hoffman says.

"At no time is a subscription opt-out confirmed," the complaint
continues.

Hoffman says Microsoft "co-opted [his] private email address for
its own Health Vault commercial and/or advertising purposes
without [his] consent and against his will."  Also, "by not
permitting unenrollment or unsubscription pursuant to the
requirements of federal and state laws and regulations, defendant
misrepresented the terms of their solicitation," the complaint
states.

Hoffman hopes to represent "all New Jersey recipients of
defendant's 'spam' email solicitations during the six year period
prior to the filing of this action."

Microsoft did not return a request for comment on the filing.

The class seeks damages for violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and conversion.  Englewood, N.J.-based Hoffman filed the
complaint with attorney Raphael Rosenblatt:

          Raphael Rosenblatt, Esq.
          ROSENBLATT LAW PC
          21 Court Plaza South, Suite 305
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (551) 444-8100
          Facsimile: (551) 497-4665


MODEL N: Faces Securities Litigation in Calif. Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc. is facing a purported securities class action filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On September 5, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and executive officers and
underwriters of the Company's IPO. The lawsuit was brought by a
purported stockholder of the Company seeking to represent a class
consisting of all those who purchased Company stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other
relief.


MOL GLOBAL: Sued for Not Delivering 3rd Quarter Financial Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A company that billed itself as the largest e-payment enabler in
Southeast Asia failed to deliver third-quarter financial results,
sending shares into a tailspin, a federal class action alleges,
reports Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service.

MOL Global, a Cayman Islands-based LLC, sold 13.5 million American
Depository Shares (ADS) pursuant to its initial public offering
last month, opening NASDAQ trading on Oct. 9, according to the
complaint filed November 24.

The company provides payment solutions for online goods and
services in Southeast Asia, and touted its physical distribution
network of more than 970,000 locations in 13 countries across four
continents, the complaint states.

Lead plaintiff Michael Freedman says Deutsche Bank recommended MOL
Global stock as a "buy" on Nov. 20, one day before the company was
scheduled to release its third-quarter financial results.

After the market closed that day, however, "little more than forty
days after the company's IPO, MOLG announced 'that the company has
rescheduled the date it plans to release its third quarter 2014
financial results to Wednesday, December 3, 2014, before market
opens,'" the complaint states.

"Shockingly, the company also announced that the CFO had abruptly
resigned 'for personal reasons," the complaint states.

Freedman says the news caused MOLG stock to suffer a "precipitous
decline," and shareholders incurred "significant losses."

Deutsche Bank, which assisted in MOL Global's IPO, described
"MOL's sudden announcement as 'potentially ominous" on Nov. 21,
the complaint states.

Freedman notes that MOLG shares closed on Nov. 21 at a 54 percent
drop from the day before.

"This represented a 67% decline in MOLG's ADS price from the IPO
price of $12.50," the complaint states.

By the time NASDAQ halted trading in the company on Nov. 24,
pending MOL Global's release of "additional information," its
shares were trading at "$4.09 per ADS," according to the
complaint.

Freedman blames MOLG for "grossly overstat[ing] its financial
results in the registration statement."

In addition to overstating revenue and profit, MOLG concealed that
"its actual business model could not sustain the growth trends
described in the offering documents," the complaint states.

Freedman notes that at "MOLG's primary product is MOLPoints
micropayment system, which sells payment credits that can be used
by consumers to purchase online game credits and other digital
content, including Facebook Game Cards."

In addition to MMOG.asia, an online games portal, the company
"also operates MOLReloads, a . . . network that distributes
prepaid mobile airtime and digital content; [and] MOLPay, a
payments solutions for online merchants," the complaint states.

Founded in 2000, MOLG had seen "year over year, and quarter over
quarter" of improvement prior to the IPO, Freedman claims.

"Profit from operations reportedly increased 96.6% to MR25.4
million for 2013 from MYR12.9 million for 2012," the complaint
states, abbreviating the Malaysian ringgit, which on November 26
is worth 30 cents of a U.S. dollar.

Freedman seeks damages for violations of the Securities Act and
the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants include MOL Global and its underwriters Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., UBS Securities
LLC and CIMB Securities (Singapore) PTE Ltd.

MOLG chief executive officer Ganesh Kumar Bangah and seven other
current or former MOLG officers are also named as defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Customers Have Until Jan. 27 to Join Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that National Australia
Bank customers slugged with unfair fees have a second chance to
take part in a multi-million dollar compensation claim.

About 30,000 NAB customers are already part of a class action
against the bank over excessive bank account and credit card fees.

The Federal Court earlier approved settlement orders sought by NAB
and law firm Maurice Blackburn which could result in the bank
paying $40 million in compensation.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn says NAB customers who paid fees on
their bank accounts and credit cards, and who aren't already part
of the action, have from Nov.24 to Jan. 27 to sign up.

The class action is part of a string of legal action launched by
Maurice Blackburn against eight banks in Australia, including
Westpac, Commonwealth Bank and ANZ.  More than 150,000 customers
with more than 200,000 accounts are involved in these actions,
says Financial Redress, a subsidiary of litigation funder IMF
Bentham.

