---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 249


                             Headlines

AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1 Million
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Says Removal of "Williams" Suit Timely
AMERICAN REALTY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
BANCORP INC: "Fletcher" Class Action In Preliminary Stages

BLESSEY MARINE: 5th Cir. Says Seamen Not Owed OT Pay
C.R. ENGLAND: "Jasper" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
CANADA: Nunatsiavut Calls for Residential School Suit Settlement
CAR DEPOT: "Abello" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CEDAR RAPIDS, MI: Motorists Challenge Cameras Calibration Process

CONTANGO OIL: Del. Chancery Court Drops Suit Over Crimson Merger
CULINART INC: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
DAVID LERNER: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Messages, Suit Says
DENDREON CORPORATION: "Bolling" Class Action in Discovery Phase
DHR RESTAURANT: Faces "Vidales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

EASTERN 1996D: PDC Energy Settled California Litigation
EPIRUS BIOPHARMA: Plaintiff Atty Seeks Award of $350,000 in Fees
EPIRUS BIOPHARMA: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Hearing Denied
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment Ruling
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Rules on Motions to Sever Claims

FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Farley" Case Approved
FERRELLGAS LP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Propane Cylinders
FIFTH GENERATION: Removes "McBrearty" Suit to D. New Jersey
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Massachusetts Court Dismissed "Smith" Case
FIRST NATIONAL: "Antonik" Class Action in Discovery Stage

FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Transfer Case Fully Briefed
GEBRUEDER KNAUF: "Bennett" Suit Included in Chinese Drywall MDL
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Esguerra" Class Action Dismissed
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Hialeah Employee Retirement System Case

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 2nd Cir. Denied Bid for Leave to Appeal
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Riddle Action
GEORGIA ENERGY: Individual Defendants Win Summary Judgment
GFI GROUP: Delaware Class Actions Consolidated
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Martin" Suit Says

GT ADVANCED: Sued in New Hampshire Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
GT ADVANCED: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HARTMAN AND TYNER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HC2 HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Challenging Buyout of Schuff
IMPACT SELECTOR: "Stepp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in N.D. Ill. Class Action Lawsuit
J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed
J2 GLOBAL: "Jenkins" Case Dismissed Pursuant to Settlement
J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Free-Vychine" Class Action
JAKKS PACIFIC: Briefing Done With Respect to Case Dismissal Bid

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Nixes Suit Over Listerine Misbranding
KIOR INC: Faces Class Actions for Misleading Investors
KNIGHTSBRIDGE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LADENBURG THALMANN: 11th Circuit Court Affirmed Case Dismissal
LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval

LAGRANGE COUNTY, IN: Unlawful Detainment Class Action May Split
LE PETIT: "Carmona" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAGNUM AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Porras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MANUAL THERAPY: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
MB FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Presented for Final Okay

MEDTRONIC INC: Moves "McCarthy" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MERITAGE HOMES: Opt-Ins Allowed to Participate in Lipnicki Case
METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: 11th Cir. Upheld Remand of "Porter" Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

MINNESOTA: February Jury Trial Set for Sex Offender Program Suit
MORO FOOD: "Bojaj" Labor Suit Dismissed Against 3 Defendants
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces Miami Employee Trust's Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Faces Probe Over Misuse of Pain Medications
NATIONAL GENERAL: Seeks Dismissal of Overtime Class Action

NII HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Denied
NONGSHIM COMPANY: Court Narrows "Fenerjian" Price-Fixing Suit
NU SKIN: Plaintiffs File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
PENNSYLVANIA: News Agencies May Intervene to Unseal Medical Docs
PINKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL: Norwood Suit Not Afforded Class Status

PLAZA SEAFOOD: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PRA GROUP: Court Stayed TCPA Class Action Litigation
REALPAGE INC: Preparing Response to "Jenkins" Lawsuit
SAMUEL RUDICK: Fires Worker Due to Pregnancy & Gender, Suit Says
SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: "Kwan" Suit Over SeroVital Dismissed

SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Suit in S.D. Illinois Alleging Injury
SEADRILL LIMITED: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
STEEL DYNAMICS: Awaits Court Ruling on Class Certification Issue
TANGOE INC: Court Allowed Motion to Dismiss "Stein" Case
TANGOE INC: Court Allowed Motion to Dismiss "Rector" Case

TANGOE INC: Court Allowed Motion to Dismiss "Kelley" Case
TD BANK: Faces "Hurel" Suit in N.J. Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
TOWN SPORTS: Appellate Division Upheld Class Action Dismissal
TOWN SPORTS: Document Discovery Deadline Set for December 31
TOYOTA MOTOR: Car Owners Start to Receive Settlement Checks

TRANSAM LEASING: Request for Discovery in "Fox" Suit Granted
TRAVELERS HOME: Judge Recommends TRO Denial in "Barreras" Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Faces Two Racketeering Class Actions
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Wants Supplement to Bill of Fees & Costs
TUFF GUY: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

TWINS AUTO: Faces "Cardoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
VENAXIS INC: 10th Cir. Affirmed Class Action Dismissal
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over TTM Merger Agreement
VICTOR REFINISHING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VIVINT INC: "Venditto" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Defendants' Responses to Class Action Due
W.W. GRAINGER: Jan. 14 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces "Hays" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
WHITE & BLUE: Faces Class Action Over Bacterial Infections
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: To File Reply Brief in Support of Dismissal Bid

* Melbourne University Law Review Calls for Class Action Reform
* Senator Warns Consumers About Deceptive Marketing Practices


                            *********


AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the estimated litigation liability related to a class
action lawsuit at September 30, 2014 is $11.1 million.

The Company said, "We were a defendant in a purported class
action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division and
Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central
District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and
Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los
Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices
and similar claims.

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us. The allegations generally attacked the suitability of sales of
deferred annuity products to persons over the age of 65. The
plaintiffs sought rescission and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members under California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act;
compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages under California
Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare & Institutions
Codes section 15600 et seq. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the
case as a class action for settlement purposes only. Notice of the
terms of the settlement was mailed to the members of the class on
October 7, 2013 and settlement claim forms were due from members
of the class on or before December 6, 2013.

"On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of
the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a
final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is
fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted
on behalf of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was
entered dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice. On
February 28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of the
District Court's approval of the terms of the settlement agreement
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"We recorded an estimated litigation liability of $17.5 million
during the third quarter of 2012 related to the Los Angeles Case.
We increased our estimated litigation liability for this matter to
$21.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2013 following the
passage of the deadline for submission of claims by class members
in the lawsuit and based upon information available at that time.
However, we decreased the liability by $2.3 million in the first
quarter of 2014 as additional information became available
concerning the nature and magnitude of the claims received. In
addition, during the first quarter of 2014, we paid $7.8 million
in legal fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The estimated litigation
liability at September 30, 2014 is $11.1 million.

"While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal
and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that
will ultimately result from the completion of the claims process,
the $11.1 million litigation liability represents our best
estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation. In
light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter, there
can be no assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or
future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, or results of operations."


AMERICAN HONDA: Court Says Removal of "Williams" Suit Timely
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied Plaintiff's motion to remand
and declared Defendant's removal as timely in the case captioned
RACHEL C. WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP., Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12859-LTS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant for
unfair and deceptive acts alleging violations of state law,
specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code the Motor Vehicle Retail
Installment Sales Act, and Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts
General Laws.

Plaintiff argued that Defendant was required to remove the action
within 30 days of receiving the complaint and that it already
missed 21 days.

Defendant filed an action for removal invoking federal
jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act and opposed
Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court arguing that the
complaint could not have triggered a 30-day removal period because
it did not contain a clear statement of the amount in controversy.

