CAR_Public/141210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 245


                             Headlines

111 ATLAS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Velez" Suit Claims
ADVANCED FAMILY: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger With BTU
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Planned Merger With BTU
APPLE INC: Software Chief Set to Testify in Antitrust Suit

BUCCANEERS LIMITED: 11th Cir. Flips Ruling in "Stein" Suit
CABLE EQUIPMENT: "Bezeau" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CAKE PRODUCTION: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CHICAGO PRINTING: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Miller" Suit Claims

CHINA GERUI: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
CHRYSLER: Judge Weighs on TIPM Class Action Discovery
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
COOK MEDICAL: Faces "Boddorf" Suit Over Defective IVC Filter
COOK MEDICAL: Faces "Willinsky" Suit Over Defective IVC Filter

COVIDIEN PLC: Motion to Consolidate Suit Over Medtronic Deal Heard
COVIDIEN PLC: Hearing on Motion to Junk Medtronic Stock Suit Set
DOLLAR TREE: Certified Collective Suit Goes to Liability Phase
DOLLAR TREE: Trial in Suit by Former Assistant Store Manager Set
DOLLAR TREE: No Discovery, Trial Date Yet in Calif. Labor Lawsuit

DOLLAR TREE: CEO, Board Face Suit Over Merger With Family Dollar
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces "Legg" Suit in Fla. Over Violation of TCPA
EVOLUTION FRESH: Removes "Salcido" Class Suit to C.D. California
EXFO INC: Settlement of Stock Suit in N.Y. Now Final, Case Closed
FACEBOOK INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Duguid" Suit Says

GFI GROUP: Faces "Gross" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Appeals Ruling on Digital Project Suit
HALE & HEARTY: "Olivares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HOME CARE SERVICES: "Nesterova" Suit Removed to NY District Court
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Russ" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HOMETEAM PEST: Accused of Illegal Market Competition Stategies
HSBC BANK: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Improper Interest Charges
IC SYSTEMS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
IRIDIUM RESTAURANT: "Mesinas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
KENILWORTH ASSET: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Securities Law

KMART CORPORATION: Calif. Court Sends "Mill" Suit to Arbitration
KUM & GO: "Claxton" Suit Remains in Missouri Federal Court
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: To Fight Securities Suit Amendment if Filed
MERITOR INC: Settles Antitrust Lawsuit Over Filters in Canada
MUD CONTROL: "Legros" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

MUNDO CLEANING: Faces "Pelaez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NBTY INC: Still Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged TCPA Violation
NBTY INC: Settlement of Suit Over Dietary Supplements Challenged
NEW YORK: Police & Corrections Officers Sued Over Illegal Arrest
NHU LAN BAKERY: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

NOVELL INC: Directors Win Summary Judgment in Shareholders' Suit
PIO PIO NYC: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Breach of ERISA
ROSCO'S PIZZERIA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
SERRA MEDICAL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

SIDCO FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Claims
STARTEX INDUSTRIES: Faces "Arellano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUQUI EXPRESS: "Dulanto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SURI SOUTH: Faces "Raynosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Brockman" Suit Over Viptera Corn

TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Ahmadi" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Considine" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Dunleavy" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TRI COUNTY COMMERCIAL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TRINITY MISSION: "Mullen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Goldberg" Suit to D. Massachusetts
VBI VACCINES: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VICTIM SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breazeale" Suit Says
VISA INC: "Attridge" Still Stayed Pending Appeals in Other Cases
VISA INC: Continues to Settle Interchange Multidistrict Cases

VISA INC: Consumer Interchange Suit Defendants Move to Junk Case
VISA INC: Updates on Interchange Opt-out Litigation
VISA INC: Settlement of Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Challenged
VISA INC: Canadian Competition Proceedings in Abeyance, Stayed
VISA INC: Plaintiff in Data Pass Litigation Amends Claims Anew

VISA INC: Amended Complaint Filed in U.S. ATM Access Fee Lawsuit
VISA INC: Nixing of Consumer Suit Over ATM Access Fee Challenged
VISA INC: Target Data Breach Suit Remains Stayed After Remand
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims
WINDSOR SURRY: Falsely Marketed Trim Board Products, Suit Claims

ZHONGPIN INC: Del. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Shareholders' Suit


                            *********


111 ATLAS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Velez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Rojas Velez, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class v. 111 Atlas Restaurant Corp.,
Bill Athanasopoulos, John Athanasopoulos, Vasilios Athanasopoulos
and Stravos Moutopoulos, Case No. 1:14-cv-06956 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Atlantic Diner restaurant located
at 111-16 Atlantic Avenue, Richmond Hill, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED FAMILY: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Long, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
who consent to representation v. Advanced Family Medicine Clinic,
Inc., and Kate R. Lops, Case No. 3:14-cv-00642 (N.D. Fla.,
November 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a medical clinic located in
Crestview, Okaloosa County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Thomas Peavey Hoffer, Esq.
      MATTHEWS & JONES LLP
      4475 Legendary Dr
      Destin, FL 32541
      Telephone: (850) 837-3662
      Facsimile: (850) 654-1634
      E-mail: thoffer@destinlaw.com


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger With BTU
-------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware over its Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BTU International, Inc.,
according to Amtech's Nov. 20, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

In October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BTU International,
Inc. ("BTU") and BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Amtech ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into BTU (the "Merger"),
with BTU continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company.

A first action was filed on November 4, 2014, purportedly on
behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against the members of the
BTU Board, the Company and Merger Sub. The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of BTU's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to BTU's public
stockholders by causing BTU to enter into the Merger Agreement and
by approving the merger, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. In
addition, the complaint alleges that the Merger Agreement
improperly favors the Company and unduly restricts BTU's ability
to negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaint generally
seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Company, Merger Sub, and BTU from consummating the
Merger, other forms of equitable relief, and compensatory damages.


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Planned Merger With BTU
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware over its Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BTU International, Inc.,
according to Amtech's Nov. 20, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

A second suit was filed on November 17, 2014, purportedly on
behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, the BTU board,
the Company and Merger Sub. The complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the members of BTU's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to BTU's public stockholders
by failing to engage in a competitive sale and bidding process,
and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that
these fiduciary breaches gave the Company an unfair advantage by
failing to solicit other potential acquirers. The complaint
generally seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting
the defendants from consummating the Merger, compensatory damages
for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, and other forms of
equitable relief.


APPLE INC: Software Chief Set to Testify in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Elder, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Steve Jobs helped usher in new ways to listen to music with the
iPod.  But did the late Apple Inc. co-founder also guide his
company to violate antitrust laws and hurt consumers by updating
the device to prevent it from playing songs from other companies'
music stores?

That question is now being argued in court in a decade-old class-
action lawsuit seeking $350 million in damages for consumers and
businesses, who contend Apple's actions forced them to pay more
for iPods.  The damages could be tripled under antitrust laws.

Opening arguments in the case, Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust
Litigation, began on Dec. 2 before U.S. District Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers and an eight-person jury in Oakland, Calif.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that Apple issued software
updates to cut off competitors' attempts to market products
compatible with Apple's iPod.

"We will put on evidence that shows these software updates were
not genuine updates," said Bonny Sweeney, lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, in an interview before the trial.  "Apple implemented
these changes for the purpose of blocking competition."

As in two other class-action cases, Apple's adversaries plan to
cite emails from Mr. Jobs highlighting his competitive nature and
moves he made to protect and promote Apple.  This case also is
expected to include a video deposition from Mr. Jobs, who died in
October 2011.

In one 2004 email, Mr. Jobs proposed to other Apple executives
crafting a tough news release about a competitor.  "We are stunned
that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker
to break into the iPod," the news release read.

Apple declined to comment, but the company has argued in the case
that the 2006 and 2007 software updates to iTunes included
significant upgrades that helped consumers.

Part of Apple's defense is that the company updated iTunes to
prevent piracy.  "Someone is breaking into our house," Mr. Jobs
said of music pirates, according to an email by Apple software
chief Eddy Cue.

In an April 2011 deposition, which was videotaped, Mr. Jobs said,
"There are lots of hackers trying to hack into" iTunes "and we
were very scared of that," according to a transcript.  He added,
"People have tried to hack iTunes for a long time, and they are
still trying."

Apple executives Phil Schiller, the head of marketing, and Mr. Cue
are expected to testify this week.