Financial Redress managing director James Middleweek says banks
used to routinely charge customers $30 to $40 if they became
overdrawn, went beyond an agreed limit, or made a late payment.

"Banks have made billions of dollars from these unfair charges,"
he said.

"Some banks and credit card companies still continue to charge
exorbitant amounts."

He said NAB deserved credit for fronting up and agreeing to settle
this claim with their own customers.


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Removes "Wilson" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Wilson v. Nature's Bounty, Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC561527, 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-
09082 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that that the Defendants manufacture, market
and sell four Ginkgo Biloba products that are falsely advertised.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants specifically target the
elderly by claiming: "Ginkgo helps support memory, especially
occasional mild memory problems associated with aging."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Allison R. Willett, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (888) 835-8055
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  awillett@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Clayton Halunen, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  coler@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William A. Delgado, Esq.
          Eileen M. Ahern, Esq.
          WILLENKEN WILSON LOH & DELGADO LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955-9240
          Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
          E-mail: wdelgado@willenken.com
                  eahern@willenken.com


NATUS MEDICAL: Recalls neoBLUE LED Phototherapy
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Posting date:             November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42275

Recalled products: neoBLUE LED Phototherapy (neoBLUE 2 with
replacement board)

Due to increased efficiency of LED manufacture, the replacement
LED boards (part number 001840) for the neoBLUE 2 systems contain
LEDs which have higher intensity than those in the original
device.  As a result, the light intensity may need to be adjusted
using the device potentiometer or through treatment distance.
Natus is sending a letter and a copy of the latest technical
bulletin to all customers who have purchased a replacement LED
board (P/N 001840).  Natus will be calling each customer that
received the new board to verify the receipt of this letter.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Natus Medical Incorporated,
                    5900 First Avenue South
                    Seattle 98108
                    Washington
                    United States


NOVARTIS CORP: Judge Dismisses Excedrin Migraine Drug Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a putative class action claiming Novartis Corp. overcharged
customers for its Excedrin Migraine medication has been dismissed
by a federal judge in Newark.

The suit, Yingst v. Novartis AG, claimed Novartis charged more for
Excedrin Migraine than for Excedrin Extra Strength even though the
two have identical formulations.  But U.S. District Judge Claire
Cecchi of the District of New Jersey ruled that the company's
pricing policy did not represent an "unconscionable commercial
practice" under New Jersey law and that the plaintiff did not
present a cognizable claim for unjust enrichment.

Novartis had contended that the complaint failed to state
sufficient facts to sustain a claim for relief, and Judge Cecchi
agreed.

The plaintiff, Kerri Yingst, is a migraine sufferer and user of
Excedrin Migraine who said she assumed the higher price of that
product made it more effective for migraine relief than Excedrin
Extra Strength, according to Judge Cecchi's opinion.

The parties did not dispute that both products had the same
formulation -- 250 milligrams of acetaminophen, 250 milligrams of
aspirin and 65 milligrams of caffeine per tablet, Judge Cecchi's
opinion said.  But Novartis said the package instructions and
warnings for Excedrin Migraine were specifically tailored for
users who suffer migraines.

The suit said Novartis, of East Hanover, N.J., sells Excedrin
Migraine at a wholesale price of $3.60 for 24 tablets, which is
12.5 percent more than for its $3.20-priced Excedrin Extra
Strength.  The drug company, for its part, said a finding of
liability would be "unduly interfering with free market forces."

In rejecting the suit's claim for unconscionable practices under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Judge Cecchi said the price
differential between the two products was too small.  Citing cases
in which consumer practices were deemed unconscionable under the
act, she said the circumstances were "much more distinct" from
those in the present case.

Judge Cecchi noted that the plaintiff did not allege any
affirmative acts of deception, fraud, false pretense or
misrepresentation by Novartis, and that the plaintiff does not
argue that the company knowingly concealed any material facts to
induce reliance.

"Defendant utilized the market forces present in our capitalistic
society in order to charge a higher price for Excedrin Migraine.
This slight price differential is within the bounds of
reasonableness and concomitantly outside the ambit of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act," Judge Cecchi said.

The unjust enrichment claim was rejected because the suit did not
claim that Excedrin Migraine failed to provide relief to the
plaintiff or that one product provided greater relief than
another, Judge Cecchi said.  The judge agreed with Novartis'
assertion that the plaintiff "deliberately purchased the higher-
priced product and received exactly what she paid for."

A motion to dismiss is still pending before Judge Cecchi in
another suit raising similar claims about Excedrin Migraine, but
under California law.  That case is Winkelman v. Novartis AG.

Todd Muhlstock of Baker Sanders in Garden City, N.Y., who
represented the plaintiff and putative class, did not return a
call seeking comment.  The lawyer for Novartis, John Coyne --
JCOYNE@MDMC-LAW.COM -- of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
in Morristown, N.J., declined to comment.


