CAR_Public/141211.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 246


                             Headlines

ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal in Health Center Suit Still Pending
ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs Claims Proceeding With FTC
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Factors for Class Suit Deal Approval Issued
AKI'S FINE: Recalls Pickle and Chutney Products Due to Mustard
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York

APRIA HEALTHCARE: March 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Among Defendants in Antitrust Class Action
AQUA LUNG: Recalls SureLock II Weight Pocket Handles
AT&T INC: Sued for Barring 100% Black-Owned Media From Being Paid
AVESTA HOMES: Denies Overtime Wages to Class Members, Suit Says

B.H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Seasoning Mix Due to Undeclared Peanut
BILL COSBY: Sex Abuse Victim Mulls Class Action
BITCASA INC: Court Denies Sealing Motion in "Romack" Class Action
BMW: Recalls Cooper and Cooper S Models
CAREFUSION CORP: Facing Class Action Over Becton Dickinson Merger

CAREVANTAGE MEDICAL: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
CCC-BOONE LLC: Schneider Case Remanded to Watauga Cty Super. Ct.
COOPER TIRE: Increases Products Liability Reserve in 3rd Quarter

COOPER TIRE: Faces OFI Risk Arbitrages Suit Over Apollo Merger
DAESUNG CELTIC: Recalls Tankless Gas Water Heaters
DEPUY (IRELAND): Recalls Attune Fixed Bearing Tibial and Femoral
DIRECTV: California Class Action Over AT&T Merger Stayed
DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid Currently on Appeal

DOLLAR TREE: Bid to Bifurcate Claims in Stafford Case Approved
DURATA THERAPEUTICS: Inks MOU to Resolve Merger Class Suits
EL POLLO: Faces Class Action by Former Employee in Orange, Calif.
ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq (2014-11-07)
ELI LILLY: Sued Over Injuries Arising From Cymbalta Withdrawal

FAST EVICTION: Violates TCPA in California, Class Suit Claims
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FIRST STEP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FORD: Recalls Transit Model Due to Fuel Filter Mounting Bracket

FORD: Recalls Transit Connect Model Due to Potential Fuel Leak
FOREST RIVER: Recalls Salem and Wildwood Models
FOX HILL: Recalls Underprocessed Cheese House Quark
FRED DEELEY: Recalls Softail Slim Model
GAMBRO RENAL: Recalls Polyflux Revaclear Dialyzers (2014-11-12)

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Impala Model
GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hill" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
HSS INC: Removes "Scott" Suit to Central District of California

IMMUCOR INC: Recalls TPHA Screen (2014-11-12)
INTELLIGENDER LLC: Case to Have Implications on CAFA Settlements
INTERTHINX INC: Deal With Auditors & Underwriters Has Initial OK
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery Extended
IOVATE HEALTH: Obtains Final Approval of Hydroxycut Case Deal

IQBAL HALAL: Recalls Peek Freans Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk
JAGUAR: Recalls F-Type Model Due to Wiring Harness Configuration
KING COUNTY, WA: Superior Court Order in "Dolan" Case Reversed
LIFE PARTNERS: SEC Penalties May Hamper Investor Class Action
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Brand Yogurt Products Due to Spoilage

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: February 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MOL GLOBAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
MVK GROCERY: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to Florida District Court
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Former Athletes File Class Action in Calif.
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations

NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NEVADA PROPERTY: Significant Discovery Commenced in Class Suit
NEVADA PROPERTY: Formal Dismissal Order Entered in Hotel Suit
NEVADA PROPERTY: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Hotel Case
NEVADA PROPERTY: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination Due to Disability
NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Abrantes" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Accord in "Toth" Case Awaits Court Approval
OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Marco Polo Chocolate Covered Wafer Bars

OSOLEO WILDCRAFTERS: Recalls Unpasteurized Cranberry-Apple Cider
PACKERS SANITATION: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
PEET'S OPERATING: Retaliated Against 87-Year-Old-Man, Suit Says
RAGAN & RAGAN: Illegally Collects Consumer Debts, Suit Claims
RALEIGH RESTAURANT: Holden Case Parties to Proceed to Arbitration

RIPTIDE BY THE BAY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
RSG FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SALLIE MAE: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in 2 TCPA Cases
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Still Faces "Glitz" and "Thornberry" Case
SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Herman" Contract-Related Suit in Florida

SIMPSON UCHITEL: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations in Georgia
STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Sued in E.D. New York for Violating FDCPA
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Arizona Owner-Operator Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Calif. Wage, Meal & Rest Cases

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Montalvo" Minimum Wage Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Calix" Minimum Wage Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Peck" Class Action in California
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Slack" Overtime Class Action
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still to Face "Roberts" Minimum Wage Action

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Cilluffo" Action in Utah
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Class Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement
TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action in BC Over Airbag Defect
TAKATA CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Airbag Defect Cases
TAKATA CORP: Exec Defends Decision Not Initiate Nationwide Recall

TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Nebraska
TRUE NORTH: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
UNITED NORTHERN: Sexually Harassed Gay Loan Originator, Suit Says
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Seek Approval of Settlement
VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

* Jails Take Steps to Abide by 48-Hour Rule After Class Actions
* Tenants Can Seek Overcharges From New York City Landlords


                            *********


ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Appeal in Health Center Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., have
appealed the decision dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the
matter is currently pending, AbbVie said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of federal RICO statutes and state
deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in
connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from
1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable
relief and attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014, the district court
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs
have appealed the district court's decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the matter is
currently pending.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABBVIE INC: Private Plaintiffs Claims Proceeding With FTC
---------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded the private plaintiffs'
claims regarding a patent litigation settlement, which are
proceeding with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) in discovery
in the district court.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in
February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others
were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the
Multi District Litigation Rules as In re AndroGel Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private
plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally
allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham
litigation and the patent litigation settlement agreement and
related agreements with three generic companies violate federal
and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

MDL 2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b)
seven purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. , filed in May 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs'
claims, the FTC's appeal led to its claim regarding the patent
litigation settlement being reinstated.

In February 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit remanded the private plaintiffs' claims regarding
the patent litigation settlement, which are proceeding with the
FTC's in discovery in the district court.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Factors for Class Suit Deal Approval Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SAMANTHA JONES, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABERCROMBIE &
FITCH TRADING CO., an Ohio corporation; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH
STORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C
14-04631 WHA, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup issued a
notice regarding factors to be evaluated for any proposed class
settlement.

The factors are:

1. Adequacy of Representation.
2. Due Diligence.
3. Cost-Benefit for Absent Class Members.
4. The Release.
5. Expansion of the Class.
6. Reversion.
7. Claim Procedure.
8. Attorney's Fees.
9. Dwindling or Minimal Assets?
10. Timing of Proposed Settlement.
11. A Right to Opt Out is Not a Cure-All.
12. Incentive Payment.
13. Notice to Class Members.

A copy of the November 21, 2014 notice is available at
http://is.gd/3scvnUfrom Leagle.com.

Samantha Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Hannan Phelps --
marchannanphelps@gmail.com -- The Phelps Law Group, Bianca
Alexandra Sofonio -- bianca@carterlawfirm.net -- The Carter Law
Firm, Roger Richard Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- The
Carter Law Firm & Scott Bradley Cooper -- scott@cooper-firm.com --
The Cooper Law Firm, P.C.

Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., an Ohio corporation, Defendant,
represented by Douglas R. Young -- dyoung@fbm.com -- Farella Braun
& Martel LLP & Christina Rose Hollander -- chollander@fbm.com --
Farella Braun and Martel LLP.

Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun & Martel LLP & Christina Rose
Hollander, Farella Braun and Martel LLP.


AKI'S FINE: Recalls Pickle and Chutney Products Due to Mustard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Aki's Fine Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9422

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

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

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

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

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

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


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Timinsky, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07059 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APRIA HEALTHCARE: March 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If you received a call from or on behalf of Apria Healthcare,
you could be entitled to benefits under a class action settlement.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

A proposed settlement of a class action entitled Carrie Couser v.
Apria Healthcare, Inc., No. SACV13-00035-JVS (RNBx), has been
reached in United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

Plaintiff claims, among other things, that Apria and its vendors
placed calls to cellular telephones in violation of federal law.
Apria denies any wrongdoing and has asserted defenses.  In
agreeing to settle, Apria does not admit any wrongdoing.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Under the proposed settlement, Apria will provide payments,
vouchers, or debt forgiveness (as applicable), to certain members
of the proposed class.  It may also forgive certain debts owed by
other members of the proposed class.  For details regarding those
payments, please visit www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com
Class Members will also have the option to elect not to receive
calls from or on behalf of Apria.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?

If you remain a Class Member, and the Court approves the
settlement, you will be legally bound by its terms and will
release your claims relating to calls placed by or on behalf of
Apria.

If you want to exclude yourself from this settlement, you must
send a written request specifically stating that you request
exclusion from the settlement to Couser v. Apria Healthcare, c/o
GCG, PO Box 10133, Dublin, OH 43017-3133, postmarked no later than
January 26, 2015.

If you remain a Class Member, you may object to the settlement by
writing to Class Counsel no later than January 26, 2015.  Full
details on how to object or exclude yourself can be found at
www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com

SETTLEMENT HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing on March 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., to
consider whether to approve the settlement, award attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $195,000, and award
Ms. Couser $5,000 for serving as Representative Plaintiff.

You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at your own
expense.  A more detailed Notice and a Claim Form are available at
www.CouserTCPAsettlement.com

The website also explains the Settlement terms in more detail.
You may write to Couser v. Apria Healthcare, c/o GCG, PO Box
10133, Dublin, OH 43017-3133 to request the more detailed Notice
and Claim Form.

TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT, VOUCHER, OR DEBT FORGIVENESS (AS
APPLICABLE), YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM.  YOU MAY COMPLETE AND
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ONLINE BY VISITING
WWW.COUSERTCPASETTLEMENT.COM OR YOU MAY PRINT A COPY OF THE
CLAIM FORM AVAILABLE AT WWW.COUSERTCPASETTLEMENT.COM
COMPLETE IT, AND MAIL IT TO COUSER V. APRIA HEALTHCARE, C/O GCG,
PO BOX 10133, DUBLIN, OH 43017-3133
POSTMARKED BY FEBRUARY 24, 2015.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Among Defendants in Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports
that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire is a
defendant in a national class action suit charging that the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association and its affiliates have engaged
in an anti-competitive conspiracy to lower prices paid to
providers and increase premiums paid by subscribers.

The plaintiffs -- including two subscribers from the Granite
State -- allege that the 37 Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliates
have, through agreements and programs of the national Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, effectively set up monopolies in each
of their territories, colluding to prevent competition with each
other, as well as keep out non-Blues competitors.

"BCBSA is simply a vehicle used by admittedly independent health
insurance companies to conspire, coordinate and enter into
agreements that restrain competition," said one of the amended
consolidated complaints, which were filed on Sept. 30.

Plaintiff GC/AAA Fences Inc., a Dover firm that has used Anthem
coverage for its employees since 2009, referred all questions to
Sean O'Connell, an attorney and director of the Shaheen & Gordon
law firm.  Mr. O'Connell did not respond by deadline.

Plaintiff Erik Barstow, a Portsmouth attorney who has purchased an
individual policy from Anthem since 2012, also could not be
reached. Barstow was once a director of New Hampshire Businesses
for Social Responsibility.

Anthem in New Hampshire declined comment on pending litigation,
but the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association issued a statement
through its public relations firm saying that the suit had no
merit and it would vigorously defend itself.

"The Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which are independent,
community-based and locally operated, provide local solutions that
improve access to affordable, quality healthcare.  The plans have
served this important role for more than 80 years and, during that
time, the Blue model of service has been validated and enforced by
numerous courts and regulatory agencies," the association said.

The litigation, which dates back to the beginning of 2013, and is
now in the preliminary discovery phase, contains two complaints:
one from providers and the other from subscribers.  Both name many
of the same defendants (including Anthem in New Hampshire) and
make many of the same points:

   * Blue Cross and Blue Shield Chapters -- founded in the 1930s
and 1940s -- used to vigorously compete against each other,
encroaching on each other's territories, often several vying for
the same state, said the complaints.  But they formed the
association in the 1980s, effectively preventing this kind of
rivalry. As a result, "the number of Member Plans went from 110 in
1984 to 75 in 1989, to 37 today," according to the complaints.

   * Even though each chapter was supposed to be run as an
independent business, they cooperated in numerous ways to avoid
competing with each other.  They were also prevented from
competing against non-Blue subsidiaries of the defendants.  This
constitutes a "market allocation" conspiracy, they charge.

The defendants also engaged in a "price-fixing and boycott
conspiracy," according to the complaint, partially by
participating in the Blue Card program and a National Accounts
program for employers and employees who get services in various
states.  The programs earn the companies money at the expense of
the providers, and divide up the excess profits, according to the
complaint.

By participating in the plan, the Blues have agreed not to
negotiate directly with providers outside their service area, the
provider complaint charges, and "when Providers believe their
patients are better served by using an out-of-network facility,
the Blues retaliate by threatening to terminate the Providers from
the Blue networks."

The companies also share claims information, which help it
negotiate lower prices, again keeping out competition, according
to the complaint. The result has enabled the company to reduce
payments to providers by an excess of "ten billion dollars a
year."

The complaints also charge that the Blues have veered from their
nonprofit origins, increasingly affiliating with for-profit
insurance companies, particularly WellPoint, the largest health
insurance company in the nation with 37 million enrollees.
WellPoint, which owns Anthem, operates Blues in 14 states.

But WellPoint has said it has been restrained from competing in
the other states, telling the Securities and Exchange Commission
in 2011 that it had "no right to market products and services
using the Blue Cross Blue Shield names and marks outside of the
states in which we are licensed to sell Blue Cross Blue Shield
products."

WellPoint's New Hampshire affiliate has 600,000 members and about
a 44 percent market share in the state, according to the
complaints.

"As the dominant insurer in New Hampshire, BCBS-NH has led the way
in causing supra-competitive prices.  For example, from 2009 to
2010 the cost of insurance coverage for small groups and
individuals rose 15 percent and 39 percent, respectively," the
subscribers' complaint says.  "These rising premiums have enabled
BCBS-NH to lavishly compensate its executives and grow its surplus
in excessive amounts, unusual practices for a self-described
nonprofit organization.  Between 2006 and 2011, BCBS-NH reported
annual income between $26 million and $112 million and a
cumulative profit of approximately $360 million."

Blue Cross stopped being a nonprofit organization in 1999, when it
was acquired by Anthem.


AQUA LUNG: Recalls SureLock II Weight Pocket Handles
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Posting date:             November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42157

Affected products: SureLock II rubber handles on Buoyancy
compensators

The recall involves all Aqua Lung buoyancy compensator vests with
SureLock II rubber handles attached to the weight pockets.  The
grey rubber handle measures approximately 5 centimetres tall and
10 centimetres wide, and extends from the forward end of the
ditchable weight pockets.

The buoyancy compensator's model name is embroidered on the inside
back pad or on the right lobe.  Sure Lock is moulded into the back
of the weight pocket.  The serial numbers are located on a tag
under the back pad of the buoyancy compensator or inside the
pocket.  Earlier models could have the number printed on a tag
behind the hook and loop inflator hold down on the left shoulder.

These models with serial numbers lower than BB408620 are affected
by this recall:

Discontinued Models:

Black Diamond,
Pro QD,
Pro QDi3.
Current Models

Apeks Black Ice,
Axiom,
Axiom i3,
Balance,
Dimension,
Libra,
Lotus,
Pearl,
Pearl i3,
Pro LT,
Zuma.

The rubber handle may separate from the weight pocket prohibiting
the diver from removing the weight pockets when rising to the
surface in an emergency, posing a drowning hazard.