The suit was initially filed in January 2005.  The trial follows
numerous rulings and involves iPods sold later in that decade,
when the now-eclipsed music players were considered state of the
art.  The trial is expected to last about two weeks.

BUCCANEERS LIMITED: 11th Cir. Flips Ruling in "Stein" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Six named plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in Florida
state court against defendant Buccaneers Limited Partnership,
alleging that BLP sent unsolicited faxes to the named plaintiffs
and more than 100,000 others, that the faxes advertised tickets to
National Football League games involving the Tampa Bay Buccaneers,
and that sending the unsolicited faxes violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and its implementing regulations.

The plaintiffs served process on BLP on August 1, 2013.  BLP
removed the action to federal court on August 16.  Three days
later, on August 19, BLP served on each named plaintiff an offer
of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
Two days later, on August 21, BLP moved to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, asserting that the unaccepted Rule 68 offers
rendered the case moot.

On August 22, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class, which was
long before the deadline under the Local Rules for filing such a
motion.  On August 28, the district court denied the motion to
certify, saying it was "terse" and "admittedly (in fact,
purposefully) premature."  On October 24, the district court
entered an order concluding the action was indeed moot, granting
the motion to dismiss, and directing the clerk to close the case.
The named plaintiffs received no money, no injunction, and no
judgment.  They brought an appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an
opinion dated Dec. 1, 2014, reversed the district court, saying,
first, a plaintiff's individual claim is not mooted by an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment; and, second, a proffer that
moots a named plaintiff's individual claim does not moot a class
action in circumstances like those presented in this case, even if
the proffer comes before the plaintiff has moved to certify a
class.

The appeals case is JEFFREY STEIN, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. et al.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHP, Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 13-15417 (11th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/iMXpCofrom Leagle.com.


CABLE EQUIPMENT: "Bezeau" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bezeau, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Cable Equipment Services, Inc.,
Cable Equipment Services, LLC, Charles Appledoorn, and Marilyn
Appledoorn, Case No. 1:14-cv-24538 (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that offers equipment
recovery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP
      1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              cjones@shavitzlaw.com


CAKE PRODUCTION: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliasar Ortiz-Flores, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Cake Production, Inc., and
Gilberto Chavarria, Case No. 1:14-cv-09533 (N.D. Ill., November
26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edda Curland, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-06980 (E.D.N.Y., December 1, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO PRINTING: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Miller" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Miller v. Chicago Printing and Embroidery Company, Inc.,
Razzak Properties, LLC, Chicago Dye House, Inc., Mr. Property,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09599 (N.D. Ill., December 1, 2014) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff
for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks.

Each of the Corporate Defendants is either a corporation or
limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of
Illinois and has conducted business in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Martin-Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          26020 Twin Pond Road
          Lake Barrington, IL 60010
          Telephone: (312) 927-6925
          E-mail: mmartinjohnston@yahoo.com


CHINA GERUI: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aram J. Pehlivanian, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. China Gerui Advanced Materials Group Ltd.,
Mingwang Lu, Edward Meng, Yi Lu, Harry Edelson, J.P. Huang, Kwok
Keung Wong, Yunlong Wang, and Maotong Xu, Case No. 1:14-cv-09443
(S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, strategy, operations,
and prospects.

China Gerui Advanced Materials Group Ltd. is a niche and high
value-added steel processing company based in China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHRYSLER: Judge Weighs on TIPM Class Action Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge is weighing whether a prominent auto safety
group can intervene in a class action to obtain sealed documents
about an alleged electronic defect in Chrysler vehicles.

The Center for Auto Safety, which petitioned the U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on Aug. 21 to
investigate the defect, filed a motion to intervene in a case that
alleges a problem in the latest version of the totally integrated
power module, or TIPM, has caused 2007 to 2014 models of Chrysler
vehicles to stall and have trouble starting.

The consumer group has fielded about 200 complaints from customers
who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs.  Some
people have also been injured in accidents, said Clarence Ditlow,
executive director of the Center for Auto Safety.  The group's
access to discovery in the class action -- particularly associated
with a motion the plaintiffs had filed for a preliminary
injunction warning customers of the defect -- will support its
petition filed with the NHTSA, Mr. Ditlow said.  The NHTSA has
until Dec. 19 to decide whether to initiate an investigation.

Michael Palese, a spokesman for Chrysler Group, which is a
subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., declined to comment.

On Dec. 1, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson of the Central
District of California heard arguments about the intervention
motion.

The class action was brought last year on behalf of owners or
lessees of various Chrysler models made from 2010 to 2014,
including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Durango, Dodge
Grand Caravan and Dodge Ram pickups, that were installed with the
latest generation of TIPMs, which power electrical systems such as
the steering, brakes, headlights and fuel pump.  The class is
limited to six states: California, Florida, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri and New Jersey.

A similar case was filed on Nov. 10 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Chrysler has unsuccessfully attempted twice to dismiss the first
case.  In a Sept. 18 motion for preliminary injunction, the
plaintiffs, armed with internal records Chrysler has been forced
to produce, sought to require the automaker to inform its
customers about the defect -- though the exact wording of the
proposed warning was redacted.

"The risk of serious injury from widespread TIPM failures and
stalling is too high to justify keeping Chrysler's customers in
the dark any longer," wrote plaintiffs attorney Eric Gibbs --
ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- a partner at San Francisco's Girard Gibbs.

All the exhibits supporting the motion, and Chrysler's opposition
to it, were sealed.  Chrysler, which has denied the existence of a
defect, said such a warning would cost $2.5 million, according to
court records.

Judge Pregerson denied the preliminary injunction on Oct. 27.
The Center for Auto Safety filed its motion to intervene four days
earlier.  The group also sought to unseal the records associated
with the injunction motion.

"Our basic argument is the public is riding at risk in these
vehicles, and they need the information to know if they have a
problem," Mr. Ditlow said.

Chrysler, in a Nov. 7 response, said the sealed documents contain
engineering drawings and change notices, investigation reports and
communications between Chrysler and its suppliers -- all of which
are trade secrets.  Chrysler also cast doubt on the motive of the
consumer group, which it said has engaged in an "inflammatory
propaganda campaign."

"The handling of the alleged TIPM defect is best left to the court
presiding over this lawsuit and the NHTSA," wrote Chrysler
attorney Rowena Santos -- RSantos@thompsoncoburn.com -- counsel to
Thompson Coburn's Los Angeles office.


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
and Fire And Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cobalt
International Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03428 (S.D.
Tex., November 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose, the
corrupted nature of its business in Angola and the true value of
the Company's Angolan oil wells.

Cobalt International Energy Inc. is an oil exploration and
production company headquartered in Houston, Texas with operations
in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore West Africa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald T. Drought, Esq.
      MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.
      300 Convent St., Ste. 2500
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 227-7591
      Facsimile: (210) 227-7924
      E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444

         - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      Bonni Jensen, Esq.
      KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
      10059 Northwest 1st Court
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-123


COOK MEDICAL: Faces "Boddorf" Suit Over Defective IVC Filter
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Paul Boddorf, an individual v. Cook Medical Incorporated
a/k/a Cook Medical, Inc.; Cook Incorporated; Cook Group, Inc. and
William Cook Europe APS, Case No. 1:14-cv-01974-JMS-DKL (S.D.
Ind., December 1, 2014) seeks damages relating to the Defendants'
alleged development, testing, assembling, manufacturing,
packaging, labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing,
supplying, and selling the defective product sold under the name
"inferior vena cava filter."

Cook Medical Incorporated, Cook Group, Inc. and Cook Incorporated
are Indiana corporations with a principal place of business
located in Bloomington, Indiana.  Cook Incorporated is the parent
company of Cook Medical.  Cook Group is the parent company of Cook
Medical and Cook Incorporated.

William Cook Europe APS is a foreign corporation incorporated in
Denmark, with its principal place of business located in
Bjaverskov, Denmark.  Cook Europe's business form most closely
resembles that of an American Corporation.  Cook Europe conducted
research and contributed to the development, the design, testing
and manufacture, as well as marketing and distribution of the
inferior vena cava filter implanted in the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy Brenes, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: tbrenes@lopezmchugh.com


COOK MEDICAL: Faces "Willinsky" Suit Over Defective IVC Filter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Jerome Willinsky v. Cook Medical Incorporated a/k/a Cook
Medical, Inc.; Cook Incorporated; Cook Group, Inc. and William
Cook Europe APS, Case No. 1:14-cv-01971-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
December 1, 2014) seeks damages relating to the Defendants'
alleged development, testing, assembling, manufacturing,
packaging, labeling, preparing, distribution, marketing,
supplying, and selling of the defective product sold under the
name "inferior vena cava filter."