NVIDIA CORP: Shareholders Have Until Feb. to Seek High Court Writ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have until February 9, 2015 to file a petition for writ
of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court regarding the
dismissal of a consolidated securities suit by NVIDIA Corporation,
according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 26, 2014.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California arising out of the company's announcements
on July 2, 2008, that the company would take a charge against cost
of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising from a
weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of the
company's previous generation MCP and GPU products and that the
company was revising financial guidance for the company's second
quarter of fiscal year 2009. The actions purport to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages. The
company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October
19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the company's motion with leave to
amend. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The company again moved to dismiss and on
October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted the company's motion
to dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On
November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth
Circuit. Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014. On October 2,
2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal.
On October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a rehearing or en banc
review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion affirming the dismissal.
Plaintiffs' request was denied on November 10, 2014. Plaintiffs
have until February 9, 2015 to file a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.


OAKLAND RAIDERS: Class Wage Deal Is Unfair, Cheerleader Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Henneman at Courthouse News Service reports that an Oakland
Raiders cheerleader appealed a class action wage settlement,
claiming the deal was unfair.

Jenny C. objected to the settlement of Lacy T. and Sarah G. et al.
vs. the Oakland Raiders.

Represented by Drexel Bradshaw of San Francisco, the Nov. 17
filing objects to the class action settlement reach by attorney
Sharon Vinick, with Levy, Vinick, Burrell and Hyams.

Vinick told Courthouse News in a telephone interview that she is
"very confident" that the settlement provided "good resolution"
for the Raiderettes' complaints.

"We feel the settlement is very fair and adequate and compensates
the Raiderette minimum wage along with fees and penalties," Vinick
said.  "It is a very good settlement for the class."

The settlement in early September covered 90 women who worked as
cheerleaders from 2010 to 2013 during NFL seasons.  Each
cheerleader was to receive more than $6,000 for each year worked
from 2010 to 2012 and $2,500 for 2013, when the Raiders started
paying minimum wage and overtime.

But in her objection, Jenny C. claims the settlement "drastically
fails to compensate class members according to what they are due,"
and excludes the National Football League from paying damages, as
it is not mentioned by name in the settlement.

The proposed settlement leaves "millions and millions of dollars
on the table", according to the objection, and underpays the class
plaintiffs by of $1.4 million to $2.7 million.

Jenny C. claims that the Raiderettes should have been paid $13.15
to $20 an hour, not the $8 the settlement "sheepishly" accepted.

She also objects to the $400,000 in legal fees that Vinick was to
receive.

"A lot more could have been achieved in this case and the short
amount of time invested by Vinick and the large take of the
settlement is an issue," Bradshaw told Courthouse News in an
interview.

Bradshaw also is counsel in a lawsuit that names the NFL and the
Oakland Raiders as defendants.  That case Caitlin Y. and Jenny C.
vs. the National Football League, the Oakland Raiders, is pending
in Alameda County Court.

The cheerleaders said in their initial class action suit that the
Raiders placed excessive demands on them and did not pay them
fully until the season was over.  The Raiders demanded that they
attend preseason, regular season and postseason home football
games, all practices, rehearsals, fittings, preparations, drills,
photo sessions, meetings and workouts.  The team fined
cheerleaders for wearing the wrong workout clothes to rehearsals,
for failing to bring a yoga mat to practice, and for losing pom-
poms or not turning in biographies on time, according to lead
plaintiff Lacy T. who said she spent $650 a year in unreimbursed
expenses.

"This will likely be a case that will be going on for a long time
and we felt the previous Raiderette representation did a poor job
and did not work for what they could have achieved," Bradshaw said
in the interview.

Jenny C. is represented by:

          Drexel A. Bradshaw, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          Nicolet Corliss, Esq.
          BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4800
          E-mail: drexel@bradshawassociates.com
                  cwoods@bradshawassociates.com
                  ncorliss@bradshawassociates.com

The case is Lacy T. and Sarah G., et al. v. The Oakland Raiders,
et al., Case No. RG14710815, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda.


OSCEOLA REGIONAL: Removes "Francis" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Francis v. Osceola Regional
Hospital, Inc., et al., Case No. 2014-CA-003217-CI, was removed
from the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-01974-RBD-KRS
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act for unpaid wages and for damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Bolanovich, Esq.
          BOGIN, MUNNS & MUNNS, PA
          2601 Technology Dr.
          PO Box 2807
          Orlando, FL 32802-2807
          Telephone: (407) 578-1334
          Facsimile: (407) 578-2181
          E-mail: jbolanovich@boginmunns.com

Defendants Osceola Regional Hospital, Inc. and Michelle Reed are
represented by:

          Lori R. Benton, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON, LLP
          300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2300
          Facsimile: (407) 481-2327
          E-mail: lbenton@fordharrison.com

Defendant HCA, Inc. is represented by:

          Alexander David Del Russo, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1200
          PO Box 150
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 659-7070
          E-mail: adelrusso@cfjblaw.com


OSP GROUP: Removes "McEwan" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McEwan v. OSP Group, L.P., et al.,
Case No. 37-2014-00035422-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
02823-BEN-WVG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623-4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brendan F. Hug, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Sixth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3432
          Facsimile: (424) 239-2323
          E-mail: BHug@blankrome.com


PACCAR: Recalls 220, K270 and K370 Models
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           14
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014508TC
ID number:                2014508
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14KWM / 1114J

On certain vehicles equipped with a Wabco quick release valve with
double check valves, used to control park/spring brake
application, the valve may leak internally.  This could cause
unintended partial or full park/spring brake application, which
could affect service brake function and increase the risk of a
crash.  Also, dragging brakes could result in overheated
components, increasing the risk of a fire.  These issues could
cause injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will affect repairs.