Judge Sorokin denied the motion to remand and declared Honda's
removal was not untimely. He stated that the general removal
statute permits defendants to remove to federal court any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction.  Further, he said
that the procedures governing removal of civil actions from state
to federal court provide a thirty-day window of time within which
a defendant must file its notice of removal.  The 30-day period
contemplated by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b) had not begun when Honda
filed its notice of removal.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2014, is
available at bit.ly/1ofF0o1 from Leagle.com.

Rachel C. Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth A. Ryan,
Bailey & Glasser LLP & John J. Roddy, Bailey & Glasser LLP.

American Honda Finance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric
S Mattson-- emattson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Michael C
Andolina -- mandolina@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Tracy M.
Waugh -- tracy.waugh@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker, LLP.


AMERICAN REALTY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 28 disclosed has filed a class action
lawsuit against American Realty Capital Properties, 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-08659, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased American Realty securities
between February 27, 2014 and October 28, 2014, inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased American Realty securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 29, 2014 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.

American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. owns and acquires single
tenant, freestanding commercial real estate that is net leased on
a medium-term basis, primarily to investment grade credit rated
and other creditworthy tenants.  The company principally invests
in retail and office properties.  As of June 20, 2012, its
portfolio consisted of 118 properties.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) American Realty's financial
statements contained errors related to the improper classification
of its adjusted funds from operations, ("AFFO"), resulting in an
overstatement of AFFO for the three months ended March 31, 2014
and an overstatement of AFFO and an understatement of the
Company's net loss for the three and six months ended June 30,
2014; (2) American Realty lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
American Realty's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 29, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed
a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that certain of its previously
issued financial statements contained errors and should no longer
be relied upon.  In addition, the Company announced the
resignation of its CFO and Chief Accounting Officer who had key
roles in preparing the Company's financial statements.

On this news, shares of American Realty fell as much as $4.53, or
over 36%, in intraday trading, on extremely heavy volume, to as
low as $7.85 on October 29, 2014.

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.


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliezer Preisler, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. American Recovery Service Incorporated, Case
No. 1:14-cv-07180 (E.D.N.Y., December 9, 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


BANCORP INC: "Fletcher" Class Action In Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
The Bancorp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
securities complaint, captioned Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et
al., was filed on July 17, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that,
during a class period beginning April 24, 2013 through June 10,
2014, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had under-
reserved for loan losses due to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's
operations and credit practices were in violation of the BSA, and
(iii) as a result, Bancorp's financial statements were materially
false and misleading during the relevant period. The complaint
further alleges that, as a result, the price of the Bancorp's
common stock fell, causing damage to plaintiff and other members
of the class. The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees. This litigation is in its preliminary stages.

"The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and we
intend to defend vigorously," the Company said.


BLESSEY MARINE: 5th Cir. Says Seamen Not Owed OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Blessey Marine Services, Inc. brought an interlocutory appeal
challenging a district court's denial of its motion for summary
judgment. The district court declined to decide as a matter of law
whether nine individual plaintiffs, former vessel-based tankermen
on Blessey barges, who brought suit under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) seeking overtime pay, were exempt from the FLSA as
seamen.  Although the district court conditionally certified a
class action, only 11 individuals joined, and the parties decided
to proceed individually.

The Plaintiffs typically worked as seamen aboard a vessel for
approximately 84 hours during a seven-day period and were paid a
"day rate," or a flat daily sum. They were not paid overtime for
any work, as is customary and lawful with respect to seamen.

On review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found
that the record establishes that the vessel-based tankermen
performed only seaman work, making them exempt from the FLSA's
overtime provisions.  Accordingly, in a Nov. 13, 2014 order, the
Fifth Circuit VACATED the district court's denial of summary
judgment and REMANDED the case to the district court for entry of
judgment in favor of Blessey.