Cook Medical Incorporated, Cook Group, Inc. and Cook Incorporated
are Indiana corporations with a principal place of business
located in Bloomington, Indiana.  Cook Incorporated is the parent
company of Cook Medical.  Cook Group is the parent company of Cook
Medical and Cook Incorporated.

William Cook Europe APS is a foreign corporation incorporated in
Denmark, with its principal place of business located in
Bjaverskov, Denmark.  Cook Europe's business form most closely
resembles that of an American Corporation.  Cook Europe conducted
research and contributed to the development, the design, testing
and manufacture, as well as marketing and distribution of the
inferior vena cava filter implanted in the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy Brenes, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
          100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 737-1501
          Facsimile: (949) 737-1504
          E-mail: tbrenes@lopezmchugh.com


COVIDIEN PLC: Motion to Consolidate Suit Over Medtronic Deal Heard
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
held a hearing on a motion to consolidate lawsuits against
Covidien plc over its agreement to be acquired by Medtronic, Inc.,
according to Covidien's Nov. 24, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Sept. 26, 2014.

On July 10, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by a purported shareholder of Covidien under the
caption Taxman v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949. The action
names as defendants the members of the Covidien board of
directors, and alleges that Covidien's directors breached
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction because, among
other things, the transaction allegedly involves an unfair price,
a conflicted and unfair process, self-dealing, and unreasonable
deal protection devices. The action also names as defendants
Covidien, Medtronic, New Medtronic, IrSub, U.S. AcquisitionCo and
MergerSub, and alleges that these defendants aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, an order enjoining or rescinding the transaction and
an award of attorney's and other fees and costs. The defendants
believe that the complaint is without merit. On August 11 and 26,
2014, respectively, two putative shareholder class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts by purported shareholders of Covidien
under the captions Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-13308
and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-
13490, respectively. The actions name Covidien and the members of
the Covidien board of directors as defendants, and allege that the
defendants disseminated a preliminary proxy statement in
connection with the transaction that contains material omissions
and misrepresentations in violation of federal securities laws.
The alleged omissions and misrepresentations concern (i) the
process leading to the proposed transaction; (ii) the financial
analyses performed by Covidien's and Medtronic's financial
advisors; (iii) the selection of Covidien's financial advisor;
(iv) the compensation Covidien's financial advisor received for
services rendered to the parties involved in the transaction in
prior years; and (v) Covidien's, Medtronic's and the combined
company's financial projections. The complaints further allege
that the conduct of Covidien's directors constitutes shareholder
oppression in violation of Irish law because, among other things,
the transaction allegedly involves an unfair price, a deficient
and conflicted sales process, self-dealing, and unreasonable deal
protection devices. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
order enjoining or rescinding the transaction and an award of
attorney's and other fees and costs. The defendants believe the
complaints are without merit.

On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld action and
another purported shareholder of Covidien filed a motion seeking
to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions, and to
appoint lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. On
November 14, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts held a hearing on the motion, and
indicated that it would consolidate the cases and appoint the
proposed lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel.


COVIDIEN PLC: Hearing on Motion to Junk Medtronic Stock Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-
14-11452 moved to dismiss the complaint and a hearing was set for
January 8, 2015, according to Covidien plc's Nov. 24, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2014.

On August 26, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Suffolk County, by a purported shareholder of
Covidien under the caption Cobb v. Covidien plc, et al., SUCV2014-
02733-BLS2. The action names as defendants Covidien and the
members of the Covidien board of directors, and alleges that
Covidien's directors breached fiduciary duties in connection with
the transaction because, among other things, the transaction
allegedly involves an unfair price, a conflicted and unfair sales
process, self-dealing and unreasonable deal protection devices.
The complaint further alleges that the directors breached
fiduciary duties by disseminating a registration statement in
connection with the transaction that contains material omissions
and misleading statements. The alleged omissions and misleading
statements generally concern (i) the process leading to the
proposed transaction; (ii) the financial analyses performed by
Covidien's and Medtronic's financial advisors; (iii) the
compensation Covidien's financial advisor received for services
rendered to the parties involved in the transaction in prior
years; and (iv) Covidien's financial projections. The action also
names as defendants Medtronic, New Medtronic, IrSub, U.S.
AcquisitionCo and MergerSub, and alleges that these defendants
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining or
rescinding the transaction, damages if the transaction is
consummated and an award of attorney's and other fees and costs.
The defendants believe the complaint is without merit.

On July 2, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, of Hennepin
County, Minnesota (the "Minnesota Court"), by a purported
shareholder of Medtronic under the caption Merenstein v.
Medtronic, Inc., et al., 27-CV-14-11452, and on August 21, 2014, a
putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in that same
court by a purported shareholder of Medtronic under the caption
Steiner v. Richard H. Anderson, et al., 27-CV-14-14420. By an
Order dated September 26, 2014, the Minnesota Court consolidated
the two actions and all cases subsequently filed or transferred
into Minnesota Court into a single action under the caption In re
Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452. On
September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting
various causes of action arising under Minnesota law against
certain current and former members of Medtronic's board of
directors, including that they allegedly breached fiduciary duties
in connection with the transaction, and against Medtronic, New
Medtronic, Covidien, U.S. AcquisitionCo. and MergerSub, including
for allegedly aiding and abetting the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order
enjoining or rescinding the transaction and an award of attorney's
fees and other fees and costs. Defendants believe their actions
are fully consistent with their fiduciary duties and applicable
law, and that the complaint alleges derivative claims pursuant to
which the plaintiffs are required to make a demand on the
company's board of directors. On October 10, 2014, the defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint and a hearing was set for January
8, 2015. The court is holding that same January 8, 2015 date to
hear any application from the plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin
the defendants from effectuating the transaction.


DOLLAR TREE: Certified Collective Suit Goes to Liability Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class has been certified in a suit filed by a former Dollar
Tree, Inc. assistant store manager, alleging assistant store
managers were not provided rest breaks. The case is proceeding to
the liability phase, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.

In 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself
and those alleged to be similarly situated, filed a putative class
action in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to
provide rest breaks to assistant store managers. The alleged time
period is July 13, 2008 to the present. Discovery is ongoing. The
class has been certified and the case is proceeding to the
liability phase.


DOLLAR TREE: Trial in Suit by Former Assistant Store Manager Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been set for October 26, 2015 in a suit by a
former Dollar Tree, Inc. assistant store manager who filed a
representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under
California law, according to the company's Nov. 20, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.

In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and
others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law
currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges
that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and
rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages;
failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and
failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. Discovery
has not commenced. A trial date has been set for October 26, 2015.


DOLLAR TREE: No Discovery, Trial Date Yet in Calif. Labor Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has not commenced and no trial date has been set in a
suit filed by a former Dollar Tree, Inc. assistant store manager
in a California state court, according to the company's Nov. 20,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 1, 2014.

In May 2014, a former assistant store manager filed a putative
class action in a California state court for alleged failure to
provide meal periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during
employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, as well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees
for business expenses in violation of California labor laws. This
matter is in early stages of litigation. Discovery has not
commenced and no trial date has been set.


DOLLAR TREE: CEO, Board Face Suit Over Merger With Family Dollar
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s CEO and board members are facing
shareholder suit over a merger agreement with Dollar Tree, Inc.,
according to Dollar Tree's Nov. 20, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Nov. 1, 2014.

In July and August 2014, several shareholders of Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. ("Family Dollar") filed class actions in Delaware
chancery court against Family Dollar's CEO and board members
alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar
were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting
the other defendants. The claimed breach derives from the
execution of the merger agreement dated July 27, 2014, between
Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, which is alleged to offer unfair
and inadequate consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class
actions, among other things, seek to prevent the merger, obtain
higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages. An
injunction hearing has been scheduled for December 5, 2014.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces "Legg" Suit in Fla. Over Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Legg, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, and Mogreet, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62704 (S.D. Fla., November 30,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Domino's Pizza, LLC is an American pizza restaurant chain.