Affected products:

   Maker           Model       Model year(s) affected
   -----           -----       ----------------------
   KENWORTH        K370        2014
   PETERBILT       220         2014
   KENWORTH        K270        2014


PHILIPS ULTRASOUND: Recalls Auto 2D Quantification Software
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Posting date:             November 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42601

Recalled Products:

A) Auto 2D Quantification Software
B) Auto Cardiac Motion QUantification software
C) Q-Station

Philips has become aware that when using the QLAB Auto 2D
Quantification (A2DQ) and Auto Cardiac Motion Quantification
(ACMQ) applications to calculate End-Systolic Volume (ESV), the
reported ESV may be smaller ESV calculated by manual tracing
without the use of QLAB.  Correspondingly, the left ventricular
Ejection Fraction (EF) calculated using these applications may be
higher than the EF calculated by manual tracing without the use of
QLAB.  Philips' investigation has found that this difference may
occur in cases where the EF is less than approximately 40%.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Philips Ultrasound Inc.
                    22100 Bothell-Everett Highway
                    Bothell 98021-8431
                    Washington
                    United States


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reserves $7.8MM for Note Purchasers' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc.'s reserve for a class action settlement
liability is $7.8 million in its condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of September 30, 2014, according to the company's Nov.
19, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers and directors in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers
on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The
lawsuit alleged that the Company offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws. On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims
related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the
Settlement, the Company agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10
million into a settlement fund, split into four annual
installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million
in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. The Settlement received final
approval in a final order and judgment entered by the Superior
Court on April 16, 2014. Pursuant to the final order and judgment,
the claims in the class action were dismissed, and at the
effective time of the Settlement (June 16, 2014), the defendants
will have been released by the plaintiffs from all claims that
were or could have been asserted concerning the issues alleged in
the class action lawsuit. The reserve for the class action
settlement liability is $7.8 million in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of September 30, 2014.


RICHMAN PROPERTY: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rosa, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. Richman Property Services, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-
02967-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., November 26, 2014) is brought under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com


RIGHTSCORP INC: Faces TCPA Action in California Over Robo-Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Morgan Pietz,
one of the lawyers who wrapped "copyright troll" Prenda Law in a
whirl of judicial sanctions, has set his sights on a new target:
Rightscorp.

In a class action lawsuit filed on Nov. 21, Mr. Pietz says the
copyright enforcement company made illegal, harassing robo-calls
to his clients, who were accused of illegal downloading.  The
lawsuit says that Rightscorp broke the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), a 1991 law which limits how automated
calling devices can be used.

The suit also claims that Rightscorp met the legal definition of a
"debt collector" but made harassing phone calls and didn't abide
by federal or California debt collection laws.  Rightscorp company
managers, including CEO Christopher Sabec and COO Robert Steele,
and Rightscorp's clients are all named as defendants in the
lawsuit.

Violations of federal debt collection laws can result in damages
of $1,000 and include provisions for paying attorneys' fees in
successful cases.  TCPA violations can cost $500 per incident, and
that can be tripled if the violations were willful.

In an interview with Ars, Pietz says he doesn't know how many
violations have occurred. But he says just one of his named
plaintiffs was subject to enough illegal phone calls to add up to
tens of thousands of dollars in damages.

"They robo-called Jeanie Reif's cell phone darn near every day for
a couple of months," Mr. Pietz said.  "And there could be
thousands of members of this class."

If a judge agrees with Mr. Pietz that the phone calls were
harassing and illegal, Rightscorp could be on the hook for many
millions of dollars.  That's a lot more money than Rightscorp
actually has -- the company has lost $6.5 million since its
inception in 2011, and its stock price hovers near all-time lows.

The wild card in Mr. Pietz's case are the defendants not yet
named: John Does 1-10.  Those Does are Rightscorp's clients, who
Mr. Pietz says are liable for Rightscorp's TCPA violations.  If
Mr. Pietz and his clients win big against near-bankrupt
Rightscorp, there's a possibility that the enforcement company's
marquee music clients -- including BMG Rights Management and
Warner Brothers -- could end up holding the bag.

Calls from "Yaddy" and "Marina"

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court on Nov. 21, has
two named plaintiffs: Karen J. Reif, who goes by her middle name
Jeanie, and Isaac Nesmith.

Ms. Reif is a Charter Communications subscriber who lives in
Saginaw, Michigan.  She called Rightscorp in April of this year
after she got a "settlement offer" consisting of an e-mail from
Rightscorp, forwarded to her by Charter.

Starting around July, she started getting continuous calls from
Rightscorp to both her home phone and her cell phone. Some of the
calls were from people, including a woman who identified herself
as "Yaddy."  Many were automated with what sounded like "an
artificial or pre-recorded voice."