In the United States, Aqua Lung is aware of 50 reports of handles
detaching from the weight pockets.  No consumer incidents or
injuries have been reported.   The company has not received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these buoyancy compensators.

Approximately 11,300 units were sold in Canada, and 140,000 units
were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Mexico and
sold from Sept. 2008 to Oct. 2014.

Companies:

   Importer     Aqua Lung America
                Vista
                California
                United States

   Distributor   Aqua Lung Canada
                 Victoria
                 British Columbia
                 Canada

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


AT&T INC: Sued for Barring 100% Black-Owned Media From Being Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of African-American Owned Media, a California
limited liability company v. AT&T, Inc. a Delaware corporation;
AT&T Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; AT&T Mobility LLC, a
Delaware corporation; and DirecTV, a California limited liability
company; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-09256
(C.D. Cal., December 2, 2014) alleges that white-owned media has
deceptively worked hand-in-hand with governmental regulators to
perpetrate the exclusion of 100% African American-owned media from
being paid for channel carriage.

NAAAOM is a California limited liability company, with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.

AT&T, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC are all
Delaware corporations, with their principal places of business in
Texas.  AT&T also has an office and operates in Los Angeles,
California.

DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability company, with its
principal place of business in El Segundo, California.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis R. Miller, Esq.
          Amnon Z. Siegel, Esq.
          Lauren R. Wright, Esq.
          MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-4400
          Facsimile: (310) 552-8400
          E-mail: smiller@millerbarondess.com
                  asiegel@millerbarondess.com
                  lwright@millerbarondess.com


AVESTA HOMES: Denies Overtime Wages to Class Members, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Osmel Rodriguez, Lhirino Rogelio, Julio Roche and David Diaz, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avesta Homes, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-03020-VMC-TBM
(M.D. Fla., December 2, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged
denial of overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


B.H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Seasoning Mix Due to Undeclared Peanut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           B.H. Kosher Select Food Dist.
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9444

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

B.H. Kosher Select Food Dist. is recalling Ortega brand Taco
Seasoning Mix from the marketplace because it contains peanut and
almond which are not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to peanut or almond should not consume the recalled
product described.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 35.4 g. Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix


BILL COSBY: Sex Abuse Victim Mulls Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
TMZ reports that one of Bill Cosby's alleged victims not only
plans to sue him . . . she's trying to get all of his accusers in
a single lawsuit to convince a jury . . . all these woman just
can't be lying.

Louisa Moritz -- who claims Mr. Cosby stuck his penis in her mouth
in her dressing room before a "Tonight Show" appearance in 1971 --
is interviewing L.A. area lawyers to file a class action lawsuit
. . . and she wants minimum 9 other women to join her.

Ms. Moritz told TMZ that she's already reaching out to the other
alleged victims.

Ms. Moritz has 2 big problems . . . the statute of limitations and
the fact that she never told anyone about the incident until
speaking to TMZ.

As for the statute . . . Ms. Moritz thinks even if the case gets
thrown out, the fact that multiple women present a united front is
meaningful.  And as for her belated revelation . . . she says she
blocked it and it only became vivid again after various women
began stepping forward over the last two weeks.

She's already gotten legal advice that this could be like Wade
Robson's suit against Michael Jackson after he died . . . if a
victim remembers the incident later in life due to repressed
memories -- they can attempt to sue as long as it's within a year
of remembering.


BITCASA INC: Court Denies Sealing Motion in "Romack" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN ROMACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BITCASA, INC., Defendant, NO. C 14-05005
WHA, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative class action. On November 18 -- the
day before the preliminary injunction hearing -- defendant
Bitcasa, Inc. filed an administrative motion for leave to file
under seal certain proposed redactions in (1) its opposition to a
preliminary injunction and (2) a declaration filed in support of
its opposition. A declaration from Bitcasa's Vice President was
filed in support of sealing "data and statistics Bitcasa
collects," Bitcasa's financial data," and "how much we pay to rent
servers from Amazon Web Services."

District Judge William Alsup finds that neither good cause nor
compelling reasons support many of the proposed redactions.  The
vast majority of Bitcasa's sealing motion is overstated and not
narrowly tailored to only sealable material supported by specific
declarations, he says. Moreover, even its revenues, costs of
renting server space, and debts are not sealable on this motion.
Bitcasa seeks relief from a temporary restraining order in a
putative class action. Putative class members, the public, and the
press have a right to see what Bitcasa has submitted in its
opposition brief in this record, notes Judge Alsup.

"Accordingly, Bitcasa's sealing motion is denied in its entirety,"
ruled the Court.  "The entire opposition and supporting
declaration shall be publicly filed."

A copy of the November 19, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/N3swGEfrom Leagle.com.

Shawn Romack, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S Elias --
jelias@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Roger Norton Heller -- rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Bitcasa, Inc, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown --
brownmd@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


BMW: Recalls Cooper and Cooper S Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Inconsequential
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           282
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014506
TC ID number:             2014506

On certain vehicles, a defect in the seatback adjustment mechanism
of the front seats could allow seatback(s) to move out of position
in a severe impact, increasing the risk of injury to the seat
occupant(s).

Correction: Dealers will re-align and re-tighten the seatback
mechanisms.

Affected products: 2015 Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S


CAREFUSION CORP: Facing Class Action Over Becton Dickinson Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CareFusion Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as a result of the
Company's proposed merger transaction with Becton, Dickinson and
Company ("BD"), the Company is also subject to putative class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger transaction with
BD.

"We intend to defend ourselves in any such matters," CareFusion
said.

CareFusion was incorporated in Delaware on January 14, 2009, for
the purpose of holding the clinical and medical products
businesses of Cardinal Health in anticipation of spinning off from
Cardinal Health.  It completed the spinoff from Cardinal Health on
August 31, 2009.


CAREVANTAGE MEDICAL: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celina Del Pino v. CareVantage Medical Centers of Miami at
Hialeah, LLLC, CareVantage Medical Partners, LLC, and Alberto
Lamadrid, Case No. 1:14-cv-24579-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 3, 2014)
alleges that the Plaintiff earned but did not receive overtime
wages calculated at time and one-half times her regular rate of
pay for all time spent working over 40 hours per week from the
Defendants at all times material.

CareVantage Medical Centers of Miami at Hialeah, LLC, is a sui
juris Florida for-profit business with its principal place of
business and registered agent in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
CareVantage Medical Partners, LLC, is a sui juris Florida for-
profit business also headquartered in Miami-Dade County.  Alberto
Lamadrid is the owner, operator or managing member of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants provides medical care and services.  The Defendants
also submits billings and receipt of payment involving out-of-
state medical payors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


CBE GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Dorfman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. The CBE Group, Inc. f/k/a Nelson, Watson &
Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07060 (E.D.N.Y., December 3,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CCB CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Labin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
07022 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CCC-BOONE LLC: Schneider Case Remanded to Watauga Cty Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard L. Voorhees granted a motion to remand
to Watauga County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c)
the case captioned JONATHAN SCHNEIDER, DEANNA REARY, and LANGDON
CLAY, all individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CCC-BOONE, LLC, AND CAPSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 5:13-CV-144, (W.D. N.C.), as well as
a motion for attorneys' fees and costs filed in the case.

The Plaintiffs in this complaint seek class-wide relief for
damages allegedly suffered after entering lease agreements with
Defendants CCC-Boone, LLC and Capstone Properties, LLC for
occupancy of newly constructed student housing units located in
Boone, North Carolina.  Defendants filed their Notice of Removal
to the United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina,
Statesville Division, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1332 on
October 21, 2013.  On November 20, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion
for remand to Watauga County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(c), and for attorneys' fees and costs.

According to Judge Voorhees' November 21, 2014 order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/4dLT23from Leagle.com,
"Defendants lacked any objectively reasonable basis for removing
this matter to federal court. This is demonstrated by the fact
that, at a minimum, each Plaintiff's claim was $68,700.01 short of
meeting the amount in controversy requirement. This obvious error
is compounded by the fact that Plaintiffs provided notice to
Defendants of this obvious error. Again, because Defendants failed
to explain their reasoning, the Court does not know whether this
error was a result of unfamiliarity with the removal procedure to
federal court, honest confusion regarding the law, or sincere
belief compounded by poor communication. Whatever the reason, an
award of attorneys' fees is appropriate because of the resulting
delay in resolution of this case and waste of judicial resources."

"Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims for
relief, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is not properly before this
Court, and is hereby dismissed as without prejudice," Judge
Voorhees added.

Jonathan Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua
-- pcapua@capualawfirm.com -- Capua Law Firm, PA.

Deanna Reary, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua
Law Firm, PA.

Langdon Clay, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Augustus Capua, Capua
Law Firm, PA.

CCC-Boone, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Wenzl Brown --
gregory@brownlawllp.com -- Brown Law LLP & Justin Matthew Osborn
-- justin@brownlawllp.com -- Brown Law LLP.

Capstone Properties, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gregory Wenzl
Brown, Brown Law LLP & Justin Matthew Osborn, Brown Law LLP.


COOPER TIRE: Increases Products Liability Reserve in 3rd Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of 2014, Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
increased its products liability reserve by $14,037,000, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company is a defendant in various products liability claims
brought in numerous jurisdictions in which individuals seek
damages resulting from motor vehicle accidents allegedly caused by
defective tires manufactured by the Company. Each of the products
liability claims faced by the Company generally involve different
types of tires, models and lines, different circumstances
surrounding the accident such as different applications, vehicles,
speeds, road conditions, weather conditions, driver error, tire
repair and maintenance practices, service life conditions, as well
as different jurisdictions and different injuries. In addition, in
many of the Company's products liability lawsuits the plaintiff
alleges that his or her harm was caused by one or more co-
defendants who acted independently of the Company. Accordingly,
both the claims asserted and the resolutions of those claims have
an enormous amount of variability. The aggregate amount of damages
asserted at any point in time is not determinable since often
times when claims are filed, the plaintiffs do not specify the
amount of damages. Even when there is an amount alleged, at times
the amount is wildly inflated and has no rational basis.

The fact that the Company is a defendant in products liability
lawsuits is not surprising given the current litigation climate,
which is largely confined to the United States. However, the fact
that the Company is subject to claims does not indicate that there
is a quality issue with the Company's tires. The Company sells
approximately 30 to 35 million passenger, light truck, SUV, radial
medium truck and motorcycle tires per year in North America. The
Company estimates that approximately 300 million Company-produced
tires -- made up of thousands of different specifications -- are
still on the road in North America. While tire disablements do
occur, it is the Company's and the tire industry's experience that
the vast majority of tire failures relate to service-related
conditions, which are entirely out of the Company's control --
such as failure to maintain proper tire pressure, improper
maintenance, road hazard and excessive speed.

The Company accrues costs for products liability at the time a
loss is probable and the amount of loss can be estimated. The
Company believes the probability of loss can be established and
the amount of loss can be estimated only after certain minimum
information is available, including verification that Company-
produced products were involved in the incident giving rise to the
claim, the condition of the product purported to be involved in
the claim, the nature of the incident giving rise to the claim and
the extent of the purported injury or damages. In cases where such
information is known, each products liability claim is evaluated
based on its specific facts and circumstances. A judgment is then
made to determine the requirement for establishment or revision of
an accrual for any potential liability. The liability often cannot
be determined with precision until the claim is resolved.

Pursuant to applicable accounting rules, the Company accrues the
minimum liability for each known claim when the estimated outcome
is a range of possible loss and no one amount within that range is
more likely than another. The Company uses a range of losses
because an average cost would not be meaningful since the products
liability claims faced by the Company are unique and widely
variable, and accordingly, the resolutions of those claims have an
enormous amount of variability. The costs have ranged from zero
dollars to $33 million in one case with no "average" that is
meaningful. No specific accrual is made for individual unasserted
claims or for premature claims, asserted claims where the minimum
information needed to evaluate the probability of a liability is
not yet known. However, an accrual for such claims based, in part,
on management's expectations for future litigation activity and
the settled claims history is maintained. Because of the
speculative nature of litigation in the U.S., the Company does not
believe a meaningful aggregate range of potential loss for
asserted and unasserted claims can be determined. The Company's
experience has demonstrated that its estimates have been
reasonably accurate and, on average, cases are settled at amounts
close to the reserves established. However, it is possible an
individual claim from time to time may result in an aberration
from the norm and could have a material impact.

The Company determines its reserves using the number of incidents
expected during a year. During the third quarter of 2014, the
Company increased its products liability reserve by $14,037,000.
The addition of another year of self-insured incidents accounted
for $12,331,000 of this increase. Settlements and changes in the
amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known
to estimate a liability increased by $1,706,000.

During the first nine months of 2014, the Company increased its
products liability reserve by $40,499,000. The addition of another
year of self-insured incidents accounted for $36,993,000 of this
increase. The Company revised its estimates of future settlements
for unasserted and premature claims. These revisions decreased the
reserve by $600,000. Finally, settlements and changes in the
amount of reserves for cases where sufficient information is known
to estimate a liability increased by $4,106,000.

The time frame for the payment of a products liability claim is
too variable to be meaningful. From the time a claim is filed to
its ultimate disposition depends on the unique nature of the case,
how it is resolved -- claim dismissed, negotiated settlement,
trial verdict and appeals process -- and is highly dependent on
jurisdiction, specific facts, the plaintiff's attorney, the
court's docket and other factors. Given that some claims may be
resolved in weeks and others may take five years or more, it is
impossible to predict with any reasonable reliability the time
frame over which the accrued amounts may be paid.

The Company paid $5,701,000 during the third quarter of 2014 to
resolve cases and claims and has paid $38,960,000 through the
first nine months of 2014. The Company's products liability
reserve balance at December 31, 2013 totaled $189,513,000 (the
current portion of $70,472,000 is included in Accrued liabilities
and the long-term portion is included in Other long-term
liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets). The
products liability reserve balance at September 30, 2014 totaled
$191,052,000 (current portion of $70,314,000).

The products liability expense reported by the Company includes
amortization of insurance premium costs, adjustments to settlement
reserves and legal costs incurred in defending claims against the
Company offset by recoveries of legal fees. Legal costs are
expensed as incurred and products liability insurance premiums are
amortized over coverage periods.

For the three-month periods ended September 30, 2013 and 2014,
products liability expenses totaled $25,722,000 and $21,227,000,
respectively. For the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013
and 2014, products liability expenses totaled $67,924,000 and
$62,039,000, respectively. Products liability expenses are
included in cost of goods sold in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Income.


COOPER TIRE: Faces OFI Risk Arbitrages Suit Over Apollo Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on January
17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative
class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware relating to the terminated merger transaction with Apollo
Tyres Ltd.  That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally
alleges that the Company and certain officers violated the federal
securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in
connection with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other
things, damages. The Company and its officers believe that the
allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

This case has recently been filed and is at an early stage. As a
result, the outcome of these pending proceedings cannot be
predicted with certainty and an estimate of any such loss cannot
be made at this time. The Company believes that based upon
information currently available, any liabilities that may result
from these proceedings are not reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, financial
condition or results of operations.


DAESUNG CELTIC: Recalls Tankless Gas Water Heaters
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Posting date:             November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42147

Affected products: Tankless gas water heaters

The recall involves all models of single- and dual-purpose Coaire
and Quietside brand tankless gas water heaters.  The recalled
water heaters heat either 15 or 27 litres (4 or 7.2 gallons) of
water per minute.  They are white and come in the following
dimension ranges: 63.5 to 71 centimetres (25 to 28 inches) tall x
38 to 48 centimetres (15 to 19 inches) wide x 20 to 35.5
centimetres (8 to 14 inches) thick.  The words "S-Line Condensing"
are on the top front and brand names "Coaire" or "Quietside" are
on the bottom front of the recalled water heaters.