Mogreet, Inc. operates a cloud-based SMS and MMS messaging
platform in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S Ocean Dr., Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

         - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      Katherine M. Bowen, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 726-1092
      Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
      E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


EVOLUTION FRESH: Removes "Salcido" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Salcido v. Evolution Fresh, Inc.,
Case No. BC562036, 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-
09223 to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Gerardo Salcido formerly worked as a contract worker at
Evolution Fresh's juicery in California.  He asserts claims for
unpaid overtime, meal and rest period premiums, unpaid minimum
wages, untimely final wages, untimely wages during employment,
non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep payroll records,
unreimbursed business expenses, and violation of the California
unfair competition laws.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Mark Royce Curiel, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Christie, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                  mcuriel@akingump.com
                  christiej@akingump.com


EXFO INC: Settlement of Stock Suit in N.Y. Now Final, Case Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a suit filed against Exfo Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York is now
final, and the case is concluded, according to the company's Nov.
24, 2014, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014.

On November 27, 2001, a class action suit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, four of the underwriters of its Initial
Public Offering and some of its executive officers pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Sections 11, 12 and 16 of the Securities Act of
1933. This class action alleges that the company's registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2000, contained material misrepresentations
and/or omissions resulting from (i) the underwriters allegedly
soliciting and receiving additional, excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they
allocated material portions of the shares issued in connection
with the company's Initial Public Offering; and (ii) the
underwriters allegedly entering into agreements with customers
whereby shares issued in connection with the company's Initial
Public Offering would be allocated to those customers in exchange
for which customers agreed to purchase additional amounts of
shares in the after-market at predetermined prices.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting
final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of
the Court close these actions. Appeals of the opinion granting
final approval were filed, all of which have been dismissed or
settled as of January 9, 2012. The settlement payment on behalf of
EXFO has been made by the insurers, the settlement among the
parties is final, and the case is concluded.

There are no other legal or arbitration proceedings pending or
threatened of which the company is aware which may have or have
had a significant effect on the company's financial position.


FACEBOOK INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Duguid" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Duguid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-09456 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully sending unauthorized
automated text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Facebook, Inc. is engaged in building products to create utility
for users, developers, and advertisers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergel Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW LLC
      1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


GFI GROUP: Faces "Gross" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Gross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GFI Group, Inc., Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch, and
Nick Brown, Case No. 1:14-cv-09438 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

GFI Group, Inc. is an intermediary and provider of trading
technologies and support services to the global over-the-counter
and listed markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              jcohen@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
              steti@scott-scott.com


GOOGLE INC: Authors Guild Appeals Ruling on Digital Project Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an Authors Guild lawyer urged a federal appeals court in Manhattan
on Dec. 3 to force Google to reward authors for including their
books in the world's largest digital library.

Attorney Paul Smith told a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals there was no evidence that Google Inc.'s
project helps authors sell books.  But he said there was plenty of
proof that Google is violating copyright laws.

Seth Waxman, a lawyer for the Mountain View, California-based
company, countered that the library exists so readers can find
books.  He said the library has "revolutionized the way people
find authors and books."

The Authors Guild had appealed a judge's ruling that tossed out
its lawsuit, saying the Internet giant is violating copyright laws
by failing to make transformative "fair use" under copyright law
of the books it copies.  The author's group wants Google Inc. to
pay $750 for each of the more than 20 million copyright books it
has already copied.

"In our view, the entire book search program is fair use,"
Mr. Waxman said.

Mr. Waxman argued that libraries across the country and Google
have combined in the project to transform books for new uses that
do not violate copyright laws, including offering snippets of
works in its online library.

The copyrights on many books in Google's digital library have
already expired so they would not be subject to any award the
Authors Guild would secure if it wins its appeal.

At one point on Dec. 3, Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes asked
Mr. Smith: "What is it you want from us?"

Mr. Smith answered that he wants the judges to overturn the lower-
court ruling and direct the judge to find in favor of the Authors
Guild, enabling it to collect damages on behalf of authors.

The appeals court did not immediately rule.


HALE & HEARTY: "Olivares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Olivares, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C, Hale & Hearty Holding
L.L.C, Hale and Hearty Services, LLC, Hale and Hearty Wholesale,
LLC, John Doe Corporations 1-33, Simon Jacobs and Bruce Rogers,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09446 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants using the
common trade name Hale & Hearty in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME CARE SERVICES: "Nesterova" Suit Removed to NY District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kwabena Achampong, Gladys Confident, Inna Dorman
removed the class action lawsuit styled Nesterova v. Home Care
Services for Independent Living, Inc. d/b/a HCS for Independent
Living, et al., Case No. 509763/2014, from the Supreme Court of
State of New York, Kings County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-06978 to the proceeding.

The action seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI, P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1020
          New York, NY 10007
          E-mail: rw@rwapc.com

The Individual Defendants are represented by:

          Roshni Chaudhari, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 453-5949
          Facsimile: (212) 453-5959
          E-mail: rchaudhari@fordharrison.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Russ" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Russ, on behalf of those similarly situated v. Home Depot
USA, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-62707 (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Home Depot USA, Inc. owns and operates home improvement retail
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO, PA
      100 N. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2902
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (609) 335-1586
      E-mail: erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com


HOMETEAM PEST: Accused of Illegal Market Competition Stategies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Garnica, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated consumers v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Rollins, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05243 (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants engaged in a two-fold strategy to stop
competition in the secondary market for servicing tube-in-the-wall
systems, specifically by threatening to sue and actually sued any
company that attempted to service customers with the tube-in-the-
wall pest system and obtaining a patent for a special locking port
cover specifically designed to lock out competitors and provide
evidence if anyone other than HomeTeam serviced the system.

Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc. is a pest control company that
specializes in a providing a unique form of pest control through
the tube-in-the-wall system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Rex Parris, Esq.
      Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
      Patricia K. Oliver, Esq.
      R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
      43364 10th Street West
      Lancaster, CA 93534
      Telephone: (661) 949-2595
      Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
      E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
              awheeler@rrexparris.com
              poliver@rrexparris.com

         - and -

      Don Howarth, Esq.
      Suzelle M. Smith, Esq.
      Jessica L. Rankin, Esq.
      HOWARTH & SMITH
      523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      Telephone: (213) 955-9400
      Facsimile: (213) 622-0791
      E-mail: dhowarth@howarth-smith.com
              ssmith@howarth-smith.com
              jrankin@howarth-smith.com


         - and -

      David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
      Jason C. Evans, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &PENFIELD LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
              gmb@cglaw.com
              jrobinson@cglaw.com
              jevans@cglaw.com


HSBC BANK: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Improper Interest Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, Case No. 1:14-cv-09525 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for improperly
charging customers of its credit card accounts late fees and
interest charges, and for providing inaccurate disclosure
documents.

HSBC Bank USA, NA is a financial corporation doing business in the
State of New York and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Miller
      BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      26 Broadway, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 248-7906

         - and -

      Harley J. Schnall, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL
      711 West End Avenue
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 678-6546


IC SYSTEMS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Kassin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I.C. Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-
cv-07433 (D.N.J., December 1, 2014), seeks to redress the
Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

I.C. Systems, Inc. is a collection agency located at 444 Highway
96 East, St. Paul, MN 55164.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IRIDIUM RESTAURANT: "Mesinas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Mesinas, Luis Ortega and Ricardo Trujillo, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Iridium Restaurant
Corp. (d/b/a Bread), and 450 Hudson LLC(d/b/a Bread), Dario
Milanin, Lia Comandatore Milanin, and Luigi Comandatore, Case No.
1:14-cv-09417 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Italian restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC.
      60 East 42nd Street Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


KENILWORTH ASSET: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Securities Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Johnsen v. Robert C. Acri and Kenilworth Asset Management,
LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09585 (N.D. Ill., December 1, 2014) is
brought over alleged violations of securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall J. Burt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL J. BURT
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1999
          Facsimile: (312) 456-0237
          E-mail: Marshall@mjburtlaw.com


KMART CORPORATION: Calif. Court Sends "Mill" Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, in a Nov. 26, 2014, order,
granted the motion of Kmart Corporation and Sears Holding
Management Corporation to compel arbitration and stay an
employees' class action pursuant to the arbitration agreement
introduced in 2010 under which participating employees and the
defendants waived their right to pursue employment-related claims
in court in favor of submitting those disputes to binding
arbitration.