According to the suit, Rightscorp left Ms. Reif a voicemail in
September, saying:

"This is an urgent message from Rightscorp regarding your Internet
account.  We have evidence that one or more of our clients'
copyrighted materials has been illegally distributed through your
Internet connection in violation of U.S. Federal Law 17 U.S.C.
106.  To settle this urgent matter you can reach one of our agents
by pressing any number on your phone keypad now.  Or, you can call
us at 888- 851-3801 between 8am and 8pm Pacific Standard Time.
This urgent message is from Rightscorp."

By late September, she was getting one robo-call per day, the
lawsuit states.

Mr. Pietz says he's called Rightscorp personally about Ms. Reif's
case and has been unable to get any details about the infringement
accusations against her.  He followed up via e-mail. "I asked for
the documentation Rightscorp supposedly has substantiating the
copyright claims against Ms. Reif," Mr. Pietz said.  "I am still
waiting."

Mr. Nesmith, who lives in Riverside County, California, is a
customer of a smaller ISP called Greenfield Communications.  He
was first contacted by Rightscorp in September, when he received a
letter to his home address accusing him of downloading two
"tracks," without identifying the tracks or who owned them.

That was followed up by repeated phone calls from "Marina" at
Rightscorp, who identified herself as "the DMCA agent who is
handling your unsettled copyright infringement case." One
voicemail from "Marina" went as follows:

"Hi Isaac.  This is Marina contacting you from Rightscorp.  I've
contacted you on one other occasion, the 22nd of September, in
regards to your copyright infringement case.  You have two
unsettled infringements at this point and we are contacting you on
behalf of our client, which is the owner of this copyrighted
material.  If you'd like to settle with them to receive a
liability release to protect yourself against litigation, contact
me immediately.  Otherwise, if we don't hear back from you sir, we
will have to escalate the case.  We have obtained your information
via subpoena against your Internet service provider in regards to
the federal law being broken."

When Mr. Nesmith asked her to stop calling and provide written
evidence of the allegations, she refused and kept asking for a $40
settlement.

"We do have that authorization to continue contacting you with the
settlement option," said Marina.  The "evidence of infringement"
had been sent to his home already, she said, and it consisted of a
spreadsheet that listed "the two separate file sharing incidents
that occurred for the illegal distribution of Pearl and Not Like
the Movies," both Katy Perry songs.

On Nov. 19, Marina called again, telling Nesmith she was "closing
all escalated cases with a settlement on behalf of the copyright
holder . .. If you are not capable of settling the matter yourself
please have your attorney send in a letter of representation
immediately."

Copyright enforcer or debt collector?

The lawsuit makes the case that Rightscorp's monetary demands have
to be classified as debt collection.  They can't be threats of an
actual lawsuit, because no lawsuit ever has taken place or could
take place.  Rightscorp doesn't have the authority to file a
lawsuit on behalf of its clients, who keep control over their
copyrights.

So when Rightscorp's calls to Nesmith and others talk about an
"unsettled copyright infringement case," it's a bluff.  The
complaint states:

"Rightscorp has threatened Plaintiffs and other members of the
FDCPA Class that if they do not pay Rightscorp a 'settlement,'
their 'case' will be 'escalated.'  Rightscorp has threatened
Plaintiffs and other members of the FDCPA Class that if they do
not pay settlements, their Internet connections will be
disconnected.  However, on information and belief, disconnection
of consumers' Internet connections is not an action that could
have been legally taken nor was it intended to be taken."

The plaintiffs claim that Rightscorp's suggestion that Internet
access will be terminated, as well as the implicit threat of a
lawsuit, are both threats "to take action that cannot be legally
taken," which violate federal debt collection laws.

As for the robo-calling, the TCPA bars the use of equipment
"having the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention"
to call cell phones.

The suit also includes abuse of process claims, saying that
Rightscorp sent out 142 clerk-stamped subpoenas from the Central
District of California that are legally invalid.  When Grande
Communications Networks, a Texas-based ISP, moved to quash one of
those subpoenas in September, Rightscorp immediately withdrew it.

Grande's lawyer filed an advisory note with the court suggesting
that it may want to consider "ordering Rightscorp and its counsel
to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misusing the
federal court's subpoena powers . . . . It appears clear that
Rightscorp and its counsel are playing a game without regard for
the rules, and they are playing that game in a manner calculated
to avoid judicial review."

Rightscorp management didn't respond to a request for comment on
the lawsuit.


SAGE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Sage Capital Recovery, LLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-06957 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014) seeks relief pursuant to
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


SHOPKICK INC: Faces "Kozlow" Suit in Tennessee District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Kozlow, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Shopkick, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02303 (M.D. Tenn.,
November 26, 2014) arises from restrictions on use of telephone
equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Bock, Esq.
          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          BOCK AND HATCH LLC
          134 N La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602-1233
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  rich@bockhatchllc.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Taterka, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. TATERKA
          P O Box 368
          Kingston Springs, TN 37082
          Telephone: (615) 952-3661
          E-mail: stevetaterka@earthlink.net


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Dimension Vista 1500 and 500 Lab
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Posting date:             November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42143

Recalled Products:

Dimension Vista 1500 Lab System(Class2)
Dimension Vista 1500 Lab System(Class3)
Dimension Vista 500 Lab System

Siemens has received customer complaints of discrepant flagged
and/or unflagged patient and QC results on Dimension Vista
Intelligent Lab Systems.  Reagent probe performance may decline
more quickly than anticipated and have an effect on assays with
similar formulations when processed sequentially on the same
reagent server.  Replacing an associated reagent probe can resolve
this issue.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
                    500 GBC Drive, Mailstop 514, PO Box 6101
                    Newark 19714-6101
                    Delaware
                    United States


SP AUSNET: Bush Fire Victims Await Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sweeney, writing for The West Australian, reports that the
wait continues for almost 6,000 Black Saturday bushfires victims
to hear whether a record class action settlement will be theirs.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Robert Osborn has to sign off on a
AU$494.7 million settlement before it can be distributed to the
claimants of the East Kilmore-Kinglake fire class action.