The water heaters can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

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

Neither Health Canada nor Daesung has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 2,200 of the recalled water heaters were sold in
Canada and about 29,000 in the United States.

The recalled water heaters were manufactured in Korea and sold
from July 2008 through August 2014 in Canada and the United States
by independent dealers nationwide and on various websites,
including Amazon.com and Amazon.ca.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Daesung Celtic Enersys Co. Ltd.
                    Chungbuk
                    Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of'

   Distributor      Challenger Supply Holdings Inc.
                    Fort Worth
                    Texas
                    United States

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


DEPUY (IRELAND): Recalls Attune Fixed Bearing Tibial and Femoral
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 11, 2014
Posting date:             November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42249

Recalled products:

Attune Fixed Bearing Tibial Impactor
Attune Femoral Component Impactor
Attune Rotating Platform Tibial Impact.
Attune Intuition Impaction Handle

Depuy is issuing a customer letter to notify users that all lots
of attune intuition impaction handle and impactors have the
potential to fracture during impaction.  If not observed during
surgery, broken pieces of the instruments may be left in the
patient.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Depuy (Ireland)
                    Loughbeg
                    Ringaskiddy
                    Ireland


DIRECTV: California Class Action Over AT&T Merger Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The DIRECTV shareholder litigation in California over the proposed
DIRECTV and AT&T Merger has been stayed, DIRECTV said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Beginning on May 21, 2014, and following the May 18, 2014
announcement that DIRECTV had entered into a definitive agreement
to combine with AT&T Inc., several shareholder putative class
action lawsuits were filed, six in Delaware Chancery Court, or the
Delaware Actions, and one in California Superior Court, or the
California Action, against DIRECTV, its directors and AT&T Inc.,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction. The complaints generally and collectively
asserted that defendants failed to maximize the value of DIRECTV,
and sought to enjoin the proposed transaction as well as
unspecified damages, costs and fees. An Order consolidating the
Delaware Actions and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel
was entered on July 21, 2014 and discovery in the Delaware Actions
was stayed pending the filing of a Consolidated Complaint.
Subsequently, Lead Counsel in the Delaware Actions filed a motion
to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware Actions against all defendants
and that motion was granted by order entered by the Chancery Court
on October 28, 2014. The California Action has been stayed
(including discovery) by stipulation dated September 30, 2014
subject to the court's order approving the stipulation and remains
pending at this time.

DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment in the
United States and Latin America.


DIRECTV: Denial of Arbitration Bid Currently on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014, that the denial of the Company's motion
to compel arbitration in the class action over early cancellation
fees is currently on appeal.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments. "We have reached a
settlement in principle with the individual plaintiffs in the
federal cases and are finalizing the settlement agreements. In the
California state court action, the denial of our motion to compel
arbitration is currently on appeal. We believe that our early
cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and represent
reasonable estimates of the costs we incur when customers cancel
service before fulfilling their programming commitments," the
Company said.

DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment in the
United States and Latin America.


DOLLAR TREE: Bid to Bifurcate Claims in Stafford Case Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted a motion to bifurcate
plaintiff's individual and representative claims in the case
captioned RICHARD STAFFORD, Individually, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR
TREE STORES, INC., Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-1187 KJM CKD, (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Jay Narvaez and Lisa Hornsby filed their complaint on
November 19, 2012, in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging a
number of wage and hour class claims and a Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) claim against Dollar Tree. Their first amended
complaint was filed in the Superior Court on January 7, 2013,
adding Richard Stafford as a plaintiff. Defendant removed the case
to the Central District on February 5, 2013.  On February 12,
2013, plaintiff Stafford filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in
the Central District, removing the class claims and alleging these
claims, all stemming from his work as an assistant manager at a
Dollar Tree Store: (1) failure to provide meal periods, Cal. Lab.
Code Sections 226.7(a), 512(a), and 1198; (2) failure to provide
rest periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7(a) and 1198; (3)
failure to pay minimum and regular wages, Cal. Lab. Code Sections
1197 and 1198; (4) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 510 and 1198; (5) failure to maintain accurate records,
Cal. Lab. Code Section 1198; (6) failure to provide and maintain
accurate itemized wage statements, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226(a)
and 1198; and (7) failure timely to pay wages due during
employment, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 204(a) and 1198.  Plaintiff
alleges he is an "aggrieved employee" within the meaning of the
PAGA, California's Private Attorney General Act, Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 2699, et seq.  Neither Narvaez nor Hornsby was listed as
plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint.

On February 26, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to
transfer.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On June 22,
2013, the Central District court denied the motions to remand and
to dismiss and granted the motion to transfer the case to the
Eastern District, where a related case had been filed. On November
7, 2013, plaintiff filed a second motion to remand in the Eastern
District of Calif. Court.  The court denied the motion on March
28, 2014.  On July 7, 2014, defendant filed the motion to
bifurcate plaintiff's individual and representative claims.

Judge Mueller's November 21, 2014 order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/kyOYg3from Leagle.com, provided that
the Defendant's motion to bifurcate is granted, and plaintiff's
individual Labor Code claims will be determined before the
representative PAGA claims.

The case is set for a further scheduling conference on December
11, 2014. The parties' joint statement concerning the bifurcated
schedule is due within seven days before the further scheduling
conference.

Richard Stafford, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated current and former employees of Dollar Tree Stores Inc,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian Richard Short --
bshort@grahamhollis.com -- Graham Hollis APC & Graham S.P. Hollis
-- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- GrahamHollis, APC.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindbergh
Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Alison
Jacquelyn Cubre -- acubre@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Constance E. Norton -- cnorton@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.c. & Tarun Mehta -- tmehta@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C.


DURATA THERAPEUTICS: Inks MOU to Resolve Merger Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Durata Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company,
each of its directors, Actavis W.C. Holding and Merger Sub entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in
the Campbell, Kansagara, Stein, and Pelpola class actions.

On October 5, 2014, Durata Therapeutics, Inc. entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (the Merger Agreement) with Actavis
W.C. Holding Inc. (Actavis W.C. Holding) and Delaware Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Actavis W.C. Holding (Merger
Sub), pursuant to which, and on the terms and subject to the
conditions thereof, among other things, Merger Sub is obligated to
commence a tender offer (the Offer) on or before October 21, 2014,
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
Company at a purchase price of $23.00 per share net to the seller
in cash, without interest and less any applicable withholding
taxes (the Cash Consideration), plus one non-transferable
contractual contingent value right per share (each, a CVR), which
represents the right to receive contingent payments of up to $5.00
in cash in the aggregate, if any, without interest and less any
applicable withholding taxes, if specified milestones are achieved
(the Contingent Consideration and together with the Cash
Consideration, the Offer Consideration), subject to and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of a CVR Agreement to be
entered into between Actavis W.C. Holding and a rights agent
selected by Actavis W.C. Holding and reasonably acceptable to the
Company.

The proposed transactions have been approved by the boards of
directors of Actavis W.C. Holding, Merger Sub and the Company.

On October 17, 2014, Merger Sub commenced the Offer. Unless
extended by Actavis W.C. Holding in accordance with the Merger
Agreement, the offering period for the Offer was to expire at
12:00 midnight, New York City time, on November 14, 2014. The
Company expects the Merger to close in the fourth quarter of 2014.
The outside date, after which either party may terminate the
Merger Agreement if the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement have not been consummated, is March 5, 2015.

On October 10, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Warren Campbell v. Ahrens, et al., No. 10222
(Del. Ch. Ct.), was filed against the Company, the Company's board
of directors, Actavis W.C. Holding, and others in Delaware
Chancery Court. The complaint alleges that members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the approval of the Merger and that Actavis W.C.
Holding and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the Company directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale
process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best
financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves of the
value of the Company. On October 22, 2014, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint to include additional allegations that the
Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
misrepresenting and omitting information in the Schedule 14D-9,
including that the Company's board of directors misrepresented or
omitted information concerning (1) the Company's financial
projections; (2) Bank of America Merrill Lynch's financial
analyses for the Company; (3) potential conflicts of interest with
the Merger; and (4) facts about the background leading up to the
announcement of the Merger. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and
other equitable relief, including enjoining the defendants from
consummating the Merger, in addition to other unspecified damages,
fees and costs.

Also on October 10, 2014, another putative stockholder class
action complaint, captioned Shiva Stein v. Durata Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., No. 2014-CH-16430 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), was filed against
the Company, the Company's board of directors, Actavis W.C.
Holding, and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the approval of the Merger and that the Company, Actavis W.C.
Holding and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties. The complaint alleges that the Company directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed sale
process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the best
financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves of the
value of the Company. On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint to include additional allegations that the
Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
misrepresenting and omitting information in the Schedule 14D-9,
including that the Company's board of directors misrepresented or
omitted information concerning (1) the Company's financial
projections; (2) Bank of America Merrill Lynch's financial
analyses for the Company; (3) potential conflicts of interest with
the Merger; and (4) facts about the background leading up to the
announcement of the Merger. Also on October 21, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a motion with the Court asking the Court to
expedite the proceedings in this case. The plaintiff seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief, including enjoining the
defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition to other
unspecified damages, fees and costs.

On October 20, 2014, another putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Nadyenka Pelpola v. Ahrens, et al., No. 2014-
CH-16971 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), was filed against the Company, the
Company's board of directors, Actavis W.C. Holding, and Merger Sub
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaint
alleges that members of the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the approval of the
Merger and that the Company, Actavis W.C. Holding and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The
complaint alleges that the Company directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by,
among other things, conducting a flawed sale process, failing to
maximize stockholder value and obtain the best financial and other
terms, and failing to inform themselves of the value of the
Company. The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable
relief, including enjoining the defendants from consummating the
Merger, in addition to other unspecified damages, fees and costs.

On October 23, 2014, another putative stockholder class action
complaint, captioned Darshan Kansagara v. Durata Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., No. 10279 (Del. Ch. Ct.), was filed against the
Company and the Company's board of directors in Delaware Chancery
Court. The complaint alleges that members of the Company's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the approval of the Merger. The complaint alleges that the Company
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction by, among other things, conducting a flawed
sale process, failing to maximize stockholder value and obtain the
best financial and other terms, and failing to inform themselves
of the value of the Company. Plaintiff also alleges that the
Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by
misrepresenting and omitting information in the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement that was filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014, including
that the Company's board of directors misrepresented or omitted
information concerning (1) the Company's financial projections;
(2) the financial analyses of the Company's financial advisor; (3)
potential conflicts of interest with the Merger; and (4) facts
about the background leading up to the announcement of the Merger.
Also on October 23, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion with the
Court asking the Court to expedite the proceedings in this case
and asking the Court to preliminarily enjoin the Merger. The
plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including
enjoining the defendants from consummating the Merger, in addition
to other unspecified damages, fees and costs.

On November 6, 2014, the Company, each of its directors, Actavis
W.C. Holding and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Campbell,
Kansagara, Stein, and Pelpola Actions (together the "Actions"),
which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a
settlement of the Actions. As explained in the MOU, the Company
and each of the other defendants have agreed to the settlement
solely to eliminate the burden and uncertainty of continued
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The
MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to the
Company's stockholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a settlement agreement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions that were or could have been brought by or on behalf of
the plaintiff or any member of the plaintiff class challenging any
aspect of the Offer, the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for
appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law), among other claims.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that they will seek to negotiate the plaintiffs' claim
for attorneys' fees and that plaintiffs' counsel will file a
petition in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or
its successor, which the defendants may oppose. The Company or its
successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The parties may not ultimately enter into a settlement
agreement and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware may
not approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such settlement agreement. In such event, the proposed settlement
as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The settlement will
not affect the consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders in connection with the Offer and the Merger. The
Company and the other defendants believe the Actions are without
merit and, in the event that the MOU is not approved or the
requisite conditions are not satisfied, intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.

Durata Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of novel therapeutics for
patients with infectious diseases and acute illnesses.


EL POLLO: Faces Class Action by Former Employee in Orange, Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2014, that around
February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly
employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of
California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and
failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead
plaintiff's requested remedies included compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of
damages sought was specified in the complaint.

"We were served with the complaint on March 3, 2014. While we
intend to vigorously defend against this action, including its
class certification, its ultimate outcome is presently not
determinable, as it is in a preliminary phase. Thus, we cannot
determine the likelihood of an adverse judgment nor a likely range
of damages, if any. A settlement or adverse judgment could have a
material adverse impact," the Company said.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.'s activities are conducted
principally through its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, El Pollo
Loco, Inc. ("EPL"), which develops, franchises, licenses, and
operates quick-service restaurants under the name El Pollo Loco(R)
and operates under one business segment.


ELEKTA BUSINESS: Recalls Mosaiq (2014-11-07)
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2014
Posting date:             November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42135

Recalled Products: Mosaiq (2014-11-07)

Depending on Mosaiq and windows operating system settings, a
problem can exist in Mosaiq resulting in the display of an
incorrect decimal symbol and/or unintended modification of numeric
data by factors of 10 (multiplication by 10, 100, 1000, etc.).
Inconsistencies may also occur in date and time formats.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Elekta Business Area Software Systems IMPAC
                    Medical Systems, Inc.
                    100 Mathilda Place, 5th floor
                    Sunnyvale 94086
                    California
                    United States


ELI LILLY: Sued Over Injuries Arising From Cymbalta Withdrawal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa D. Carpenter and Jeffrey D. Carpenter v. Eli Lilly and
Company, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00540-AJ
(D.N.H., December 3, 2014) alleges personal injuries and damages
the Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of Lilly's failure to
provide adequate instructions for stopping Cymbalta and an
adequate warning that fully and accurately informed her about the
frequency, severity, or duration of symptoms associated with
Cymbalta withdrawal.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leslie C. Nixon, Esq.
          NIXON, VOGELMAN, BARRY, SLAWSKY & SIMONEAU, PA
          77 Central Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 669-7070
          E-mail: lcnixon56@gmail.com


FAST EVICTION: Violates TCPA in California, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ati Mogadam, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Fast Eviction Service a/k/a Fast Eviction Services,
a/k/a Ma's Fast Eviction Service, Case No. 8:14-cv-01912-JVS-RNB
(C.D. Cal., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Wegh, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-07000 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST STEP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benbion Goldberg, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. First Step Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07021 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) is brought for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Freilich, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-07058 (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD: Recalls Transit Model Due to Fuel Filter Mounting Bracket
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           3
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014500
TC ID number:             2014500
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S23

On certain long wheel base Jumbo Van vehicles equipped with a
diesel engine, the fuel filter mounting bracket may detach from
the frame crossmember, causing a knocking noise.  This could limit
fuel supply to the engine, potentially resulting in reduced power,
engine stalling and inability to restart the engine after a stall.
These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will inspect the fuel filter attachment point
and install a reinforcement plate.

Affected products: 2015 Ford Transit


FORD: Recalls Transit Connect Model Due to Potential Fuel Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           2359
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014501TC
ID number:                2014501
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S24

On certain vehicles, fuel lines may have been improperly routed
and may wear over time, potentially causing a fuel leak.  A fuel
leak in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire
causing injury and/or property damage.

Correction: Dealers will inspect, and if necessary, correct fuel
line routing.

Affected products: 2014 Ford Transit Connect


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Salem and Wildwood Models
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           8
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014518TC
ID number:                2014518

On certain travel trailers, the certification label may not
contain the correct Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).  The GAWR
is correctly stated as 1,588 kg (3,500 lbs) however the number of
axles was represented as two instead of one axle.  Therefore the
GVWR was incorrectly stated as 3,397 kg (7,489 lbs).  The correct
GVWR is 1,809 kg (3,989 lbs).  Incorrect GVWR could result in
overloading, potentially causing damage to trailer and affecting
vehicle handling.  This could increase the risk of a crash causing
property damage and/or personal injury.

Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected
trailers.

Affected products:

   Maker           Model            Model year(s) affected
   -----           -----            ----------------------
   FOREST RIVER    WILDWOOD         2014
   FOREST RIVER    SALEM             2014


FOX HILL: Recalls Underprocessed Cheese House Quark
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 5, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Fox Hill Cheese House
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9409

Affected products: Fox Hill Cheese House Cranberry Quark and Plain
Quark with UPC starting 200166 70 and 200160 30 respectively


FRED DEELEY: Recalls Softail Slim Model
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           503
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014516TC
ID number:                2014516
Manufacturer recall
number:                   0618

Certain motorcycles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and
Retroreflective Devices.  If one of the front turn signal bulbs
stops functioning, no indication would be provided to the driver,
which is contrary to the requirements of the standard.

Correction: Dealers will update vehicle software.

Affected products: 2014, 2015 Harley-Davidson Softail Slim


GAMBRO RENAL: Recalls Polyflux Revaclear Dialyzers (2014-11-12)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Posting date:             November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42231

Recalled products: Polyflux Revaclear Dialyzers

There is a possibility of a tear in the individual packaging on
some Polyflux Revaclear / Polyflux Revaclear Max Dialyzers.  This
was noticed during internal inspection and it is possible that the
packaging on distributed product could also be impacted.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Gambro Renal Products Inc - Opelika Facility
                    1101 Jeter Avenue
                    Opelika 36801
                    Alabama
                    United States


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado Models
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           112
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014509TC
ID number:                2014509
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14743

Certain vehicles may experience a sudden loss of power steering
assist that could occur at any time while driving.  If the power
steering assist is lost, a message is displayed on the Driver
Information Centre and a chime sounds to inform the driver.
Steering control can be maintained, as the vehicle will revert to
a manual steering mode, but will require greater driver effort
particularly at low vehicle speeds.  The sudden change in steering
may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage.

Correction: Dealers will replace the power steering assist motor.

Affected products: 2015 GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Impala Model
------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           1977
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014514TC
ID number:                2014514
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14330

Certain vehicles may experience an intermittent or lasting loss or
reduction of power steering assist.  If the power steering assist
is lost or reduced, a message is displayed on the Driver
Information Centre and a chime sounds to inform the driver.
Steering control can be maintained, as the vehicle will revert to
a manual steering mode, but will require greater driver effort
particularly at low vehicle speeds.  The sudden change in steering
effort may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
property damage.

Correction: Dealers will repair an electrical ground connection at
the power steering control module and update software.

Affected products: 2014 Chevrolet Impala


GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation f/k/a
Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07023
(E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hill" Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harold E. Hill, Michele Jhingoor, Bruce Holdridge, Scott McGiffid
and James M. Burden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; and The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03845-LMM (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2014) is brought
over alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren W. Pennsylvania, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS PENN LOWRY LLP
          400 Colony Square, Suite 900
          1201 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (404) 961-7650
          Facsimile: (404) 961-7651
          E-mail: darren@hpllegal.com
                  jim@hpllegal.com
                  jeff@hpllegal.com


HSS INC: Removes "Scott" Suit to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Scott v. HSS Inc., et al., Case
No. 30-2014-00754097-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa
Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01911 to
the proceeding.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Martin Sonne, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: msonne@sheppardmullin.com


IMMUCOR INC: Recalls TPHA Screen (2014-11-12)
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Posting date:             November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42195

Recalled Products: TPHA Screen

Immucor is investigating reports of unexpected positive reactions
with the TPHA screen assay performed on the Neo and Galileo
instruments.  The investigation to date has identified a shift in
performance with the TPHA screen associated with higher rates of
unexpected positive reactions.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Immucor Inc.
                    3130 Gateway Drive, PO Box 5625
                    Norcross
                    30091-5625
                    Georgia
                    United States


INTELLIGENDER LLC: Case to Have Implications on CAFA Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that a recent decision by the
Ninth Circuit may make it more difficult to settle class action
lawsuits where there is a potential for parallel government
enforcement action.

In California v. IntelliGender, LLC, No. 13-56806, 2014 WL
5786718, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014), the Ninth Circuit
specifically addressed the State's right to pursue a state court
lawsuit against a company that had settled a nationwide class
action involving the same basic claims, though seeking broader
relief than that afforded in the settlement.  The private class
settlement involved restitution payments to the settlement class
and was approved by the federal court.  As part of the approval
process, the defendant provided notice of the proposed settlement
to appropriate state and federal officials as required under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  The State did not object to the
settlement, but later sued the company in state court seeking
civil remedies, injunctive relief and restitution.  The defendant
asked the federal court to enjoin the state lawsuit under the
Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283, and that motion was
denied.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit engaged in a detailed analysis of the
text and case law arising under the Anti-Injunction Act,
concluding that the State's claims for civil penalties and
injunctive relief were not barred because they did not involve
"identical parties or privies."  The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled
that the State could not seek restitution on behalf of class
members who already had settled their restitution claims, finding
that allowing that relief would provide for a double recovery and
would interfere with the federal court's enforcement and
administration of the class action settlement.  "When a government
entity sues for the same relief that 'plaintiff [has] already
pursued then the requisite closeness of interests for privity is
present.'" IntelliGender, 2014 WL 5786718, at *7 (quoting Leon v.
IDX Systems Corp, 464 F.3d 951, 962 (9th Cir. 2006)).

This case is significant and has potentially positive and negative
implications for businesses settling CAFA class actions.  On the
one hand, it is a positive development in the law given that
governmental entities lose the ability to double dip and seek the
same form of recovery provided in a class settlement where, as
here, they do not successfully object to the settlement.  Of
course, the negative corollary is that governmental entities are
likely to watch these settlements more closely and may appear more
frequently in the settlement approval process, perhaps even
seeking some additional compensation for the class or as
attorney's fees for "improving" upon class settlements.


INTERTHINX INC: Deal With Auditors & Underwriters Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted preliminary approval of
a class and collective action settlement, and certification of
settlement classes in the case captioned CELESTE SHAW; JUDITH
VERHEECKE; SHABNAM SHEILA DEHDASHTIAN; MEDHAT GAREEB; and DEJAN
NAGL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTERTHINX, INC., a California Corporation; and
VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229-REB-BNB, (D. Col.).

The Settlement Agreement resolves claims of four proposed
settlement classes of Auditors and Underwriters (Aus) employed by
Interthinx: (a) those employed in Colorado between May 9, 2010,
and June 30, 2014 ("Colorado Class"); (b) those employed in
California between June 28, 2009, and June 30, 2014 ("California
Class"); (c) those employed in Missouri between May 9, 2010, and
June 30, 2014 ("Missouri Class"); and (d) those employed in any
other state between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 and who are not
members of the California, Colorado, or Missouri Classes ("FLSA
Class").  These AUs allege that defendants violated a number of
California, Colorado, Missouri, and federal wage and hour laws by,
among other things, failing to pay them overtime compensation.

The California, Colorado, Missouri, and FLSA Classes are certified
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 206 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
23(b)(3), for settlement purposes only, ruled the Court.

Plaintiff Celeste Shaw, is appointed class representative for the
Colorado Class; plaintiff Judith Verheecke, is appointed class
representative for the Missouri Class; plaintiffs Shabnam Sheila
Dehdashtian, Medhat Gareeb, and Dejan Nagl, are appointed class
representatives for the California Class; and plaintiffs Celeste
Shaw, Judith Verheecke, Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Medhat Gareeb,
and Dejan Nagl, are appointed class representatives for the FLSA
Class.

Plaintiffs' counsel is appointed class counsel for the California,
Colorado, Missouri, and FLSA Classes.

Dahl Administration, LLC, is appointed Settlement Administrator of
the Settlement Classes and will complete, to the extent reasonably
practicable, the mailing of the notice and claim forms in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The parties must file motions in support of final approval of the
settlement, and class counsel must file their motion for an award
of attorney fees, expense reimbursements, and incentive award
payment for plaintiffs within 21 days after the end of the claims
period.  Within 14 days of the deadline for class members to
submit objections, class counsel and defendants may file a
response to any objection or comment pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

Any member of the Settlement Classes who wishes to be excluded
from the settlement must postmark and mail the exclusion no later
than 52 days after the Settlement Administrator originally mails
the Notice and Claim Form to class members, pursuant to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.

A hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement,
and class counsels' requests for fees, expense reimbursement, and
incentive award payment is set for Friday, April 3, 2015, at 11:00
a.m. MDT.

The settlement provides a maximum settlement amount of $6,000,000,
plus a payment of the employer's share of payroll taxes. If the
court approves all requested payments provided in the Settlement
Agreement for attorneys' fees ($2,000,000), litigation costs (less
than $95,000), service payments to the named and deposed opt-in
plaintiffs ($55,000 total), administrative costs of the Settlement
Administrator (estimated by proposed Settlement Administrator Dahl
to be no more than $20,000), and a payment to the State of
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA")
($20,000), then a total of $2.19 million will be deducted from the
Settlement Amount, leaving a maximum net settlement amount $3.81
million -- that is, $6 million (the maximum settlement amount)
minus $2.19 million (in requested payments). Pursuant to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, the minimum amount to be distributed
to class members is 75% of the net settlement amount, or
$2,857,500. The minimum total settlement value, therefore, is
$5,047,500 [$2,857,500 + $2,190,000].

A copy of the Court's November 21, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/OFEurZfrom Leagle.com.

Celeste Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh
-- caroline@spivaklaw.com -- Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak
-- david@spivaklaw.com -- Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin --
jriggin@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Steven M.
Tindall -- steventindall@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria &
Tindall LLP, and:

   Michael Dickson Kuhn, Esq.
   Andrew Edward Swan, Esq.
   Paul Forrest Lewis, Esq.
   LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC
   620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
   Colorado Springs, CO 80903
   Telephone: (719) 694-3000

           - and -

   Rowdy Byron Meeks, Esq.
   ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP, LLC
   10601 Mission Road, Suite 100
   Leawood, KS 66206
   Telephone: 913-766-5585
   Toll Free: 877-783-4729
   Facsimile: 816-875-5069

Judith Verheecke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis
Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm, David
Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin, Rukin Hyland
Doria & Tindall LLP, Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC &
Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP.

Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Plaintiff, represented by Michael
Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh,
Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm.

Dejan Nagl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis
Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David
Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm.

Medhat Gareeb, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn,
Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm &
David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm.

Verisk Analytics Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray --
Nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela
Quiles Nevarez -- Angela.Nevarez@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani -- Leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana -- JatanaN@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis Munger --
peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Interthinx Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Nicholas Anthony Murray, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles
Nevarez, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani, Jackson Lewis, LLP,
Nicky Jatana, Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis Munger, Jackson
Lewis, P.C.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court
entered the parties' scheduling stipulation, which extended the
deadline to complete fact discovery to February 27, 2015 in a
Securities Class Action.

On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers.
The initial complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions about
the Company's business prospects, financial condition and
performance in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
for the purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from February 17, 2011 through November
10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period").

On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint,
which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to,
the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking
similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation
Period. On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated
action ("Consolidated Class Action").

On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
("Consolidated Class Action Complaint"), that in addition to the
original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters in Intralinks' April 6, 2011 stock
offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in
connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material information required to be
stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The defendants filed their motions to dismiss on July 31,
2012.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013,
defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. On October 15, 2013, the Court entered the parties'
pretrial scheduling stipulation. In December 2013, the parties
served each other with document requests and discovery is ongoing.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. Pursuant to an amended scheduling order entered by
the Court on April 18, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition
to class certification on June 13, 2014, and plaintiff filed its
reply on July 18, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion certifying a
class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock between
February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of persons
who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's April 6, 2011 offering. On October 6, 2014, the Court
entered the parties' scheduling stipulation, which extended the
deadline to complete fact discovery to February 27, 2015. Under
that same stipulation, summary judgment briefing must be completed
by November 23, 2015.

On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal
the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for
class certification. Plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants'
petition on October 27, 2014 and, on November 5, 2014, defendants
filed a motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
for permission to file a reply in further support of their
petition. The Company believes that these claims are without merit
and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Intralinks is a global provider of Software-as-a-Service, or SaaS,
solutions for secure enterprise content collaboration within and
among organizations.


IOVATE HEALTH: Obtains Final Approval of Hydroxycut Case Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted final approval of
a class action settlement in IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION. ANDREW DREMAK, on Behalf of Himself, All
Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, Plaintiff, v.
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NOS.
09MD2087 BTM(KSC), 09CV1088 BTM(KSC), (S.D. Cal.).

In this consolidated class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs assert
consumer injury claims in connection with their purchase of the
Hydroxycut Products.

The main features of the Settlement are:

     * $14 million non-reversionary Settlement Fund consisting of
a $7 million Cash Component and a $7 million Product Component.

     * Class members without proof of purchase may elect to
receive cash payments of $15 per purchase for up to three
purchases.

     * If money remains in Cash Component (after paying eligible
cash claims, notice and claim administration expenses, attorney's
fees and expenses, taxes and tax expenses, and service awards)
each cash claim will be increased pro rata up to $50 for each
product purchased.

     * If any amounts still remain in the Cash Component, the
money will go to ChangeLab Solutions, a non-profit organization
that works to combat false and misleading advertising regarding
food and nutrition, or a similar organization.

     * Class members without proof of purchase may elect to
receive a free Product Unit for up to three purchases. The Product
Unit will have a retail price of at least $25. For each Product
Unit Award, class members may choose any one of the following: (1)
Hydroxycut Pro Clinical (72 count); (2) Hydroxycut Hardcore (60
count); (3) Hydroxycut Caffeine Free (72 Count); and (4)
Hydroxycut Max (60 count).

     * Amounts remaining in the Product Component will be
distributed nationwide in the form of additional product (Pro
Clinical Hydroxycut or such other products that are top-selling
throughout the United States) at the time of purchase by the
consumer. The value of the additional product shall be calculated
at the manufacturers' suggested retail price of the regular size
Hydroxycut-branded product, less 15%. The additional product will
be distributed over an eighteen-month period. Within 60 days of
the Effective Date of the Settlement, Iovate will provide Class
counsel with a distribution plan regarding the Additional Product
and will also provide Class Counsel with a bimonthly distribution
report detailing the distribution of Additional Product.

     * Iovate agrees to not oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's
application for attorney's fees not to exceed $3,500,000 and for
expenses not to exceed $300,000. Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $3.5
million in attorneys fees and $204,378.21 in costs.

     * Iovate does not oppose payment of service awards to class
representatives in the amount of $2,000 each.

The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) have been
satisfied and certifies the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Court further finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.

Class Counsel, on behalf of themselves and other Plaintiffs'
counsel, sought and obtained an award of attorney's fees in the
amount of $3.5 million, equal to 25% of the $14 million Settlement
Fund.

Class Counsel also sought and obtained reimbursement of expenses
totaling $202,545.19, incurred by Plaintiffs' Counsel to prosecute
this litigation.

The Court found that the requested incentive payment of $2,000 for
each of the Plaintiffs is reasonable to compensate them for the
work done on behalf of the Class.

A copy of the Court's November 18, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/PrrG9Gfrom Leagle.com.


IQBAL HALAL: Recalls Peek Freans Biscuits Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Iqbal Halal Foods
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9429

Affected products: Peek Freans Butter Puff Biscuits and The
Original Zeera Biscuit


JAGUAR: Recalls F-Type Model Due to Wiring Harness Configuration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           816
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014515TC
ID number:                2014515
Manufacturer recall
number:                   J047

On certain vehicles, a defect in the occupant classification
system wiring could cause the system to fail to detect a child or
small stature adult seated in the front passenger seating
position, instead detecting an unoccupied seat and disabling the
passenger airbag.  The defect could also cause the system to fail
to detect a child car seat installed in the passenger seat and not
disable the passenger airbag.  This could increase the risk of
injury to the seat occupant in a crash.