The case is KERRY MILL, Plaintiff, v. KMART CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-02749-KAW (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text
copy of Magistrate Westmore's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/3Q1kNufrom Leagle.com.

Kerry Mill, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Setareh
Law Group & Neil Michael Larsen, Setareh Law Group.

KMART Corporation, an Illinois corporation, Defendant, represented
by Christian N Brown, Esq. -- cbrown@orrick.com -- at Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe & Joseph Charles Liburt, Esq. --
jliburt@orrick.com -- at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Sears Holdings Management Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Christian N Brown, Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe & Joseph Charles Liburt, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.


KUM & GO: "Claxton" Suit Remains in Missouri Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas Harpool of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Southern Division, denied a motion to remand
a class action lawsuit styled COLTON CLAXTON, Plaintiff, v. KUM &
GO, L.C. d/b/a KUM & GO, Defendant, CASE NO. 6:14-CV-03385-MDH
(W.D. Mo.), after finding that the defendant met its burden to
prove the jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of the
evidence and the Plaintiff failed to rebut that evidence by
proving to a legal certainty that the claims are for less than
$75,000.

Judge Harpool also denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count
I -- violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act -- as
the Plaintiff presented sufficient facts to allow the Defendant to
prepare a defense to the MMPA charges.

A full-text copy of Judge Harpool's Nov. 26, 2014, order is
available at http://is.gd/Cm3L4Gfrom Leagle.com.

Colton Claxton, Plaintiff, represented by Craig R. Heidemann, Esq.
-- cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com -- at Douglas, Haun & Heidemann,
Jennifer N. Fields, Esq., at Douglas, Haun & Heidemann & Nathan A.
Duncan, Esq. -- nduncan@bolivarlaw.com -- at Douglas, Haun &
Heidemann.

Kum & Go, L.C., Defendant, represented by Tristan L. Duncan, Esq.
-- tlduncan@shb.com -- at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Zach
Chaffee-McClure, Esq. -- zmcclure@shb.com -- at Shook, Hardy &
Bacon, LLP.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: To Fight Securities Suit Amendment if Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. intends to move to dismiss an amended
securities complaint, which is scheduled to be filed by December
15, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer,
chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012 and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On October 14,
2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
and the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are scheduled to file an amended complaint
by December 15, 2014. The Company intends to move to dismiss
plaintiffs' expected amended complaint.


MERITOR INC: Settles Antitrust Lawsuit Over Filters in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. settled with the remaining plaintiffs in antitrust
litigations in Canada over automotive filter products, according
to the company's Nov. 20, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept.
28, 2014.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated
corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit was a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants. In April 2012, the company settled with the
U.S. indirect purchasers for $3.1 million. In August 2012, the
company entered into a settlement agreement for the remaining
claims with the U.S. direct purchasers for $8.3 million. During
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013, the company settled with
the remaining plaintiffs in the litigation actions in Canada for
an immaterial amount.


MUD CONTROL: "Legros" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Legros, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Mud Control Equipment,Co., Case No. 4:14-cv-03410 (S.D. Tex.,
November 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mud Control Equipment, Co. is a full-service solids control
company providing solids control equipment and personnel to the
oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


MUNDO CLEANING: Faces "Pelaez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elda Pelaez, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees v. Mundo Cleaning Services, Inc. and Manuel Remache,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09463 (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mundo Cleaning Services, Inc. provides janitorial services to
commercial establishments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Copper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcplaw.com


NBTY INC: Still Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a
class-action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall
Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
according to NBTY's Nov. 24, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third-party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third-party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and that motion is pending.

At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on the part
of NBTY, however the company does not believe the ultimate outcome
will have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated
financial statements.


NBTY INC: Settlement of Suit Over Dietary Supplements Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court issued a decision granting an appeal by those
who object to a settlement entered by NBTY, Inc. with the
remaining claimants in the consumer case over its Glucosamine-
based dietary supplements, according to the company's Nov. 24,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain wholesale customers as to which the company may have
certain indemnification obligations. The Nunez Case settled on an
individual basis on June 20, 2013.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
remaining plaintiffs, which includes all cases and resolves all
pending claims without any admission of or concession of liability
by NBTY, and which provides for a release of all claims in return
for payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and
notice and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on
October 4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the
court issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as
modified (the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January
22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain objectors filed a notice of
appeal of the Order and the Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2014. On
November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision granting
the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and remanded
the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12 million
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees, and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to $6
million. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected in
the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014. Until the
cases are resolved, no final determination can be made as to the
ultimate outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability on
the part of NBTY.


NEW YORK: Police & Corrections Officers Sued Over Illegal Arrest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darnell Boatwright v. PO Weldon, 113 Pct., PO Aaron Lohman, 113
Pct PO Michael Moran, 113 Pct,  Sgt. Robert Bracero, 113 Pct.,
PO John Doe, 1-5, Police Officers Jane Doe 6-10 Doe, Corrections
Officers 1-6, Captain CO Doe 7, NYC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
06975 (E.D.N.Y., December 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for falsely arresting, imprisoning and maliciously
prosecuting the Plaintiff in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The Individual Defendants are Police and Correction Officers of
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darrell Andrew Marshall, Esq.
      D. ANDREW MARSHALL, ESQ.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1410
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 571-3030
      Facsimile: (212) 571-1441
      E-mail: marshall.law4@verizon.net


NHU LAN BAKERY: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. NHU Lan Bakery Corporation and Lee Tran,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09531 (N.D. Ill., November 26, 2014), seeks to
recover overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOVELL INC: Directors Win Summary Judgment in Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former shareholders of Novell, Inc., a corporation that completed
a merger and a patent sale in April 2011, allege that members of
Novell's board of directors acted in bad faith by treating bidders
differently for reasons other than pursuit of the best interests
of the corporation and its stockholders.  The Defendants have
moved for summary judgment on the bad faith claims, contending
that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the
reasonableness of their sales process or their motives.

In a memorandum opinion dated Nov. 25, 2014, the Court of Chancery
of Delaware, granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
after finding, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have not
supplied a factual basis for concluding that the Board acted with
improper motives.  In this case, the Plaintiffs, the Court noted,
have not provided evidence of -- or even alleged -- materials
conflicts held by a majority of the members of the Board, any
members who could have dominated the sales process, or the
professional advisors upon which the Board relied.

The case is IN RE NOVELL, INC., SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION,
CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 6032-VCN (Del. Ch.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/CsMji6from Leagle.com.

Stuart M. Grant, Esquire -- sgrant@gelaw.com -- Cynthia A. Calder,
Esquire -- ccalder@gelaw.com -- and Mary S. Thomas, Esquire --
mthomas@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; James Banko, Esquire -- jbanko@faruqilaw.com -- of
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; and Mark Lebovitch,
Esquire -- markl@blbglaw.com -- and Amy Miller, Esquire, of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, New York,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Edward P. Welch, Esquire -- edward.welch@skadden.com -- Edward B.
Micheletti, Esquire -- edward.micheletti@skadden.com -- and Cliff
C. Gardner, Esquire -- cgardner@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; and James R.
Carroll, Esquire -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- and Michael S.
Hines, Esquire -- michael.hines@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for
Defendants Albert Aiello, Jr., Fred Corrado, Richard L. Crandall,
Gary G. Greenfield, Judith Hamilton, Ronald W. Hovsepian, Patrick
S. Jones, Richard L. Nolan, and John W. Poduska, Sr.