"It is in the interests of the people of Victoria, it's in the
interests of the group members and the plaintiff that I sort it
out quickly," Justice Osborn said on Nov. 24.

It would help bring closure and finality for victims, he said on
the first day of an approval hearing.

"There are a whole series of advantages to approving settlement
including avoiding costs, delays and significant stress."

Robert Richter QC -- richter@vicbar.com.au -- acting for lead
plaintiff Carol Matthews, said only four objections to the
settlement amount had been received out of 5847 claimants who are
party to an estimated 10,000 claims.

He said two simply stated the figure was too low and a third
outlined theories of government conspiracies and treason
irrelevant to the proceedings, while a fourth was abandoned before
the hearing.

"The absence of objection speaks volumes to the issues of whether
the amount of settlement is fair and reasonable," he said.

"This is the best settlement, in all circumstances, that could be
achieved.

"The alternative was an all-or-nothing outcome for the group."

Barrister Lachlan Armstrong, who represents more than 1500
claimants, took Justice Osborn through summaries of some of the
more than 20,000 pages of evidence collated during the class
action trial.

The judge said the trial heard unprecedented levels of evidence
during more than 200 sitting days over 16 months and it was
important he examine the facts to be satisfied it was a good
settlement.

"It seems I have to have some regard to the evidence in deciding
whether it's in the ultimate range," he said of the settlement
amount.

If Justice Osborn approves the payout, the largest settlement in
an Australian class action, it will be paid by SP AusNet, Utility
Services Victoria Ltd and the Victorian government.

It's expected it would then take between 18 months and two years
for individual claims from the February 7, 2009 fires to be
assessed and money to be paid out, according to Maurice Blackburn
Lawyers.

That's far quicker than the decade or longer it would have taken
for individual litigations to be finalized following conventional
court processes, Justice Osborn said.

The hearing was set to continue on Nov. 25.


SYMMETRY MEDICAL: Has Agreement to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Medical Inc. agreed to the terms of a settlement with the
plaintiff of a stockholder lawsuit filed against it in the
Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana, according to the
company's Nov. 18, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana on
behalf of Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of Symmetry
Medical, Inc. (the "Company"), and all others similarly situated.
The complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of the
board of directors of the Company, TecoStar Holdings, Inc.
("Holdings"), Tecomet, Inc. ("Tecomet"), Genstar Capital LLC,
Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), and TecoSym Inc. ("TecoSym") (the
"Merger Litigation"). The Merger Litigation relates to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 4, 2014, by and
among the Company, Holdings, Tecomet and TecoSym (the "Merger
Agreement").

On November 18, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other named
defendants in the Merger Litigation agreed to the terms of a
settlement with the plaintiff to settle the Merger Litigation.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Faces Suit in Mo. for TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank is facing a putative class action alleging claims
under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
according to Synchrony Financial's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, on November 4, 2014, the Bank was named as a
defendant in Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank, a putative class
action alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). The complaint, which was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
alleges that the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated
telephone dialing system without the prior express consent of the
called party, and seeks up to $1,500 for each violation. The
allegations are similar to those made in the Abdeljalil, Cowan and
Pittman actions. Legal Proceedings and Regulatory Matters to the
company's combined financial statements, in which the plaintiffs
assert that they received calls on their cellular telephones
relating to accounts not belonging to them.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: US Trustee Wants Discovery v. Bank
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Trustee filed an application in In re Nyree
Belton, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, for orders authorizing
discovery against Synchrony Bank concerning allegations made in
Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, according to
Synchrony Financial's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On October 30, 2014, the United States Trustee, which is part of
the DOJ, filed an application in In re Nyree Belton, a Chapter 7
bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York for orders authorizing discovery
against the Bank pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, related to an investigation of the Bank's
credit reporting. The proposed discovery concerns allegations made
in Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, a putative class
action adversary proceeding pending in the same Bankruptcy Court.

In the Belton adversary proceeding, which was filed on April 30,
2014, plaintiff alleges that the Bank violates the discharge
injunction under Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by
attempting to collect discharged debts and by failing to update
and correct credit information to credit reporting agencies to
show that such debts are no longer due and owing because they have
been discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff seeks declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.