Correction: Dealers will correct the wiring harness configuration.

Affected products: 2014, 2015 Jaguar F-Type


KING COUNTY, WA: Superior Court Order in "Dolan" Case Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In KEVIN DOLAN, and a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Appellants, NO.
44982-0-II, DRS appeals two superior court orders entered in a
settled class action lawsuit between Kevin Dolan, as
representative of a Class of public defenders, and King County.
First, DRS appeals the final approval order, which contains
findings, conclusions, and rulings approving a settlement between
the Class and the County. Second, DRS appeals the order granting
DRS only partial intervention.

DRS argues that (1) the Administrative Procedure Act1 (APA)
removed the superior court's original subject matter jurisdiction
to enter orders affecting PERS (Public Employees Retirement
System), and that the superior court erred by (2) ruling that its
final approval order binds DRS, who was not a party to the
settlement and (3) denying DRS's motion to intervene as a "full
party," on grounds that DRS's motion to intervene was untimely.

Because the superior court erred by ruling that a party is bound
to a contract to which it is not a party, the Court of Appeals of
Washington, Division Two reversed on November 18, 2014, the final
approval order. Moreover, because the superior court erred by
basing its partial intervention order on the erroneous legal
conclusion that DRS's motion to intervene was untimely, the
Washington Appeals Court reversed the partial intervention order.
The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent
with its opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/GWtDJRfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Respondents:

   David Frank Stobaugh, Esq.
   Stephen Kolden Strong, Esq.
   Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC
   701 5th Ave Ste 4850
   Seattle, WA, 98104-7062
   Telephone: (206) 622-3536
   Facsimile: (206) 622-5759

          - and -

   Susan Nathalie Slonecker, Esq.
   King Co Admin Bldg
   500 4th Ave Ste 900
   Seattle, WA, 98104-2316

          - and -

   Timothy J. Filer, Esq.
   Foster Pepper PLLC
   1111 3rd Ave Ste 3400
   Seattle, WA, 98101-3299
   Telephone: 206-447-2904
   Facsimile: 206-749-1939
   E-mail: filet@foster.com

          - and -

   Kathryn Carder Mccoy, Esq.
   Foster Pepper PLLC
   1111 3rd Ave Ste 3400
   Seattle, WA, 98101-3264
   Telephone: 206-447-2880
   Facsimile: 206-749-1911
   E-mail: cardk@foster.com

Counsel for Appellant Intervenors:

   Jeffrey A.O. Freimund, Esq.
   Michael E. Tardif, Esq.
   Freimund Jackson Tardif & Benedict Garra
   711 Capitol Way S. Ste 602
   Olympia, WA, 98501-1236
   E-mail: jefff@fjtlaw.com
           miket@fjtlaw.com


LIFE PARTNERS: SEC Penalties May Hamper Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission managed to salvage enough
of its case against Life Partners Holdings Inc. and its executives
to eke out a $47 million judgment against them on Dec. 2.  That's
far less than the $2 billion the agency was seeking from the
defendants, which helped pioneer the business of helping investors
gamble on other people's life insurance policies.  But the award
may be more than enough to frustrate plaintiffs lawyers pressing a
parallel investor class action against the same defendants.

The penalties stem from a jury's finding in February that Life
Partners and its execs filed false or misleading reports to the
SEC about their "life settlement" business.  The jury rejected the
SEC's core securities fraud claims in the case, however, and U.S.
District Judge James Nowlin in Austin threw out lesser fraud
claims after the trial.

Judge Nowlin nevertheless levied significant penalties on Dec. 2,
ordering fines of $23.7 million against Life Partners, $6.2
million against CEO Brian Pardo and $2 million against general
counsel R. Scott Peden.  The SEC also won disgorgement of illegal
profits from Life Partners in the amount of $15 million.  Even
though the SEC failed to prove its allegations that Life Partners
systematically misstated life expectancy estimates, the judge
ruled, the defendants were guilty of "serious violations" in their
regulatory filings.

The class action was brought soon after Life Partners revealed
that it was under SEC investigation four years ago.  In May 2014
U.S. District Judge Alia Moses in Del Rio, Texas, refused to
dismiss the plaintiffs' securities fraud claims, handing a key
pretrial win to plaintiffs lawyers at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
Harwood Feffer and Shields, Britton & Fraser.

Thanks to the Dec. 2 decision in the SEC case, however, the
investors' early victory may be hollow.  The class action lawyers
predicted as much back in September, when they told Judge Moses
that even a mediocre recovery by the SEC would mean "there will be
nothing left for plaintiffs and the class to collect in this
action."  They asked Moses to stay the class action pending a
ruling on the SEC's motion for judgment and penalties, writing
that Life Partners had net assets of just $20 million, while Pardo
and Peden lacked recoverable assets "to pay a judgment of any
significant size."

"If the SEC obtains a judgment for more than a nominal amount in
response to its motion, none of the defendants will have any
material amount of assets subject to execution by plaintiffs and
the class, and further litigation of this action will be futile,"
the lawyers wrote.  The judge granted the stay, ruling that the
plaintiffs could wait for a ruling in the SEC case and then either
move to dismiss the case or seek class certification.

The Litigation Daily contacted Steve Berman of Hagens Berman and
one of his partners to ask how the plaintiffs will proceed.  They
didn't immediately respond to the query.

Life Partners is represented in the SEC action by Elizabeth
Yingling of Baker & McKenzie.  Mr. Peden has S. Cass Weiland --
cass.weiland@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs and Austin
solo J. Pete Laney.  Mr. Pardo is represented by Jay Ethington in
Dallas.  In October all three defendants brought in G. Kevin
Buchanan of Kevin Buchanan & Associates in Dallas to represent
them in the class action, replacing Baker & McKenzie's Yingling.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls PC Brand Yogurt Products Due to Spoilage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9420


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: February 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Nov. 24 issued a statement in regards to the
announcement of a proposed class action settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Case No.: 3:13-cv-00580-BEN-RBB

SECURITIES LITIGATION


                  SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
                  CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
                  PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
                  HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
                  ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
                  LITIGATION EXPENSES

EXHIBIT A-3

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY
TRADED COMMON STOCK OF MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC, ("MAXWELL") FROM
APRIL 29, 2011 THROUGH MARCH 19, 2013, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"), that
the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been
certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, as set forth in the full printed
Notice Of (I) Pendency Of Class Action, Certification Of
Settlement Class, And Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; And (III) Motion For An Award Of Attorneys' Fees
And Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED pursuant to an Order of the Court, that a
hearing will be held on February 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., in
Courtroom 5A before the Honorable Roger B. Benitez at the Edward
J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, United States District Court,
Southern District of California, 221 West Broadway, San Diego,
California 92101, to determine whether: (1) a proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of claims in the Litigation in exchange for a
payment of $3,300,000, as set forth in the October 6, 2014
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation; (3) the plan for distributing the proceeds of the
Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable and
adequate; and (4) the applications for fees and expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, P.O.
Box 4028, Portland, OR 97208-4028; 1-877-283-6564. Copies of the
Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.maxwellsecuritieslitigation.com

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Maxwell common stock during
the period April 29, 2011 through March 19, 2013, inclusive, your
rights may be affected by the Settlement.  You may obtain copies
of the Stipulation, the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release
by writing to In re Maxwell Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, PO Box 4028, Portland, OR 4028,
or downloading them at www.maxwellsecuritieslitigation.com
You must submit a valid Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no
later than February 22, 2015 to be eligible for any payment from
the Settlement proceeds.

You may request to be excluded from the class by following the
instructions in the Notice.  Any class member who does not timely
and validly request exclusion by January 15, 2015 will be bound by
any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation.

You may object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
applications for fees and expenses by sending (a) a written
statement identifying your name, address, and telephone number,
and, if represented by counsel, your counsel's name and contact
information; (b) proof of ownership of Maxwell common stock during
the Settlement Class Period, including the number of Maxwell
shares and the date or dates of purchase; (c) a statement
explaining your objection and your reasons for such objection; and
(d) any supporting documentation. You must send these materials by
first class mail to the following addresses so they are received
by JANUARY 15, 2015:

The Court

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
221 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

Lead Plaintiff's Counsel

Lester R. Hooker
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, Florida 33486

Counsel for Defendants Maxwell, David J. Schramm and Kevin S.
Royal

Jerome F. Birn, Jr.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

Counsel for Defendant Van M. Andrews

Roy K. McDonald
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call 877-
283-6564 or contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel at the address listed
above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: November 24, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: Saxena White P.A.

Saxena White P.A.
Lester R. Hooker, 561-206-6708
lhooker@saxenawhite.com


MOL GLOBAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against MOL Global, Inc. and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-
09357, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased MOL Global securities between October 9,
2014 and November 20, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased MOL Global securities
during the Class Period, you have until January 23, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

MOL Global, Inc., through its subsidiary, MOL AccessPortal Sdn.
Bhd., provides e-payment solutions for online goods and services
in Southeast Asia.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to MOLG investors that: (1) MOLG was overstating the revenue and
profit derived from MOLG's business and operations; (2) MOLG's
actual business model could not sustain the growth trends
described in the Offering Documents; (3) MOLG would not be able to
report its third quarter 2014 financial results on November 21,
2014, as previously stated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
MOLG's financial statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On October 3, 2014, MOLG filed its amended Registration Statement
for the IPO, which became effective on October 8, 2014.  Pursuant
to the IPO, 13,500,000 ADSs were sold, consisting of 7,485,030
ADSs offered by the Company and 6,014,970 ADSs offered by certain
selling shareholders of the Company, at the price to the public of
$12.50 per ADS.

On November 20, 2014, prior to the opening of the market, Deutsche
Bank, which had previously assisted in the Company's IPO, assumed
coverage on MOL in a research note setting a "buy" recommendation
and a $12.00 price target on the stock. Deutsche Bank's price
objective pointed to a potential upside of 49.44% from the ADSs'
previous close.

On November 20, 2014, after the market closed, little more than
forty days after the Company's IPO, MOLG announced "that the
Company has rescheduled the date it plans to release its third
quarter 2014 financial results to Wednesday, December 3, 2014
before market opens."  The Company had previously announced that
it would issue the results on November 21, 2014.  Shockingly, the
Company also announced after the CFO had abruptly resigned "for
personal reasons."

On November 21, 2014, just a day after issuing a "buy"
recommendation, Deutsche Bank advised investor caution about
shares in MOLG, describing MOL's sudden announcement as
"potentially ominous."

On this news, shares of MOLG declined $4.77 per share, or almost
54%, to close at $4.09 per share on November 21, 2014, on
unusually heavy volume.  This represented a 67% decline in MOLG's
ADS price from the IPO price of $12.50.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


MVK GROCERY: Removes "Sanchez" Suit to Florida District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sanchez v. MVK Grocery, Inc., et
al., Case No. 14-25611-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court in Miami Dade County to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-24549-KMM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roderick Victor Hannah, Esq.
          RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.
          1250 South Pine Island Road, Suite 375
          Plantation, FL 33324-4454
          Telephone: (954) 362-3800
          Facsimile: (954) 362-3779
          E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie W. Langbein, Esq.
          LANGBEIN & LANGBEIN
          8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: (305) 556-3663
          Facsimile: (305) 556-3647
          E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Former Athletes File Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three
former college athletes are the latest to file a class action
lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
claiming it and 11 athletic conferences have created "monopsony"
power over college athletes.

Kenyata Johnson, Barry Brunetti and D.J. Stephens filed their
complaint Nov. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  It alleges the defendants have unlawfully agreed
that no college will pay an athlete any amount that exceeds the
value of an athletic scholarship.

Ms. Johnson was a linebacker on the University of Memphis'
football team, while Stephens played for the same school's
basketball team.  Mr. Brunetti, a native of Memphis, originally
attended West Virginia University on a football scholarship but
transferred to the University of Mississippi in 2011.

"(The defendants) collectively share 'monopsony' power over
college athletes," the complaint says.  "The NCAA and its members
are 'the only game in town' when it comes to compensating college
athletes for their services.

"In enacting the challenged restraint, the NCAA and its members
have the ultimate power to artificially depress compensation to
college athletes.  If a top-tier athlete doesn't like it, he or
she essentially has no reasonably close alternative.  That is the
nature of a monopsony.

"Instead of a free market, a market controlled by a monopsonist is
a 'take it or leave it' market."

Representing the plaintiffs are L. Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher in Walnut Creek, Calif.,
and Bryan L. Clobes of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel in
Philadelphia.

In a separate filing, those attorneys ask that the new class
action be designated as related to nine other antitrust lawsuits
against the NCAA and one against Electronic Arts.

Among those lawsuits is the one brought by former UCLA basketball
player Ed O'Bannon.  In August, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken
ruled in favor of Mr. O'Bannon, deciding the NCAA's rules
unreasonably restrain trade.

Also among the lawsuits is Keller vs. Electronic Arts.  In it,
former Arizona State University quarterback Sam Keller sued EA for
using his likeness in a video game without paying him, and the
case was combined with O'Bannon's.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled EA couldn't
claim First Amendment protections, and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear the appeal.

EA paid $40 million to settle the case.

"Relating this action to the above-listed actions will promote
substantial efficiency and judicial economy," the Johnson
attorneys wrote.

"Judge Wilken has presided over the Keller and O'Bannon actions
since 2009 and is intimately familiar with the NCAA's rules and
regulations relating to college athletics.

"The Johnson action . . . concerns similar questions with respect
to class certification and liability, and will likely involve
overlapping witnesses, experts and discovery."


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Goldberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07045
(E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) seeks relief over alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Ashkenazi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-07505-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., December 3, 2014) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEVADA PROPERTY: Significant Discovery Commenced in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Significant discovery has commenced and depositions have occurred
in a class action lawsuit over Alleged Unlawful Taping/Recording,
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012 in Superior Court in the State of
California against the Company, alleging violation of the
California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording
of calls. On August 31, 2012, the Company moved the case to U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15, 2013,
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order denying these motions.

Significant discovery has commenced and depositions have occurred,
but no motions to certify a class or subclasses have been filed.
All discovery that relates to class certification issues must be
completed by January 2015 and the plaintiff must file a motion for
class certification by March 2015. The Company will file its
opposition to any motion for class certification by April 2015.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will set a pretrial schedule after its ruling on the class
certification motion.

"Substantial questions of law and fact are unresolved. Specific
additional factors applicable to this case that prevent the
Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss or
range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class
certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported class are unspecified or indeterminate;
and (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, should
they occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate all
class claims. As a result, the Company cannot at this time
determine the potential impact of the lawsuit on the consolidated
financial position, cash flows, or results of operations of the
Company. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
with respect to this matter and intends to defend its position
vigorously," the COmpany said.

"Given the uncertainty of the procedural and substantive legal and
factual matters set forth above, no estimate of the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if
any, can be made at this time with respect to the wage and hour
and alleged unlawful taping/recording purported class action
lawsuits, nor can the Company determine when it will be able to
make such an estimate. Our assessment of these matters may change
based on future unexpected events. An unexpected adverse judgment
could cause a material impact on our business operations, results
of operations or financial position. Unless otherwise expressly
stated, we believe costs associated with litigation will not have
a material impact on our financial position or liquidity, but may
be material to the results of operations in any given period."