PIO PIO NYC: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Ramirez and Juan Ramirez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Pio Pio NYC, Inc., Sip An
Restaurant of New York, Inc., Pio Pio Ocho, Inc., Pio Pio 34,
Inc., Pio Pio 85, Inc., Pio Pio Express, Inc., Mochica Group
Corp., Pollos A La Brasa Pio, Pio, Inc., Pio-Pio Restaurant, Inc.,
Ines Y Allico, and Augusto Y Allico, Case No. 1:14-cv-09445
(S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
compensation due to time shaving, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of Peruvian Restaurants
under the common name Pio Pio in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Breach of ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manoj P. Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Radioshack Corporation, et al., 4:14-cv-00959 (N.D.
Tex., November 26, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Radioshack Corporation engages in the retail sale of consumer
electronic goods and services primarily through its chain of
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 560-2201
      Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
      E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net

         - and -

      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
      Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
      Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
      280 King Of Prussia Rd
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      Email: eciolko@ktmc.com
             dmoffa@ktmc.com
             mgyandoh@ktmc.com
             jsjohnson@ktmc.com


ROSCO'S PIZZERIA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Arriaga-Galindo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Rosco's Pizzeria Inc., Wade Hagenbart, Clay Mallow and
Jonathan Greenberg, Case No. 1:14-cv-06993 (E.D.N.Y., December 1,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pizzeria restaurant located at
685 Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11238.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Harrison Braverman, Esq.
      BRAVERMAN LAW PC
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1308
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 206-8166
      Facsimile: (646) 452-3828
      E-mail: abraverman@bravermanpc.com


SERRA MEDICAL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashour Kastiro, Oday Alsoltani, Said Natsheh, Alhareth Ali Aloudi
and Reyadh Almehamedawy v. Serra Medical Transportation, Inc.,
Serra Yellow Cab, Talib Salamin and Does 1-20, Case No. 2:14-at-
01509 (E.D. Cal., November 26, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Serra Medical Transportation, Inc. provides largely municipal and
state funded transportation to disabled or injured persons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley S. Mallison, Esq.
      MALLISON AND MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 832-9999
      E-mail: stanm@themmlawfirm.com


SIDCO FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Garcia and Benito Sanchez v. Sidco Food Distribution Corp.
d/b/a Sidco Foods, and Jose Negron, individually, Case No. 1:14-
cv-09449 (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2014) seeks monetary damages and
affirmative relief because the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
the Plaintiffs at a rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate
for hours worked over 40 in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law and other appropriate rules,
regulations, statutes and ordinances.

Sidco Food Distribution Corp. is a domestic limited liability
corporation organized in New York and headquartered in Bronx, New
York.  The Company is engaged in the food distribution business.
Jose Negron owns or operates the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631)499-9100


STARTEX INDUSTRIES: Faces "Arellano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Arellano, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Startex Industries, Inc., and Pritee D.
Kapadia, Case No. 1:14-cv-09550 (N.D. Ill., November 29, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures office
and home furniture and decoration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


SUQUI EXPRESS: "Dulanto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dino Dulanto and Jaime Villavicentio, on behalf of himself FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Suqui Express Cutting Inc.
d/b/a Mint Cutter Corp., Cohen Zui, Mike [Lnu] and Suky [Lnu],
Case No. 1:14-cv-06955 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a clothes factory located at 128
32nd Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURI SOUTH: Faces "Raynosa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Reynosa, and other similarly situated individuals v. Suri
South Beach, Inc. d/b/a D'vine Hookah Lounge, a Florida
corporation and Claudia Herman, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
24525 (S.D. Fla., November 28, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay  overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami Beach,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Brockman" Suit Over Viptera Corn
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Brockman, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and,
Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-04879 (D. Minn., December
1, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters,
and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing,
harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the
time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Wendorf, Esq.
      Garrett D. Blanchfield Jr., Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
      E-mail: m.wendorf@rwblawfirm.com
              g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Ahmadi" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Ahmadi, d/b/a Southeast Enterprises and John Henry Ellis,
III, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v.
Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01001 (M.D.N.C.,
November 30, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain
airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting
vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently
explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal
debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew H. R. Brown, Esq.
      James Robert Faucher, Esq.
      BENSON, BROWN & FAUCHER, PLLC
      822 N. Elm St., Ste. 200
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 478-6000
      E-mail: dbrown@bensonbrownfaucher.com
              jfaucher@bensonbrownfaucher.com

         - and -

     Jeffrey K. Peraldo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY K. PERALDO, P.A.
     500-D State St.
     Greensboro, NC 27405
     Telephone: (336) 458-0058
     Facsimile: (336) 458-0117
     E-mail: jkp@greensborolawyer.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Considine" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Considine, Michael Karolak, and Kristen Parker, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02958 (M.D. Fla., November
26, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags
manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle
occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode
and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris
and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron M. Swift, Esq.
      Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
      J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
      LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
      3900 First St N Ste 100
      St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
      Telephone: (727) 327-3328
      Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
      E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com
              ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
              ameyer@leavenlaw.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Dunleavy" Suit Over Defective Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Dunleavy on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09459
(S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts
of metal debris and shrapnel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William C. Carmody, Esq.
      Arun Subramanian, Esq.
      Seth Ard, Esq.
      Tamar E. Lusztig
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10022-6828
      Telephone: (212) 336-8330
      Facsimilie: (212) 336-8340

         - and -

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310)789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      John D. Zaremba, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWNELL &BROWNE PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 380-6700


TRI COUNTY COMMERCIAL: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Cruz Lopez and all others similarly situated v. A Tri
County Commercial Laundry, LLC and Dieter M. Schneider, Case No.
0:14-cv-62701 (S.D. Fla., November 28, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.

A Tri County Commercial Laundry, LLC provides hotel laundry
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRINITY MISSION: "Mullen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tawanda Mullen, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
Trinity Mission Health & Rehab of Great Oaks, LLC d/b/a TM H&R of
Great Oaks, LLC, Ark Mississippi Holding Company, LLC, and
Christopher J. Murphy, Case No. 3:14-cv-00254 (N.D. Miss.,
December 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a skilled nursing home facility
located in Byhalia, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER W. ESPY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      P.O. Box 13722
      Jackson, MS 39236-3772
      Telephone: (601) 812-5300
      E-mail: chris.espy@espylawpllc.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Goldberg" Suit to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Goldberg v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-3388G, was removed from the Suffolk
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-14264 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the manner in which the Defendants conducted
background checks violated the Massachusetts Consumer Credit
Reporting Act and the Massachusetts Criminal Offender Record
Information law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Marshall, Esq.
          THE MARSHALL LAW FIRM
          50 Station Landing, Suite 606
          Medford, MA 02155

               - and -

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
                  khurley@gordonllp.com

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier LLC are represented
by:

          Carie A. Torrence, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378-6035
          E-mail: ctorrence@littler.com


VBI VACCINES: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Furlong Fund LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. VBI Vaccines, Inc. (f/k/a Paulson Capital (Delaware)
Corp., f/k/a Paulson Capital Corp.), Chester L.F. Paulson, Charles
L.F. Paulson, Paul F. Shoen, Dr. Shannon Pratt, and Trent Davis,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09435 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

VBI Vaccines, Inc. is formerly known as Paulson Capital Corp. and
is one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the Pacific
Northwest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
              nespole@whafh.com

         - and -

      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4957
      Facsimile: (302)397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewssprinRer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
              dsborz@andrewsspringer.com


VICTIM SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Breazeale" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Breazeale, Karen Solberg and Kevin Hiep Vu, on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Victim
Services, Inc., d/b/a Corrective Solutions, National Corrective
Group, Inc. d/b/a Corrective Solutions, and Mats Jonsson, Case No.
3:14-cv-05266 (N.D. Cal., December 1, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' unfair, fraudulent, practices unlawful of collection
debt.

The Defendants own and operate a private debt-collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

         - and -

      Paul Arons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
      685 Spring Street, Suite 04
      Friday Harbor, WA 98250
      Telephone: (360) 378-6496
      Facsimile: (360) 378-6498
      E-mail: lopa@rockisland.com

         - and -

      Deepak Gupta, Esq.
      GUPTA BECK PLLC
      1735 20th Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 888-1741
      Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
      E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com


VISA INC: "Attridge" Still Stayed Pending Appeals in Other Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Attridge case against against Visa U.S.A., Visa International
and MasterCard. Visa Inc. has been stayed pending final resolution
of appeals in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, according to Visa
Inc.'s Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 8, 2004, a complaint was filed in California state
court on behalf of an alleged class of consumers asserting claims
against Visa U.S.A., Visa International and MasterCard. Visa Inc.
was later added as a defendant. The remaining claims in this
action, Attridge v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., allege that Visa's
bylaw 2.10(e) and MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy, which
prohibited their respective members from issuing American Express
or Discover cards, constitute unlawful restraints of trade under
California's Unfair Competition Law, and seek restitution,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In the separate "Indirect Purchaser" Credit/Debit Card Tying
Cases, also pending in California state court, an appeals court
reversed the trial court's approval of a settlement agreement, and
the case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the
fairness and adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusion
of the Attridge claims in the release. The trial court
subsequently granted final approval of a revised written
settlement agreement. Objectors filed notices of appeal in the
Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases and the Attridge case. An appeals
court affirmed the judgment approving the revised written
settlement agreement. Certain objectors filed petitions for
rehearing. The Attridge case has been stayed pending final
resolution of those appeals.