On October 6, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court denied from the bench the
Bank's motion to compel arbitration of the adversary proceeding,
entering its order on November 10, 2014. On October 16, 2014 the
Bank moved to stay its case pending an appeal of the arbitration
decision. This motion to stay and the Bank's previously filed
motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations are pending.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces Two TCPA Violations Litigations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Bank continues to be a defendant in two putative class
actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they
received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts
not belonging to them, according to Synchrony Financial's Nov. 19,
2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

One case (Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank) was filed
on August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, originally naming General Electric Capital
Corporation as the defendant. In August 2013, the Court denied
without prejudice GECC's motion to dismiss the class allegations.
GECC subsequently was dismissed and the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to name the Bank as the defendant. The other case
(Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate
LLC) was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida. Both complaints allege that the
Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent, and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified.


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Quarles" Suit Over Trademark Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Quarles, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00433-JMH (E.D. Ky.,
November 26, 2014) is brought over alleged trademark infringement
under the Lanham Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Michael Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          22 W. Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-2024
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Nathan Dale Williams, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER, PLC
          Marion E. Taylor Building, 6th Floor
          312 S. Fourth Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2006
          E-mail: nathan@bccjlaw.com

               - and -

          Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com


TALLGRASS DISTRIBUTING: Recalls 52.5 g. Megafood Daily Energy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Natural health products
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42583

Recalled Products: Megafood Daily Energy 52.5 g

Typographical error on the label: "the product label displays "mg"
as the unit of measure for the quantity of Vitamin B12 and
Chromium when it should read "mcg".  The error is only
typographical in nature and the actual composition of the products
was not affected and is as market authorized"

Companies:

   Recalling Firm     TallGrass Distributing LTD
                      375 West 5th Avenue, Suite 201
                      Vancouver V5Y 1J6
                      British Columbia
                      Canada

Marketing Authorization
Holder                FoodState Incorporated
                      8 Bowers Road
                      Derry 03038
                      New Hampshire
                      United States


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Clow" Suit Arising From Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Clow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Highland
Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Honda of America Mfg.,
Inc., and American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-24497-
RNS (S.D. Fla., November 25, 2014) arises from alleged defective
airbags manufactured by Takata and installed in millions of
vehicles in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Barr, Esq.
          Kimberly Lambert Adams, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL ECHSNER & PROCTER
          316 S Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6045
          E-mail: bbarr@levinlaw.com
                  Klambert@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          C. Richard Newsome, Esq.
          NEWSOME LAW FIRM
          201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 648-5977
          Facsimile: (407) 648-5282
          E-mail: newsome@newsomelaw.com


TARGET CORP: Judge Refuses to Toss Claims in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Star Tribune's Kristen Leigh Painter and Bloomberg News report
that a federal judge in St. Paul refused on Dec. 2 to throw out
claims against Target Corp. made by several banks that say they
lost money because of the company's data breach last year.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed one of four claims
argued in the lawsuit, which claimed "negligent misrepresentation
by omission" related to Target's security system.  But Judge
Magnuson, in his court order released on Dec. 2, wrote that the
plaintiffs presented a plausible case for the first three counts
against Target: negligence, failure in providing sufficient
security against data hackers and violation of Minnesota's Plastic
Security Card Act.

The Dec. 2 memo is not a final ruling, but allows the lenders'
lawsuit to move forward.

The case involves all Target purchases made in 2013 between Nov. 1
and Dec. 19 using credit and debit cards.  The banks allege that
the data breach, which affected at least 40 million customers,
required them to reimburse victims, reissue cards and monitor
accounts for fraud.

The plaintiff is a group of five lenders acting on behalf of any
financial institution affected by the breach. They claim to have
lost tens of millions of dollars combined.

A landslide of lawsuits was filed against Minneapolis-based Target
after the breach.  The courts ultimately decided to consolidate
all the federal cases into two lawsuits -- one brought by
consumers and one brought by financial -- institutions.

Target's lawyer argued that the company had no obligation to the
banks because a third-party firm handles all credit and debit card
payments.

The company declined to comment on the Dec. 2 court order saying
it does not typically comment on pending litigation.


TETRA TECH: Montreal Court Keeps Dismissal of Taxpayers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Montreal court did not allow an appeal against the dismissal of
a lawsuit against BPR Inc. by individuals and entities that have
paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal,
according to Tetra Tech, Inc.'s Nov. 19, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2014.

On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal
in which BPR Inc., BPR's former president, and other Quebec-based
engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants. The
plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that have
paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal. The
allegations include participation in collusion to share contracts
awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce competition
and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making illegal
political contributions, and bid rigging. A class certification
hearing was held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014, the court
dismissed the action. On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed an
appeal, and the defendants then filed a motion to dismiss. On
November 3, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.


TRULIA INC: Inks Agreement to Settle Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding was entered between parties in the
In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation regarding the settlement
of that action, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed
pursuant to Securities Act Rule 424(b) with the SEC by Holdco (the
"Joint proxy statement/prospectus"), which includes a final
prospectus with respect to Holdco's shares to be issued in the
proposed transaction and a definitive joint proxy statement of
Trulia and Zillow with respect to the proposed transaction, under
the heading "The Mergers -- Litigation Relating to the Mergers,"
between August 7, 2014 and August 20, 2014, four plaintiffs filed
purported class action lawsuits against Trulia and its directors,
Zillow and Holdco in connection with the Trulia merger, which
litigation was consolidated into In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 10020-CB.