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced
operations on December 15, 2010.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Formal Dismissal Order Entered in Hotel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on or about August 26, 2013, against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et
al., alleging, among other things, that former class action
settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium
hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced, and seeking
to recover all amounts paid to or retained by the Company in such
settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case
in exchange for a waiver and release by the Company of its claims
for costs related to the lawsuit. A formal order of dismissal was
subsequently entered with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced
operations on December 15, 2010.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Hotel Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
submitted a motion to compel binding arbitration in a Condominium
Hotel litigation.

At December 31, 2013, there were two condominium hotel units
remaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan (the "Okada Unit" and
the "Mastej Unit"). During the three months ended March 31, 2014,
the Company prevailed in its efforts to confirm and enforce prior
arbitration awards for each of the Okada Unit and the Mastej Unit.
As such, the applicable earnest money deposits were released to
the Company.

On or about March 3, 2014, a complaint was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et
al., alleging, among other things, that former class action
settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium
hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced thus
permitting the plaintiff to recover the full earnest money deposit
and related attorney fees. During July 2014, the complaint against
the Company was dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff was
granted leave to file an amended complaint. On or about July 21,
2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Company's motion to transfer venue of the
case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In
October 2014, the Company submitted a motion in the case to compel
the matter to binding arbitration.

With respect to the Mastej Unit, on or about April 1, 2014, a
Notice of Appeal was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court regarding
the grant of the Company's motion to confirm and enforce the
arbitration award. That matter is in the earliest stages of
proceedings.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced
operations on December 15, 2010.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the motion by the
Company to decertify the one conditionally certified class and for
summary judgment and dismissal in a wage and hour class action,
and the motion by the Plaintiff to certify all classes of
employees under the federal rules remain pending at this time.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars' while on
Property for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform,
alleged improper rounding of time for hours worked and various
other claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada
State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada. The discovery period as to liability has
closed in both cases.

In 2014, the plaintiffs' in the Nevada State Court action filed a
motion to certify all proposed classes. Additionally, in June
2014, the plaintiffs' filed various liens against the Property.
The Company has opposed the motion to certify all classes and
filed motions for summary judgment and dismissal. In September
2014, the Nevada State Court ordered the plaintiffs' liens to be
expunged. No decisions on the dispositive motions have been
issued.

With respect to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
actions, during 2014, the Company filed a motion to decertify the
one conditionally certified class and for summary judgment and
dismissal. Plaintiff filed a motion to certify all classes of
employees under the federal rules. All of these motions remain
pending at this time.

The Company said, "During the second quarter of 2013, as part of
an ongoing assessment of our wage and hour cases, we accrued an
estimated loss contingency of $3.0 million (reported as a
corporate operating expense in the condensed consolidated
statement of operations beginning with the June 30, 2013 quarterly
reporting period). A portion of the loss contingency was utilized
in the October 2013 settlement of a third purported wage and hour
class action matter, with subsequent payment occurring during the
first quarter of 2014. We will continue evaluating the adequacy of
this accrual as the cases develop. Specific additional factors
applicable to each case that prevent the Company from providing an
estimate of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued
or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether
class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported classes and subclasses asserted in
separate, but overlapping litigation are unspecified or
indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement
negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the
class or eliminate all class claims. Legal fees associated with
the cases are recognized as incurred when the legal services are
rendered, and are, therefore, not recognized as part of the loss
contingency accrual."

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect
to the remaining open matters and intends to defend its positions
vigorously.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized in
Delaware (the "Company"), owns and operates The Cosmopolitan of
Las Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commenced
operations on December 15, 2010.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination Due to Disability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis F. Pena-Barrero v. The City of New York, Keith Kerman, Steve
Weir, Frank Dazzo and John and Jane Doe (said names being
fictitious, the persons intended being those who aided and abetted
the unlawful conduct of the named defendants) Case No. 1:14-cv-
09550 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) is an action for injunctive
relief, declaratory judgment and money damages to remedy
discrimination on the basis of disability, race and national
origin.

Mr. Pena-Barrero is a Hispanic male of Colombian national origin.
He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Philosophy from York College
and a Juris Doctor Degree from Touro College.  He is a military
veteran, who was honorably discharged from the United States
Marine Corps Reserve, in May 1993.  He suffers from and has been
diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder, a psychological or
mental impairment.  He worked for the City in the Fleet Services
Unit of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative
Services before being unlawfully terminated in October 2012.  The
Unit is responsible for overseeing and managing City-owned
vehicles.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the state of New York.  The Individual
Defendants were the Plaintiff's supervisors and are employed by
the City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel O. Maduegbuna, Esq.
          MADUEGBUNA COOPER LLP
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 232-0155
          E-mail: sam.m@mcande.com


NHA TRANG: Recalls Beef Balls Due to Listeria Monocytogenes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Nha Trang Deli Inc.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail, Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    9450

Nha Trang Deli Inc. is recalling Beef Balls from the marketplace
due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers
should not consume the recalled product described.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk.  Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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

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

Affected products: 454 g. Nha Trang Deli Inc Beef Balls with best
before dates from 14 11 27 to 14 12 05, inclusively and 20 lb.
Beef Balls sold between Oct. 31 and Nov. 2, 2014


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Abrantes" Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jogert Abrantes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-
05311-DMR (N.D. Cal., December 3, 2014) alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Suren Naradha Weerasuriya, Esq.
          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Drive, #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Accord in "Toth" Case Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the proposed
settlement in the case Toth v. Northwest Savings Bank is subject
to preliminary and final court approval.

On May 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania against Northwest Savings Bank ("Northwest").
Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law claims related to
Northwest's order of posting ATM and debit card transactions and
the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit customer accounts.
Northwest filed preliminary objections to the putative class
action complaint on June 29, 2012.  On September 6, 2012,
Plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint
containing substantially the same allegations as the initial
putative class action complaint.  On November 5, 2012, Northwest
filed preliminary objections to the amended putative class action
complaint.  Plaintiff filed her opposition to Northwest's
preliminary objections on December 6, 2012, and Northwest filed
its reply in support of the preliminary objections on January 3,
2013.  On June 25, 2013, the court entered an order, granting in
part and overruling in part, Northwest's preliminary objections.

On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and
reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve,
discharge and release all claims that have been or could have been
asserted in the action on a class-wide basis.  The proposed
settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete
release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members,
Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the
settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions,
including for attorney's fees and expenses.  The proposed
settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval.

Northwest Bancshares, a Maryland corporation headquartered in
Warren, Pennsylvania, is a savings and loan holding company
regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.


OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Marco Polo Chocolate Covered Wafer Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Omega Food Importers Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9440


OSOLEO WILDCRAFTERS: Recalls Unpasteurized Cranberry-Apple Cider
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Osoleo Wildcrafters
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on Nov. 3, 2014 has been updated to
include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Osoleo Wildcrafters is recalling Osoleo Wildcrafters brand
unpasteurized Cranberry-Apple Cider from the marketplace due to
possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.  Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described.

These products have been sold from Oct. 10, 2014 to Oct. 12, 2014,
inclusively, at The Mustard Seed Cooperative Grocery located at
460 York Boulevard in Hamilton, Ontario.

Check to see if you have the products in your home.  If the
products are in your home, do not consume them.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

The recall was triggered by findings by the CFIA during its
investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak.  The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products.  If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.


PACKERS SANITATION: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles D. Talbert v. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc., and
Brandon Wakefield, individually and on behalf of Packers
Sanitation Services, Inc., jointly and severally, Case No. 2:14-
cv-14550-VAR-MJH (E.D. Mich., December 2, 2014) alleges that PSSI
refused to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff for the
hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

PSSI is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Kieler, Wisconsin.
PSSI provides contract sanitation services to the food industry,
which services are provided on-site at the customer's facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tarra L. Talbert, Esq.
          114 Clarence Street
          Holly, MI 48442
          Telephone: (248) 820-3170
          E-mail: Tarra@Talbert-Law.com


PEET'S OPERATING: Retaliated Against 87-Year-Old-Man, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Conway v. Peet's Operating Company, Inc.; Peet's Coffee & Tea,
Inc.; Robyn Hallin; Ms. Doe Ruiz; and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case
No. 4:14-cv-05281-KAW (N.D. Cal., December 2, 2014) involves the
Defendants' alleged discriminatory retaliation against the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, an 87 year old man, is a qualified disabled person
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and related
state laws because of his asthma.  He alleges that because he
complained that the Defendants' employee was sweeping dust in his
direction, making it difficult to breathe, the Defendants ordered
him to stay away from their public accommodation and to never
return.

Peet's Operating Company, Inc. and Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. are
the owners and operators and lessees of the Peet's Coffee & Tea
store, located in Oakland (Montclair Village), California.
Robyn Hallin is a manager of Peet's Coffee & Tea.  The true names
and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAGAN & RAGAN: Illegally Collects Consumer Debts, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Michelson, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated consumers v. Ragan & Ragan, P.C. & Unifund CCR Partners,
Case No. 3:14-cv-07476-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., December 2, 2014) arises
out of alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by the Defendants and their collection agents in their illegal
efforts to collect a consumer debt from the Plaintiff.

Based in Wall, New Jersey, Ragan & Ragan, P.C. is a debt
collection law firm and New Jersey business entity engaged in
business of collecting consumer debts.  Unifund CCR Partners,
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a debt collection agency and
Ohio business entity engaged in business of collecting consumer
debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER, P.C.
          120 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 300
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 461-0059
          Facsimile: (201) 608-7116
          E-mail: david@lupoloverlaw.com


RALEIGH RESTAURANT: Holden Case Parties to Proceed to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE HOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. RALEIGH RESTAURANT CONCEPTS, INC.
Defendant, NO. 5:14-CV-348-F, (E.D. N.C.) is before the court on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Stay and to Compel
Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss all Class and Collective Action
Allegations. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave of File Sur-
Reply.

Ms. Holden filed her collective and class action on June 13, 2014,
alleging that Raleigh Restaurant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA), N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 95-
25.1, et seq.

In an order entered November 20, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/0OnwjGfrom Leagle.com, Senior District
Judge James C. Fox allowed in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Stay and to Compel
Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss all Class and Collective Action
Allegations.  To the extent the Motion seeks to compel
arbitration, the Motion is allowed and the proceeding will be
stayed pending arbitration. The Court directed the parties to
submit a status report of the arbitration proceedings no later
than 90 days from the filing date of the order, and every 90 days
thereafter, until such proceedings are concluded. To the extent
the Motion seeks to dismiss all class and collective action
allegations, the Motion is denied without prejudice.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply was denied.

Leslie Holden, Plaintiff, represented by:

   David W. Hodges, Esq.
   Kennedy Hodges, LLP
   711 West Alabama Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Telephone: 713-489-9493
   Toll Free: 800-391-9935
   Facsimile: 713-523-1116

          - and -

   Todd R. Ellis, Esq.
   Law Office of Todd Ellis, PA
   7911 Broad River Road, Suite 100
   Irmo, SC 29063
   Toll Free: 1-877-440-4146
              or 803-732-0123

Raleigh Restaurant Concepts Inc, Defendant, represented by Allan
S. Rubin -- RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.,
Patricia L. Holland -- patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis PC & Bradley J. Shafer -- brad@bradshaferlaw.com --
Shafer & Associates, P.C.


RIPTIDE BY THE BAY: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Lee, Amber Groves, Christopher Wenzel, Adair Atkinson,
Mandy Merchant and Erin O'Connor v. Riptide By The Bay, Inc.,
Meredith Rippel, Roger R. Rippel, Jr., and RRR 1 Investments LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03762 (D. Md., December 2, 2014) is a civil
action for unpaid wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Riptide By The Bay, Inc., a Maryland corporation, owns and
operates Riptide By The Bay restaurant in Baltimore City, Maryland
(in the Fells Point area).  Riptide is owned and operated by
Defendants Meredith Rippel and Roger R. Rippel Jr.

RRR 1 Investments LLC is a limited liability corporation formed
under the laws of Maryland by Mr. Rippel to hold, manage, and to
operate the real estate where Riptide By The Bay, Inc. performs
sales and employs employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq.
          HOWARD B. HOFFMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 251-3752
          Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
          E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com

               - and -

          Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
          BRADFORD WARBASSE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 337-5411
          Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
          E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com


RSG FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Berel Grunbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. RSG Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07007
(E.D.N.Y., December 2, 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


SALLIE MAE: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in 2 TCPA Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted Defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment in the cases captioned:

JENNIFER ANDREWS and GREGORY ANDREWS, Plaintiffs, v. SALLIE MAE,
INC. and DOES 1-100, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-760-CAB (JMA),
(S.D. Cal.)

NICHOLAS ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. SALLIE MAE, INC., and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-2262-CAB (JMA), (S.D.
Cal.)

Jennifer Andrews and Gregory Andrews were parties to the putative
class action filed by Mark Arthur on February 2, 2010, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against SLM Corporation, d/b/a Sallie Mae, for
violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The named parties in Arthur signed an Amended Settlement
Agreement in October 2011. The Agreement states that "[a]ny
Settlement Class Member who has not submitted or does not submit a
valid and timely Revocation Request will be deemed to have
provided prior express consent to the making of Calls by Sallie
Mae or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation to any
phone numbers reflected in such entities' records."
Jennifer and Gregory are members of the Arthur settlement class.
They did not opt out of the class settlement or submit a
Revocation Request. On September 17, 2012, the Arthur court
entered its order and final judgment approving the settlement.

Meanwhile, Nicholas Andrews filed his complaint in state court on
August 15, 2013. He sues Sallie Mae, Inc. for violation of
California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for
violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Sections 227, and for intrusion.

Judge Bencivengo held that to the extent Jennifer and Gregory
Andrews assert a TCPA claim arising out of defendant's automated
calls to their cell phone made prior to September 17, 2012, the
claim is precluded by the Arthur judgment. In addition, plaintiffs
are deemed to have given their prior express consent to
defendant's automated calls as of September 17, 2012. A genuine
dispute of material fact remains as to whether plaintiffs revoked
their consent subsequent to September 17, 2012.

Judge Bencivengo also held that Nicholas Andrews is deemed to have
given his prior express consent to defendant's automated calls as
of September 17, 2012. A genuine dispute of material fact remains
as to whether plaintiff subsequently revoked his consent.

Copies of Court's ruling, dated November 20, 2014, are available
at http://is.gd/CYLhbQand http://is.gd/Dz1eoEfrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Menard --
jmenard22@gmail.com -- Law Office of Jeffrey R. Menard.

Gregory Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Menard, Law
Office of Jeffrey R. Menard.

Nicholas B. Andrews, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R. Menard,
Law Office of Jeffrey R. Menard.

Sallie Mae, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian David Roth --
broth@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel,
L.L.P. & Debbie P Kirkpatrick -- dkirkpatrick@sessions-law.biz --
Sessions Fishman Nathan and Israel.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Still Faces "Glitz" and "Thornberry" Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Mississippian Trust I continues to face the class action
filed by James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of
SandRidge. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a
substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same
court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court
consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation")
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 23, 2013 the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, in which the Trust was named as an additional
defendant.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts a variety
of federal securities claims against the Trust and SandRidge and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, among
other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011
to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust with respect to certain of the allegations, are responsible
for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
gas reserves, SandRidge's capital expenditures, and certain
transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with
SandRidge's former CEO Tom Ward. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public
offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was corrected by way of a
Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2013.

The Trust and SandRidge each filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims
asserted against the Trust in the Corrected Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The
Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may
arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are
probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment
will be required in making any such estimates and any final
liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different
than any estimates.

The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established
any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.  The Trust may
withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover
future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may
have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may
make in connection with the Securities Litigation.