VISA INC: Continues to Settle Interchange Multidistrict Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. is continuing to settle the Interchange Multidistrict
Litigation, which remains subject to appeals, according to the
company's Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Beginning in May 2005, a series of complaints (the majority of
which were styled as class actions) were filed in U.S. federal
district courts by merchants against Visa U.S.A., Visa
International and/or MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa
member financial institutions. The complaints challenged, among
other things, Visa's and MasterCard's purported setting of
interchange reimbursement fees, their "no surcharge" rules, and
alleged tying and bundling of transaction fees under the federal
antitrust laws, and, in some cases, certain state unfair
competition laws. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial
proceedings in MDL 1720. A group of purported class plaintiffs
subsequently filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint which, together with the complaints brought by
individual merchants, sought money damages alleged to range in the
tens of billions of dollars (subject to trebling), as well as
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The class plaintiffs also
filed a Second Supplemental Class Action Complaint against Visa
Inc. and certain member financial institutions challenging Visa's
reorganization and IPO under the antitrust laws and seeking
unspecified money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief,
including an order that the IPO be unwound.

The Company and the individual merchants whose claims were
consolidated with the MDL (the "Individual Plaintiffs") signed a
settlement agreement to resolve the Individual Plaintiffs' claims
against the Company for approximately $350 million. This payment
was made from the litigation escrow account on October 29, 2012,
and the court has dismissed those claims with prejudice.

In addition, Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International,
MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated,
various U.S. financial institution defendants, and the class
plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the class plaintiffs' claims. The terms of
the Settlement Agreement include, among other terms:

* A comprehensive release from participating class members for
liability arising out of claims asserted in the litigation, and a
further release to protect against future litigation regarding
default interchange and the other U.S. rules at issue in the MDL;

* Settlement payments from the Company of approximately $4.0
billion;

* Distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis
points of default interchange across all credit rate categories
for a period of eight consecutive months, which otherwise would
have been paid to issuers and which effectively reduces credit
interchange for that period of time. The eight month period for
the reduction would begin within 60 days after completion of the
court-ordered period during which individual class members may opt
out of this settlement;

* Certain modifications to the Company's rules, including
modifications to permit surcharging on credit transactions under
certain circumstances, subject to a cap and a level playing field
with other general purpose card competitors; and

* Agreement that the Company will meet with merchant buying groups
that seek to negotiate interchange rates collectively.

On December 10, 2012, Visa paid approximately $4.0 billion from
the litigation escrow account into a settlement fund established
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment order
approving the settlement, from which a number of objectors have
appealed. Until the appeals are finally adjudicated, no assurance
can be provided that the Company will be able to resolve the class
plaintiffs' claims as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. On
January 27, 2014, Visa's portion of the takedown payments related
to the opt-out merchants, which was calculated to be approximately
$1.1 billion, was deposited into the litigation escrow account.


VISA INC: Consumer Interchange Suit Defendants Move to Junk Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the Consumer Interchange Litigation have filed a
motion to dismiss the suit, which case has been transferred to MDL
1720, according to Visa Inc.'s Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 16, 2013, a putative class action was filed in federal
district court in California against certain financial
institutions alleging that they conspired to fix interchange fees
and imposed other alleged restraints on competition. The complaint
was filed on behalf of an alleged class of all Visa and MasterCard
payment cardholders in the United States since January 1, 2000.
Although no Visa entity is named as a defendant, the complaint
identifies Visa U.S.A., MasterCard, and certain non-defendant
financial institutions as co-conspirators, and plaintiffs assert
that they may seek leave to amend the complaint to add the co-
conspirators as defendants. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and treble damages allegedly to compensate the
purported class for more than $54.0 billion dollars in purported
overcharges imposed on them each year by defendants and their
alleged co-conspirators. The defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss. The case has been transferred to MDL 1720.


VISA INC: Updates on Interchange Opt-out Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. provided information about Interchange Opt-out
Litigation in its Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept.
30, 2014.

Beginning in May 2013, more than 35 opt-out cases have been filed
by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts,
generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those
raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations
that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or
conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and
one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer
network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated, although some also include certain
U.S. financial institutions as defendants. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
and its subsidiaries have filed an opt-out complaint that also
adds Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. as
defendants. Visa has acknowledged and confirmed its obligations to
indemnify Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. with
respect to the claim against them in Wal-Mart's complaint.

Visa, MasterCard, and certain U.S. financial institution
defendants in MDL 1720 filed a complaint in the Eastern District
of New York against certain named class representative plaintiffs
who had opted out or stated their intention to opt out of the
damages portion of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, Visa
filed three more similar complaints in the Eastern District of New
York against Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; against The Home Depot, Inc.
and Home Depot U.S.A.; and against Sears Holdings Corporation. All
four complaints seek a declaration that, from January 1, 2004 to
November 27, 2012, the time period for which opt-outs may seek
damages under the Settlement Agreement, Visa's conduct in, among
other things, continuing to set default interchange rates,
maintaining its "honor all cards" rule, enforcing certain rules
relating to merchants, and restructuring itself, did not violate
federal or state antitrust laws.

Visa and the other defendants in the opt-out cases in MDL 1720
filed a motion to dismiss the then-pending opt-out complaints in
MDL 1720. Wal-Mart and the named class representatives that are
defendants in the declaratory judgment cases in MDL 1720 filed
motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment complaints, and Visa
filed a motion to dismiss Wal-Mart's complaint. All of these
motions to dismiss were denied.

All the cases filed in federal court have been either assigned to
the judge presiding over MDL 1720, or have been transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for inclusion in MDL
1720. The court has entered an order confirming that In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
1:05-md-01720-JG-JO (E.D.N.Y.), includes (1) all current and
future actions transferred to MDL 1720 by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation or other order of any court for inclusion
in coordinated or pretrial proceedings, and (2) all actions filed
in the Eastern District of New York that arise out of operative
facts as alleged in the cases subject to the transfer orders of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Cases that are
transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720 are covered
litigation for purposes of the retrospective responsibility plan.

Visa has reached settlement agreements with a number of merchants
representing approximately 10% of the Visa-branded payment card
sales volume of merchants who opted out. The amount of the
settlements is not considered material to the consolidated
financial statements.

A similar case has been filed by merchants in Texas state court,
generally pursuing claims on allegations similar to those raised
in MDL 1720. On September 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in that case
filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding standing.


VISA INC: Settlement of Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court affirmed the judgment approving the revised
written settlement agreement in the Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,
and certain objectors filed petitions for rehearing, according to
Visa Inc.'s Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept.
30, 2014.

From 2000 to 2004, complaints were filed on behalf of consumers in
nineteen different states and the District of Columbia against
Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard (and, in California, Visa
International). The complaints allege, among other things, that
Visa U.S.A.'s "honor all cards" rule and a similar MasterCard rule
violated state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and common
law. The claims in these class actions asserted that merchants,
faced with excessive merchant discount fees, passed on some
portion of those fees to consumers in the form of higher prices on
goods and services sold. Plaintiffs seek money damages and
injunctive relief. Visa has been successful in the majority of
these cases, and has resolved the cases in all jurisdictions but
California.

In California, in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases,
the court dismissed claims brought under the Cartwright Act, but
denied a similar motion with respect to Unfair Competition Law
claims for unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices.
The parties agreed to settlement terms to resolve the dispute,
which was granted final approval. The plaintiff in Attridge filed
a notice of appeal from the final approval order, as did other
objectors to the settlement. An appeals court reversed the
judgment approving the settlement agreement, and the case was
remanded to the trial court for consideration of the fairness and
adequacy of the settlement in light of the inclusion of the
Attridge claims in the release. The parties subsequently agreed
upon a revised written settlement agreement, which was granted
final approval. An appeals court affirmed the judgment approving
the revised written settlement agreement, and certain objectors
filed petitions for rehearing.