On November 19, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of that action. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, with the defendants expressly denying that any of
the claims has any merit, Trulia has agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are
contained in this Form 8-K. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to the
Trulia stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may not be
consummated.


VENOCO INC: Trial in Suit Over Going Private Deal Set for 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for a lawsuit over a going private transaction between
Venoco, Inc. and former Chairman Timothy Marquez, is expected to
occur in 2015, according to the company's Nov. 19, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2011 against Venoco
and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and
its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January
16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez
and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr.
Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private
transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five
additional suits were filed in Delaware and three suits were filed
in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants Venoco and each
of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint in which they
requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the
merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was
entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants
and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger
should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be
awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the
breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions
have been administratively closed pending resolution of the
Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in
the amended complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial
for this matter is expected to occur in 2015.


YOUNG AMERICA: Didn't Cover Accidents With Uninsured Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Young America Insurance Co. systematically denies coverage for
accidents involving uninsured and underinsured drivers, a class
action claims in Bernalillo County Court, according to Courthouse
News Service.


W.A.R. LLP: Lawyer Enjoined From Submitting Further Court Filings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
court issued a filing injunction against attorney Wade Robertson
for going beyond "mere litigiousness" in his motions challenging a
$7 million verdict against him.

Wade Robertson and his former business partner William Cartinhour
entered into a 2004 partnership to invest in class action
securities litigation, with Cartinhour contributing $3.5 million
and Robertson, an attorney, contributing his legal services.

Unbeknownst to Cartinhour, however, Robertson borrowed $3.4
million from the partnership in interest-free loans.  The invested
amount dwindled to $700,000 by the time Cartinhour tried to get
his money back in 2009.

In 2011, a jury awarded Cartinhour $7 million in compensatory and
punitive damages.

During the litigation, the U.S. District Court and the D.C.
Circuit issued Robertson's attorney, Ty Clevenger of Youngkin &
Burns in Bryan, Texas, numerous warnings and $17,000 in sanctions
for "vexatious," "meritless," and "reckless" filings.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle sanctioned Clevenger in 2012 for
showing and "utter disregard for the judicial system" by pursuing
baseless arguments despite multiple warnings.

On November 25, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth barred
Robertson from filing anything else in his related bankruptcy
action.

"Repeated frivolous and meritless filings will not be tolerated by
this court," the judge wrote.

Even after Huvelle imposed sanctions, Robertson and Clevenger
filed multiple motions and other documents, including an appeal,
several motions for an extension of time, and a motion for
reconsideration -- most of which were dismissed as meritless.

"This multitude of frivolous and harassing filings, both in number
and in content, made by appellants goes far beyond 'mere
litigiousness.'  The court thus finds that a filing injunction is
appropriate," Lamberth concluded.

The case is In re: W.A.R. LLP, Bankruptcy Debtor, Case No. 12-mc-
306 (RCL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


WALGREEN CO: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Porter v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-02284-MHH (N.D.
Ala., November 25, 2014) seeks relief from race discrimination and
retaliation instituted pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Walgreen Co. is a corporation headquartered in Deerfield,
Illinois.  The Defendant is a retailer of pharmaceutical and
household products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Porter, Esq.
          ADAM M. PORTER, LLC
          2301 Morris Avenue, Suite 102
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8999
          Facsimile: (205) 402-4619
          E-mail: adamporter@earthlink.net


WHITE & BLUE: Sued for Selling Dirty Needles & Ink in Tattoo Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California company sold contaminated needles and ink in tattoo
kits it sold online, two people who claim they got infections from
the kits claim in a federal class action, reports Joe Harris at
Courthouse News Service.

Kristine Murray and Jack Bradley sued White & Blue Lion Inc., of
City of Industry, Calif., on Nov. 25.  They claim they bought a
tattoo kit from the defendant on Amazon.com, which is not a party
to the lawsuit.

Bradley, an experienced tattoo artist, says he used the kit to
give Murray and himself tattoos on their legs on July 7.
Beginning that day, and until July 10, "Plaintiffs could not walk
without suffering intense pain in their legs," the lawsuit states.
Then they "noticed open sores around the tattoos."

The complaint continues: "The skin around plaintiffs' tattoos
became very red and hot to the touch.

"These conditions persisted for several weeks after July 7, 2014.

"The pain in the area around the tattoos fluctuated, but the
appearance of the flesh worsened as plaintiffs developed blisters
and scabs.

"The tattoos also looked worse over time as the skin rejected the
tattoo ink."

On Aug. 7, Bradley says, he received an email notification that
the tattoo kit had been recalled due to contaminated needles and
ink.  The next day, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a
notice stating that the kits could cause infections that could
lead to serious health infections, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say they sought medical treatment and had to take
antibiotics.  They claim that the skin where they got the tattoos
is "permanently damaged and scarred from the contaminated ink and
needles.  They seek class certification and damages for strict
liability, negligence and violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan A. Duncan, Esq.
          DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
          111 West Broadway
          Bolivar, MO 65613
          Telephone: (417) 326-5261
          Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
          E-mail: nduncan@bolivarlaw.com


                              *********

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  * * *