SEAWORLD PARKS: Faces "Herman" Contract-Related Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Herman, an individual and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 8:14-
cv-03028-MSS-EAJ (M.D. Fla., December 3, 2014) arises from alleged
contract dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Fowkes, Esq.
          DISPARTI, FOWKES & HASANBASIC PA
          2154 Duck Slough, Suite 101
          Trinity, FL 34655-5073
          Telephone: (813) 221-0500
          Facsimile: (813) 228-7077
          E-mail: paul@dispartilaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan Christopher Hasanbasic, Esq.
          DISPARTI FOWKES & HASANBASIC, P.A
          1041 US Hwy. 19
          Holiday, FL 34691
          Telephone: (813) 221-0500
          Facsimile: (813) 228-7077
          E-mail: rhasanbasic@dispartilaw.com


SIMPSON UCHITEL: Faces Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mitchell and Jane Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Simpson, Uchitel & Wilson, L.L.P.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03837-AT-JSA (N.D. Ga., December 2, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          108 East Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 204
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          P.O. Box 1478
          331 Washington Ave.
          Marietta, GA 30061
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  krisskaar@aol.com


STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Sued in E.D. New York for Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Mandelbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Stephens and Michaels Associates, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-07020 (E.D.N.Y., December 2, 2014) seeks relief under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Arizona Owner-Operator Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face the Arizona Owner-
operator Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on
August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and remanding the case back to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the
Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review,
and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the
decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals
lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial
court's original denial of class certification and remanded the
matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and
determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for
class certification and expanded it to include all persons who
were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with
Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each
case who were compensated by reference to miles driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect
to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to
compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the
class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of
contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based
on statute of limitations.

The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate
relief supported by the record, which the Company believes
demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further,
that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of
its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari
in the Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action
Litigation.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and its Interstate Equipment Leasing ("IEL")
subsidiary: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons
v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing,
Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-10376 filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The putative class involves
owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified
owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and various New York
and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related
issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-
operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to
the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former
owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the
matter has been transferred from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the United States
District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and
authorize notice to the potential class members. On September 23,
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from
plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and
related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted
Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class
action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The District
Court further denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction
and motion for conditional class certification. The District Court
also denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a
class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's
September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration alleging that the
agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1
of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of
plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration
agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published
decision "expressly held that a district court must determine
whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration
under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter". As a
consequence of this determination by the ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the
Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court to address whether the district court or arbitrator
should determine whether the contract is an employment contract
exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for writ of certiorari. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against any proceedings. The final disposition of this case
and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at
this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces Calif. Wage, Meal & Rest Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face California Wage,
Meal and Rest Employee Class Actions, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell
Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed
to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of
proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending
before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the
Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell
Complaint was lifted.

On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed
plaintiff's claims that are based on alleged violations of meal
and rest periods set forth in the California Labor Code.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino ("the Rudsell
Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint has been stayed pending a
resolution in the Burnell Complaint. Any claims related to
orientation pay in the Rudsell Complaint have been subsumed within
the Montalvo v. Swift class action matter.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and we retain all of
our defenses against liability and damages pending a determination
of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend
certification of the class in both matters, as well as the merits
of these matters, should the classes be certified. The final
disposition of both cases and the impact of such final
dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Montalvo" Minimum Wage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face the case, Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego ("the Montalvo Complaint"), the Company said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego ("the Montalvo Complaint"). The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
1827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to
state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand, which
has been denied. The putative class includes employees alleging
that candidates for employment within the four-year statutory
period in California were not paid the state-mandated minimum wage
during their orientation phase.

On July 29, 2013, the court certified the class. The Company
appealed the class certification and the remand to state court,
but on April 10, 2014, the Company's appeal of class certification
was denied. The parties participated in mediation in an attempt to
economically resolve all claims without having to incur the
expense and uncertainty of litigation. As a consequence of ongoing
efforts to mediate a resolution, the Company anticipates its
exposure to be in the range of $1.0 million to $1.5 million.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
this matter. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this
time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Calix" Minimum Wage Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face the case, Jorge
Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino ("the Calix
Complaint"), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On November 7, 2013, a class action lawsuit was filed by Jorge
Calix on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.: Calix et al. v.
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. ("Central") in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino ("the Calix
Complaint"). The putative class includes employees alleging that
candidates for employment within the four -year statutory period
in California were not paid the state-mandated minimum wage during
their orientation phase. On December 13, 2013, Central filed an
answer denying the allegations.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. Central intends to
vigorously defend against certification of the class, as well as
the merits of this matter, should the class be certified. The
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Peck" Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on September 25,
2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by Lawrence Peck on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC in
the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside ("the Peck
Complaint"). The putative class includes current and former non-
exempt employee truck drivers who performed services in California
within the four-year statutory period alleging that Swift failed
to pay for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails
to compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class, as well as the
merits, should the class be certified. The final disposition of
the case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Slack" Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation continues to face the case, Troy Slack, et al
v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"), the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County ("the
Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State based
employee drivers during the three-year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meals and rest
periods.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as
it pertains to dedicated route drivers and did not certify any
other class or claims, including any class related to over the
road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The court also further limited the
class of dedicated drivers to only those dedicated drivers that
either begin or end their shift in the state of Washington and
therefore are Washington-based employees. Swift is appealing the
limited certification of the Washington dedicated drivers.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class, as well as the
merits of these matters, should the class be certified. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still to Face "Roberts" Minimum Wage Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation continues to face the case, Jacob Roberts and
Collective Action Plaintiffs John Does 1-10 v. Central
Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does
1-10 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
Case No. 2;13-ev-00911-EJF ("the Roberts Complaint"), the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

On October 8, 2013, a collective action lawsuit was filed by Jacob
Roberts on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon Isaacson, Bob Baer
and John Does 1-10: Jacob Roberts and Collective Action Plaintiffs
John Does 1-10 v. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, Bob Baer and John Does 1-10 in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, Case No. 2;13-ev-00911-
EJF ("the Roberts Complaint"). The putative nationwide class
includes employees alleging that candidates for employment within
the three-year statutory period in Utah were not paid proper
compensation pursuant to the FLSA, specifically that the putative
collective action plaintiffs were not paid the state-mandated
minimum wage for orientation, travel, and training.

The issue of collective action certification in the Roberts
Complaint must first be resolved before the court will address the
merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses
against liability and damages, pending a determination of
collective action certification. Central intends to vigorously
defend against collective action certification, as well as the
merits of this matter, should the collective action be certified.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Cilluffo" Action in Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation continues to face the case, Gabriel Cilluffo,
Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf
themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central
Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson,
and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. ED CV 12-00886 ("the
Cilluffo Complaint"), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed
by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually
and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons
against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing,
Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes: Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire
and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all
similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.,
Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. ED CV 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"). The putative class
involves owner-operators alleging that Central misclassified
owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the
FLSA, and that such owner-operators should be considered
employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced labor and
state law contractual claims.

On September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that
the FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah
Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and not the FAA. The September
24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator to determine the validity
of proceeding as a collective arbitration under the UUAA, and then
if the arbitrator determines that such collective action is
permitted, then the arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff's FLSA
claim.

On November 8, 2012, the California District Court entered a
clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff's FLSA claim was
to proceed to collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the
plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law contractual claims
were to proceed as individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs
seeking to pursue those specific claims. Central filed a motion
for reconsideration and a motion for interlocutory appeal of the
California District Court's orders, both of which were denied and
the claims are proceeding to collective and individual arbitration
as originally ordered.

On December 9, 2013 the arbitrator determined that the issue of
misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a
collective arbitration, however the plaintiffs forced labor claim
and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach
of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and
not as a class.

Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in the
Cilluffo Complaint, as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and
any individual arbitration matters that are filed, and proceed on
the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final
disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition
of this case cannot be determined at this time.

Swift Transportation Company is the holding company for Swift
Transportation Co., LLC (a Delaware limited liability company) and
its subsidiaries (collectively, "Swift Transportation Co."), a
truckload carrier headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL").


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Class Suit Alleging Trademark Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Ellebracht, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and Ellebracht Farms v. Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-01995 (E.D. Mo., December 3, 2014) alleges trademark
infringement under the Lanham Act.

The Plaintiffs are not represented by any law firm.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Class Action in BC Over Airbag Defect
--------------------------------------------------------
BIV reports that in a proposed class action, Delta resident Reena
Rai sued Japanese airbag manufacturer Takata Corp., along with TK
Holdings Inc., Highland Industries Inc., Honda Motor Company Ltd.,
American Honda Motor Company Inc., and Honda Canada Inc. over a
massive vehicle recall due to defective and potentially deadly
airbags.

Ms. Rai filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on
November 12.  According to the lawsuit, she received a recall
notice in August about her 2003 Honda Accord's passenger-side
airbag needing replacement "due to a defect which could cause
serious and potential fatal injury to vehicle occupants."

Class members include B.C. residents who bought or leased Honda
vehicles from January 1, 2000, to the present, which were the
subject of recalls dating back to November 2008.  Recalled
vehicles include several Acura models from 2001 through 2003, and
various Honda models from the same period.

Several cases from the U.S., according to the claim, reported that
airbags "violently exploded during an accident collision sending
metal and plastic shrapnel into the vehicle cabin causing serious
and/or fatal injury."

Takata allegedly developed the airbags to be more compact and less
toxic than older models.  The defective airbags inflate by using
"an explosive based on a common compound used in fertilizers" and
are encased in a metal canister that potentially sprays metal
fragments through airbag cushions after rupturing, according to
the lawsuit.

In the U.S., the National Highway Transport Safety Administration
has recalled approximately five million Honda vehicles, while more
than 300,000 have been recalled in Canada since 2008.  The suit
says more than 14 million vehicles with Takata airbags have been
recalled worldwide, and "a large majority of those recalls have
come only within the last year despite the fact that many of the
vehicles were manufactured with a potentially defective and
dangerous airbag over a decade ago."

The airbags have been linked to four deaths and 139 injuries, the
claim says, and Takata has allegedly known of the problem over the
last 13 years.

Ms. Rai seeks class certification, orders compelling the
defendants to repair the defective vehicles, disgorgement of
profits from sales of the vehicles and damages for fraud, breach
of warranty and violations of the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act.  The allegations have not been tested in court and
the defendants hadn't filed a response by press time.


TAKATA CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Airbag Defect Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that major car
manufacturers and the maker of defective air bags that have
recently been recalled are pushing to have the cases filed against
them by affected car owners across the country consolidated in an
MDL in Pittsburgh while plaintiffs lawyers are divided over where
they want the cases sent.

The initial motion for consolidation of the cases was made at the
beginning of November on behalf of nearly 20 plaintiffs asking for
the forum to be set in the Southern District of Florida, where
U.S. District Senior Judge James Lawrence King has been handling
some of them.

Over the course of the past month, several other groups of
plaintiffs weighed in with their choice of forum, from the Los
Angeles-based Central District of California to the Southern
District of New York.

Generally, the tenor of plaintiffs lawyers in these cases takes
one of two forms, said Richard Marcus, a professor who teaches
complex litigation at the University of California, Hastings
College of the Law in San Francisco.  He said the possibilities
are: a "plaintiffs' side cabal" or a "plaintiffs' side cat fight."

A "tension between making a deal . . . and fighting to the death
will exist on a number of subjects and if you want to be lead
counsel, better to have it in your backyard than not in your
backyard," Mr. Marcus said.

Takata, the company that made the air bags that have been
exploding with metal debris, and car manufacturers including
Honda, BMW, Ford, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota, filed responses to
the motion, urging the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to consolidate the cases in the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

They argue that Pittsburgh is convenient because Takata and the
car makers all have headquarters or manufacturing plants nearby;
it is a convenient place for all parties and witnesses to reach;
and it has "favorable docket conditions."

The location of evidence is no longer as controlling a factor as
it used to be since much of it is now electronic, said John Evans,
a lawyer at Specter Specter Evans & Manogue in Pittsburgh, who
handles complex litigation.

U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer, who has been handling the
Takata cases filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, is
skilled with managing e-discovery, Evans said.

The more common position for defendants to take in front of the
MDL panel is that consolidation isn't necessary, he said.  Arguing
otherwise is "a strategic call on their part."

"Transfer and coordination of the dozens of class actions
concerning Takata air bags is plainly warranted," the car
manufacturers argued in their brief to the MDL panel.  "The only
question is where to establish the MDL."

Takata said, essentially, the same thing in its brief. Both argued
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

"The bottom line is, they think strategically.  They're
comfortable with the judge they have" and the rulings they expect
they'll get, Evans said.

Judge Fischer was at the Pittsburgh defense firm of Meyer Darragh
Buckler Bebenek & Eck, then at Pietragallo Bosick & Gordon, before
she joined the federal bench.

Judge Fischer is well respected by both the plaintiffs bar and the
defense bar in Pittsburgh, Mr. Evans said.

Howard Specter, a lawyer at the same firm, said of Judge Fischer,
"She calls them as she sees them. She's objective."  She's also a
good case manager, he said.

Advocating for the Western District of Pennsylvania as a forum is
more an indication of where the defendants don't want the case to
be than where they do, Mr. Specter said.  And, there could be
"an uninformed belief that we're simply a more conservative place
. .  . than Miami, or L.A., or San Francisco," he said.

Ultimately, the MDL panel will send the cases to a judge who is
suited to handle them and has the space on his or her docket,
Marcus said. The parties can argue for their preference of forum,
he said, but the panel works independently.

The defendants argued the Western District of Pennsylvania has a
lighter caseload relative to other potential forums, which would
weigh in favor of moving the cases there.

The Western District has 10 allotted judgeships, but it currently
has three vacancies, two of which won't yield senior judges
because former U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin resigned to
join the private sector and former U.S. District Chief Judge Gary
Lancaster died.  Senior judges can be relied upon to lighten the
caseload for active judges by taking on work, but there are only
five senior judges in the Western District.

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judge, D. Michael
Fisher, recently stepped in to take on two cases in the Western
District due partly to the shortage of judges on that bench.
Judge Fisher has his chambers in Pittsburgh and had also wanted to
get trial experience since he joined the appellate bench after
having been in private practice and then being elected twice to
serve as Pennsylvania attorney general.

Marcus noted the increase in the prevalence of MDLs over the last
10 to 15 years -- aside from prisoner petitions and Social
Security cases, 40 percent of all pending civil cases are subject
to an MDL order -- which means that the number of judges who are
equipped to handle them and called upon to do so is getting
larger.  The number of plaintiffs lawyers who are involved with
them is also getting larger, and the likelihood of collaboration
among them is lower when they haven't worked together before.

Neither Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck
in Miami, nor David Fernandes of Baron and Budd in Los Angeles
returned a call for comment.  Each represent plaintiffs in the
case.

Dechert, a Philadelphia-based law firm, is representing Takata and
a spokeswoman for the firm said it declined to comment on the
issue.


TAKATA CORP: Exec Defends Decision Not Initiate Nationwide Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that Hiroshi
Shimizu, senior vice president for global quality assurance at
Takata Corp., on Dec. 3 defended his company's decision not to
initiate a nationwide air bag recall, saying a regional recall is
sufficiently addressing a deadly safety defect.

In his second public appearance on Capitol Hill in three weeks,
Mr. Shimizu told members of a House panel that the most recent
information Takata has on the problem shows that the Japanese
manufacturer doesn't need to expand recalls beyond the 7.8 million
U.S. cars and trucks in the hot and humid climates of many
Southern states.  At least five deaths have been tied to the
defect, which has brought more than 30 lawsuits, mostly class
actions brought on behalf of consumers.

Takata on Dec. 2 indicated that it wouldn't institute a nationwide
recall for its driver-side air bags as ordered by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  The company could face a
$7,000 per vehicle fine for noncompliance.