VISA INC: Canadian Competition Proceedings in Abeyance, Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant Lawsuits against Visa Canada in Quebec, Ontario,
Alberta, and Saskatchewan are either being held in abeyance or are
effectively stayed pending further proceedings in a British
Columbia lawsuit, according to Visa Inc.'s Nov. 21, 2014, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Beginning in December 2010, a number of purported civil follow-on
cases to the Competition Bureau's proceeding were filed in Quebec,
British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta against Visa
Canada, MasterCard, and ten financial institutions on behalf of
purported classes of merchants and others that accept payment by
Visa and MasterCard. In Saskatchewan, a separate action was filed
against Visa Canada Corporation and Visa Inc., two MasterCard
entities, and a number of smaller Canadian issuing banks that are
not named as defendants in any of the existing proceedings. The
purported class action lawsuits allege conduct contrary to Section
45 of Canada's Competition Act and also assert claims of civil
conspiracy, interference with economic interests, and unjust
enrichment, among others. Plaintiffs allege that Visa and
MasterCard each conspired with their member financial institutions
to set supra-competitive default interchange rates and merchant
discount fees, and that Visa and MasterCard's respective "no-
surcharge" and "honor all cards" policies had the anticompetitive
effect of increasing merchant discount fees.

On March 26, 2014, the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Watson
v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., granted the plaintiffs'
application for class certification in part, allowing plaintiffs
to proceed as a class on, among other claims, claims for price
fixing under Canada's Competition Act. Both plaintiff and
defendants are appealing aspects of the certification decision to
the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The lawsuits in Quebec,
Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan are either being held in
abeyance or are effectively stayed pending further proceedings in
the British Columbia lawsuit.

The pending Canada Merchant Litigation lawsuits largely seek
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief, but some
allege substantial damages.


VISA INC: Plaintiff in Data Pass Litigation Amends Claims Anew
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the Data Pass Litigation that names Visa Inc., filed
a second amended class action complaint against the same
defendants as in the amended complaint, asserting the same claims,
according to the company's Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On November 19, 2010, a consumer filed an amended class action
complaint against Webloyalty.com, Inc., Gamestop Corporation, and
Visa Inc. in federal district court in Connecticut. The plaintiff
claims, among other things, that consumers who made online
purchases at merchants were deceived into also incurring charges
for services from Webloyalty.com through the alleged unauthorized
passing of cardholder account information during the sales
transaction ("data pass"), in violation of federal and state
consumer protection statutes and common law. Visa allegedly aided
and abetted the conduct of the other defendants. Plaintiff seeks
certification of a class of persons and entities whose credit card
or debit card data was improperly accessed by Webloyalty.com since
October 1, 2008, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief. Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa each filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted as to the
claims that are grounded in fraud. The court reserved decision on
whether all of the claims in the amended complaint are grounded in
fraud, and granted plaintiff leave to file a further amended
complaint. On August 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended
class action complaint against the same defendants as in the
amended complaint, asserting the same claims.


VISA INC: Amended Complaint Filed in U.S. ATM Access Fee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National ATM Council and non-bank ATM operators filed an
amended class action complaint against Visa Inc., Visa
International, Visa U.S.A., and Plus System, Inc. over the ATM
access fee rule, according to Visa Inc.'s Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On October 12, 2011, the National ATM Council and thirteen non-
bank ATM operators filed a class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa
Inc., Visa International, Visa U.S.A., and Plus System, Inc.) and
MasterCard in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar
MasterCard rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge
consumers an access fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee
cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on
other networks. Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and seek damages "in an amount not presently
known, but which is tens of millions of dollars, prior to
trebling," injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs
filed an amended class action complaint against the same
defendants, also asserting that the ATM access fee rule violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs request treble damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.


VISA INC: Nixing of Consumer Suit Over ATM Access Fee Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported consumer class action against Visa Inc.
over ATM access fee rules filed notices of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding
the dismissal of the case, according to the company's Nov. 21,
2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

In October 2011, a purported consumer class action was filed
against Visa and MasterCard in the same federal court challenging
the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class
actions were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court,
and were later combined into a single amended complaint which
challenges the same ATM access fee rules and names Visa,
MasterCard and three financial institutions as defendants. These
consumer class actions purport to represent classes and sub-
classes of consumers in claims brought under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, and also allege claims under antitrust and/or
consumer protection statutes in certain states and the District of
Columbia. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
treble damages, and restitution where available under state law.
On February 13, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaints in the National ATM Council class action
and the consumer class actions, and dismissed the cases without
prejudice. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
subsequently denied plaintiffs' motions for leave to file amended
complaints in the National ATM Council class action and the
consumer class actions, and denied plaintiffs' motions for an
order altering or amending the court's February 13, 2013 judgment.
Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.


VISA INC: Target Data Breach Suit Remains Stayed After Remand
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case against Visa Inc. over the Target Corp. "data breach"
remains stayed, according to Visa Inc.'s Nov. 21, 2014, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On March 3, 2014, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah against Target, Visa and
MasterCard alleging, among other things, violations of Utah unfair
competition law, invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of
contract as a result of unauthorized access in November and
December 2013 to certain personal information and payment card
data stored by Target. The complaint also alleges that Visa and
MasterCard unlawfully failed to implement chip technology in the
United States. The complaint seeks damages, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On April 4, 2014, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
conditionally transferring the action to an existing MDL related
to the Target data breach where Visa has not been a party in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, In re Target
Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2522. Visa
and MasterCard filed a motion to separate and remand the claims
against them, or alternatively, to remand the action in its
entirety. The motion was granted, and the claims against Visa and
MasterCard were severed and remanded to the District of Utah. The
case remains stayed.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Keller and David Shane Waites, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. Weatherford International,
LLC f/k/a Weatherford International, Inc. and Precision Energy
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01615 (W.D. Pa., November 26,
2014), seeks to recover overtime wages for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a week.

Weatherford International, LLC provides equipment and services
used in the drilling, evaluation, completion, production, and
intervention of oil and natural gas wells worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-4656
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net


WINDSOR SURRY: Falsely Marketed Trim Board Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
McLane Cover, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Windsor Surry Company, d/b/a Windsorone, and Windsor
Willits Company, d/b/a Windsor Mill, Case No. 3:14-cv-05262 (N.D.
Cal., December 1, 2014), arises out of the Defendants
misrepresentation of their WindsorONE and WindsorONE+ trim bard
products as defect free and more durable, when in fact they
prematurely deteriorate, rot, and decay, resulting in significant
damage to property owners.

The Defendants engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing, and
sale of Trim Board that has been installed in numerous offices,
buildings, homes, and other structures throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael McShane, Esq.
      Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
              jmann@audetlaw.com

         - and -

      Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
      BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
      222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2955
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 252-3570

          - and -

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      Brian F. Fox, Esq.
      LEVIN FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (877) 882-1011


ZHONGPIN INC: Del. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Shareholders' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware, in a Nov. 26, 2014, memorandum
opinion, denied motions to dismiss a class action complaint filed
by stockholders of Zhongpin Inc., after determining that the
plaintiffs have pled facts raising an inference that Xianfu Zhu,
Zhongpin's chief executive officer and chairman of its board of
director, was a controller and that going-private merger that
closed in 2013 was not entirely fair to the unaffiliated
stockholders.  In this case, the plaintiffs contend that the slim
majority of unaffiliated stockholders who approved merger were
beholden to Zhu, who owned approximately 17.3% of Zhongpin's
common stock, due to their financial interests.

The case is IN RE ZHONGPIN INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION,
CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 7393-VCN (Del. Ch.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/hNlS7ofrom Leagle.com.

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esquire -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long,
Esquire -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- and Gina M. Serra Esquire --
gms@rl-legal.com -- of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; Donald J. Enright Esquire -- denright@zlk.com -- of Levi
& Korsinsky LLP, Washington, DC; and Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esquire
-- gfbruckner@pomlaw.com -- and Ofer Ganot, Esquire --
oganot@pomlaw.com -- of Pomerantz LLP, New York, New York,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Robert S. Saunders, Esquire -- rob.saunders@skadden.com -- Nicole
A. DiSalvo, Esquire -- nicole.disalvo@skadden.com -- and Matthew
P. Majarian, Esquire -- matthew.majarian@skadden.com -- of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, Delaware;
and Eric S. Waxman Esquire -- eric.waxman@skadden.com -- of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Defendants Xianfu Zhu and Baoke Ben.

S. Mark Hurd, Esquire -- shurd@mnat.com -- and Matthew R. Clark
Esquire -- mclark@mnat.com -- of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; and Robert H. Pees, Esquire --
rpees@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New
York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Raymond Leal, Yaoguo Pan,
and Xiaosong Hu.


                              *********

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  * * *