TD AMERITRADE: "Klein" Suit Transferred From N.J. to Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05738, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska.  The Nebraska
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB-TDT to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties on
behalf of himself and all similarly-situated customers of TD
Ameritrade in connection with alleged self-interested routing of
the Company's clients' orders to venues, which paid the maximum
liquidity rebate or paid for order flow, irrespective of whether
the routing would optimize execution quality.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, with its principal place of
business in Omaha, Nebraska, is the parent company and sole equity
holder of TD Ameritrade, Inc., which is also based in Omaha.

TD Ameritrade, Inc., is a financial services company, which acts
as a broker-dealer, and is engaged in the trading of, among other
things, stocks and bonds for itself and its over six million
clients.  TD Ameritrade has more than $375 billion in client
accounts and executes an average of 400,000 trades per day.  TD
Ameritrade is the third largest discount brokerage.  Fredric
Tomczyk is a resident of Michigan, and is the Chief Executive
Officer of TD Ameritrade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Sebastian Tonatore, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  nkulesa@zlk.com
                  ckupka@zlk.com
                  stornatore@zlk.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alex Kaplan, Esq.
          Jackie A. Lu, Esq.
          Robert A. Pietrzak, Esq.
          SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
                  jlu@sidley.com
                  rpietrzak@sidley.com

               - and -

          Donald A. Robinson, Esq.
          Leda D. Wettre, Esq.
          ROBINSON, WETTRE LAW FIRM
          One Newark Center, 19th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 690-5400
          Facsimile: (973) 466-2760
          E-mail: DRobinson@rwmlegal.com
                  LWettre@rwmlegal.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Dahlk, Esq.
          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com
                  vicki.buter@kutakrock.com


TRUE NORTH: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Lefort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. True North AR, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-05322-DMR (N.D.
Cal., December 3, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Suren Naradha Weerasuriya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


UNITED NORTHERN: Sexually Harassed Gay Loan Originator, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Fava v. United Northern Mortgage Bankers Ltd., Don Giorgio,
individually, and Michael Gannon, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07042-ENV-VVP (E.D.N.Y., December 3, 2014) is brought under the
Civil Rights Act, the New York State Executive Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, the New York City Administrative Code, and
related state law claims and seeks damages to redress the injuries
the Plaintiff has allegedly suffered as a result of being sexually
harassed and discriminated against on the basis of her gender and
sexual orientation.

Ms. Fava worked as a loan originator and the Staten Island Branch
Manager of United Northern.  She is a gay female over the age of
40.

Based in Levittown, New York, United Northern Mortgage Bankers
Limited is a domestic business corporation that does business in
the state of New York.  United Northern operated an office located
in Staten Island, New York.  Don Giorgio was the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company.  Michael Gannon was the Vice President of
the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Neveloff, Esq.
          THE NEVELOFF LAW FIRM, PC
          30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 964-2066
          Facsimile: (212) 964-5854
          E-mail: daniel@neveloff.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Seek Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Commercial Litigation Insider,
reports that shareholders who brought a class action objecting to
Verizon Communications' $130 billion acquisition of Vodafone's
45-percent stake in the American telecom's wireless business have
asked for final court approval of their non-monetary settlement.

Plaintiffs law firm Faruqi & Faruqi in New York is seeking $2
million in attorney fees and expenses, which Verizon is not
opposing.  However, objectors, including Gerald Walpin, a New York
attorney and Verizon shareholder representing himself, say the
fees are excessive in light of the return for stockholders in
ownership of 2.86 billion shares.

The plaintiffs said that the Verizon's board of directors breached
its fiduciary duty to stockholders by causing the company to pay
"an allegedly excessive and dilutive price" to acquire Vodafone
subsidiaries as well as the minority interest in Verizon Wireless.
The plaintiffs also said the duty of candor was violated because
the directors failed to disclose material information from their
financial advisors opining that the transaction was fair.

In exchange for settling the suit, the plaintiffs said Verizon
agreed to include supplemental disclosures about the transaction
ahead of a shareholder vote last January.  The plaintiffs also
said that Verizon's board of directors agreed to obtain a fairness
opinion from an independent financial advisor for "any transaction
regarding assets of Verizon Wireless having a book value . . . in
excess of $14.4 billion," or approximately 5 percent of the book
value of Verizon Wireless.  The plaintiffs said a fairness opinion
would ensure that the telecom's management would not sell assets
too cheaply after paying a premium for them.

Without the settlement, the directors of Verizon, which is a
Delaware corporation, have no legal duty to obtain an opinion on
the fairness of their corporate transactions, the plaintiffs said.
"Such independent fairness opinions for transactions implicating
as little as 5 percent of the company's assets are neither
required by law, nor are they common in the business community,"
Nadeem Faruqi and Juan E. Monteverde of Faruqi & Faruqi said in
their court papers.  "These corporate governance reforms, however,
provided Verizon stockholders with a material benefit in the form
of providing stockholders with heightened protection from the
possibility of management selling assets too cheaply after
acquiring them at a premium price."

The case is pending before Manhattan Commercial Division Justice
Melvin L. Schweitzer.  Preliminary approval already was granted to
the settlement.

In September 2013, Verizon announced its agreement with Vodafone
Group Plc and Vodafone 4 Limited to acquire Vodafone's 45 percent
indirect interest in Verizon Wireless.  In exchange, Verizon
agreed to pay $59 billion in cash financed by what was among the
largest corporate bond issuances in history.  Verizon also agreed
to pay $60 billion in Verizon stock, $5 billion in notes payable
to Vodafone 4, a 23.1 percent stake in Vodafone Omnitel N.V.
valued at $3.5 billion and other consideration of $2.5 billion.

While the transaction involved the purchase of a minority interest
in Verizon's wireless business, it was the third-largest
acquisition ever, Faruqi & Faruqi said.

Fewer than 223 stockholders wanted to opt out of the settlement,
according to the firm's court papers.

                            Fee Fight

Faruqi & Faruqi argues that Delaware law recognizes giving
attorney fees to plaintiffs lawyers who "provide a substantial
benefit in the form of disclosures or therapeutic measures."
According to the firm, those benefits were the disclosure of
additional information about the Verizon-Vodafone transaction
ahead of the shareholder vote and requiring Verizon to obtain an
independent opinion on the fairness of selling 5 percent or more
of their assets over the next three years.

The fee lodestar is $640,500 multiplied by 2.90.  The firm also
says it incurred a little more than $144,000 in fees.  Mr. Walpin
said in his filing that the fees were actually only $25,299.38.
Mr. Walpin said in an email he is objecting to a settlement in
which the plaintiffs lawyers would get $2 million in fees but the
plaintiffs would not get any remuneration.  There are even costs
to shareholders to pay a settlement out of corporate assets, he
said.

Avi Szenberg -- avi.szenberg@szenok.com -- of Szenberg & Okun in
New York, writing on behalf of client Jonathan M. Crist, said this
case reflects a negative practice by class-action attorneys to
file "lawsuits virtually every time a merger or acquisition of a
public company is announced, followed shortly thereafter by a non-
pecuniary settlement for no meaningful benefit to the
shareholders, accompanied by large fee requests by the plaintiff's
lawyers for very little work."

Mr. Szenberg said in an email that the overall deal is not being
challenged.  Instead, his client is challenging the request for
attorney fees because "plaintiff's counsel achieved no benefit for
the shareholders."

Verizon's lawyers are Paul K. Rowe and Adam M. Gogolak --
AMGogolak@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New
York.

The lawyers from Faruqi & Faruqi did not respond to a request for
comment.  Mr. Rowe -- PKRowe@wlrk.com -- also did not respond to a
request for comment.


VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Shalem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:14-cv-07515-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., December 3, 2014)

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


* Jails Take Steps to Abide by 48-Hour Rule After Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Black, writing for South Bend Tribune, reports that near
midnight on Sept. 29, 2008, Amanda Strunk and Joshua Cleveland
were arrested together near a meth lab in rural LaGrange County
and booked into the LaGrange County Jail.

The two, in their 30s, became the representatives of a federal
class-action lawsuit filed in 2010 that has inspired new policies
and will soon result in a million-dollar settlement for them and
237 others who were jailed past 48 hours without probable cause
being established, violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

In fact, wending through the federal court system now are several
similar lawsuits involving other county sheriffs in Indiana, who
have been forced to adapt to meet the 48-hour standard upheld over
the years.  But negotiations over what the "loss of liberty" of
hundreds of inmates is worth have drawn out the cases in court.

   * Whitley County's sheriff was sued in April 2008, after
Huntington resident Lawrence Bickel was arrested without a warrant
on a Thursday in 2006, but his detention was not judged to have
probable cause until the following Monday.  Like other smaller
counties, the sheriff described in court documents a policy in
which arrestees were taken to court only once a week, regardless
of when they were arrested.  A settlement reached earlier this
year and set to be heard by a federal judge in March calls for
$725,000 to be distributed to 243 members of the class.

   * Allen County authorities -- although they, too, altered
policies to achieve inmate release or probable cause findings
within 48 hours -- have drawn a line in the sand over the amount
to be divided among more than 962 members in the class-action
lawsuit filed in February 2010 on behalf of LeTasha Myatt and
others who were held over long weekends.  Ms. Myatt, who was
arrested on a Thursday and not released until late on the
following Monday, was charged with battery; those charges were
later dropped after she completed a pretrial diversion program.  A
threeweek jury trial is set for January.

Allen County officials declined comment, but they pointed out in
court documents that many of those who were "overdetained"
eventually were credited with the extra time they spent in the
jail once they were sentenced.  But the plaintiffs' attorneys
wrote in court documents, "By their verdict, the jury will,
indeed, be sending a message as to the value of the liberty lost."

   * The most recent class-action lawsuit related to the 48-hours
issue was filed in Clark County in southern Indiana earlier this
year, on behalf of Carlton Wright and more than 620 others
identified so far, court documents say.  Mr. Wright was arrested
Dec. 24, 2009, but was not afforded an initial hearing until
Jan. 4, 2010.  Defense attorneys say jail policies were changed in
January 2011 to meet the 48-hour standard.  Settlement
negotiations continue.

   * In St. Joseph County, county attorney James Groves said that
because federal rulings on detention rights are clear, it was
decided there was no use in driving up attorneys' fees any higher
than necessary to defend a class-action suit filed in 2011.  In
fact, he said, the previous sheriff was aware of the issue and had
reached out to a previous prosecutor more than a decade ago to
resolve the situation, to no avail.  Negotiations are nearly
finished, Mr. Groves said, and the judge set a status report due
by Dec. 12.  County commissioners will have to approve the
settlement before it goes before a federal judge.

John Donovan was arrested by Indiana State Police -- court records
show he was ultimately charged with a license plate infraction --
in October 2009 and held longer than 48 hours before an initial
hearing, the documents allege.  St. Joseph County authorities have
not yet advertised the class or mailed notices to the 50 or so
people jail records indicate would be affected.  Mr. Groves said a
subsequent policy corrects what was essentially a weekend
detainment issue.

"This county has constructed those procedures entirely on its
own," Mr. Groves said. Although he can't yet divulge the current
figure both sides have bandied about, "it will be a number
substantially less than you've been seeing with the other
counties."

Who's to blame?

The LaGrange County case will likely be the first to be resolved,
but debate over the situation has been publicly contentious, with
outgoing Sheriff Terry Martin blaming the violations on the
county's prosecutor and two judges.

Mr. Martin, who is nearing the end of his second term and was
recently elected a county commissioner, said unlike other counties
that struggled with weekend arrests, "during the week, I have no
control."

Ms. Strunk and Mr. Cleveland, the class representatives of the
LaGrange suit, were held for three and seven days, respectively.

"We found out there was a problem.  We corrected the problem,"
Mr. Martin said of a new policy he said was crafted with the
cooperation of everyone but outgoing Prosecutor Jeff Wible.
"Everybody agreed on it except for one person."

So now, he says, the burden unfairly falls on his officers to
sometimes lengthen their shifts to finish paper work related to
arrests by not only their department's officers, but others, as
well.

"There's a lot of paper work in law enforcement as it is,"
Mr. Martin said.  "We've just added on."

But Mr. Wible, who was defeated in the primary race for prosecutor
earlier this year and will resume his private law practice, points
out that Martin also publicly blamed the county's two judges for
tying his hands in making sure those arrested without warrants
were either charged or released within the 48 hours.

"It was such a large blunder that Terry has to have somebody to
blame," Mr. Wible said, acknowledging Martin's contention that the
two have rarely seen eye to eye over the years the two have held
their respective offices, 12 for Mr. Wible and eight for
Mr. Martin.

Police officers have copies of probable cause affidavits they fill
out after an arrest, and sometimes they have to work later to fill
out all of the paper work, Mr. Wible said.  It might be costing
taxpayers more, but "I can't file the charges if I don't know what
they've done.  You need an officer to fill it out and turn it in.

"What he doesn't want is to cut somebody loose after 48 hours who
he suspects has violated the law," Mr. Wible said of Mr. Martin.
"That doesn't make him too popular with police officers."

The reason Mr. Wible didn't sign Martin's earlier proposal, he
said, "was because I knew Terry was violating the law."

'They have rights'

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs in these lawsuits,
Christopher Myers of Fort Wayne, said case law is clear that it's
a sheriff who is responsible for enforcing Fourth Amendment rights
because "he holds the key to the jail."

Mr. Myers said his law firm researched the issue after hearing
from inmates around the state complaining their jail stints were
too long.

"After these cases were brought, there was a rash of counties
redoing their policies.  Which of course is a good thing,"
Mr. Myers said.

After the settlements are reached, then the work of determining
how the lump sums should be divided -- Mr. Myers' firm has
proposed a fee of 40 percent in the LaGrange suit, which the judge
must also approve -- really begins.

"The people who lost more (liberty) should get more," Mr. Myers
said.  Class members are allowed to fill out special claim forms
noting extraordinary losses, such as lost income or counseling
needs.

Steve Luce, a former sheriff who is now director of the Indiana
Sheriffs Association, said his group regularly trains sheriff
officials on legal issues, including the 48- hour detention
rulings.

Because sheriffs are limited to two terms, that turnover means
more updates and repeated trainings, he said.  For instance, the
48-hour clock begins with the arrest, not the booking into a jail.

Jails are typically the greatest source of a county's liability,
Mr. Luce said, comprising 7 of every 10 lawsuits nationally.  So
education is important.

"You cannot just run the good ol' Andy Griffith jail you could
maybe 20, 30 years ago," he said.  "Even when they're locked up,
they have rights."

Although the money paid out technically comes from insurance
companies, Mr. Luce noted the settlements still cost taxpayers
because county general funds finance the policies.

Ms. Strunk and Mr. Cleveland, standing outside a federal courtroom
in South Bend recently as the class representatives in the
LaGrange case, were reluctant to say much, referring instead to
Myers.

Class representatives receive more in payouts because of the added
time and risk in taking a complaint forward.

"Nobody," Mr. Cleveland acknowledged carefully, "wants to be in
jail."


* Tenants Can Seek Overcharges From New York City Landlords
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the state's highest court says
tenants seeking overcharges from New York City landlords who
lifted rent controls on particular apartments while still getting
tax breaks can bring class-action lawsuits.

The Court of Appeals, divided 4-2, is upholding three suits whose
classes range from 53 to more than 500 current and former tenants.

The issue is whether individual apartments were unlawfully
deregulated before a 2009 court ruling prohibited it.

In all three, the tenants waived seeking possible treble damages
permitted under the rent-stabilization law for willful
overcharges.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman writes that customer overcharges
aren't penalties and so the law doesn't specifically prohibit
class actions.

Judge Robert Smith, in a dissent, says the statute prohibits class
actions to recover penalties, and that's what tenants are seeking,
whether tripled or not.


                              *********

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  * * *