The case is KEITH COFFIN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; ERIC JONES; JOSE L. RANGEL; JOSH FOX; GREGORY
ROBINSON; JASON J. VILLAREAL; DUSTIN AKINS; MASON FULKERSON;
ZACHARY LATIOLAIS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BLESSEY MARINE
SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 13-20144.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Nov. 13 Order is available at
http://is.gd/F4hVMofrom Leagle.com.


C.R. ENGLAND: "Jasper" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Wu entered a final order approving a class
settlement in the class action BARRETTE JASPER and DARRIN COOK, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive. Defendants, CASE
NO. CV 08-5266-GW(CWX) (C.D. Calif.).

The Settlement Class consists of "current and former employee
truck drivers of England, including full-time and part-time
drivers, driver trainees, and Phase 1 and Phase 2 drivers, who
resided in California and worked for England at any time during
the Class Period."

The Settlement Administrator is directed to calculate and make
payments to all Class Members who made timely, valid claims as
provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court awards $2,450,000 in Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and
$232,500 in Class Counsel's Litigation Costs incurred in the case.
The Court also awards Incentive Awards to the Class
representatives as: $7,500 to Barrette Jasper and $10,000 to
Darren Cook.

Payment of $10,000 is to be made to the California Labor Workforce
Development Agency as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of District Court's Nov. 12, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/jvjBw4from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs were represented by Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq. --
bvanvleck@vtzlaw.com & Anthony J. Zaller, Esq. --
azaller@vtzlaw.com -- of the Van Vleck Turner & Zaller, LLP, and
Defendant C.R. England, Inc. was represented by James H. Hanson,
Esq. -- jhanson@scopelitis.com ; R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq. --
jtaylor@scopelitis.com & Christopher McNatt, Esq. --
cmacnatt@scopelitis.com -- of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson,
and Feary, LLP.


CANADA: Nunatsiavut Calls for Residential School Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that
following its original plea to Prime Minister Stephen Harper
earlier this year, the Nunatsiavut Government has again appealed
to the federal government to settle class action lawsuits filed by
survivors of residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

"Many of the survivors are Beneficiaries of the Labrador Inuit
Land Claims Agreement who never received an apology and were
excluded from Ottawa's 2008 Indian Residential Schools Settlement
Agreement," notes Nunatsiavut President Sarah Leo in a news
release.  "The Government of Canada's assertion that residential
schools in this province fail to meet the criteria set out in the
Settlement Agreement is unjust."

The $500-million class-action suit in Newfoundland Supreme Court
involves a group of 1,200 plaintiffs, including both former
residential school students and their family members who are suing
Ottawa for alleged abuses.  All the class members are either
Inuit, Innu or Metis.

While the trial was recently postponed because of a procedural
matter, Kirk Baert -- kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- of Toronto's Koskie
Minsky, who represents the plaintiffs, is confident  the
proceeding will move forward now without further delay.

"Many of the survivors are elderly," Mr. Baert said.  "The Court
of Appeal has repeatedly indicated that this matter needs to
proceed to trial as soon as possible and the trial judge has now
made it clear that it will and that there will be no further
delays.

The plaintiffs allege that Canada failed to comply with its
constitutional and fiduciary duties to Metis, Innu and Inuit
people in Newfoundland and Labrador arising from the operation of
five residential schools in that province after 1949.  They plead
that they "involuntarily attended schools where they were
separated from families, were denied their culture and subjected
to terrible abuses -- psychological, physical and sexual."  None
of the allegations has been adjudicated by a court.

Ottawa has said it wasn't responsible for schools located in
St. Anthony, Cartwright, North West River, Nain and Makkovik that
opened before the province joined Confederation in 1949.

The trial was supposed to begin Nov. 18 in St. John's, but the
proceedings came to a halt after the federal government filed an
application for directions with the court.

"The judge will meet the lawyers on Dec. 15 to discuss trial dates
and to set deadlines for tasks related to preparedness of trial,"
Mr. Baert advised.


CAR DEPOT: "Abello" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Abello, other similarly situated individuals v. Car
Depot of Miramar, a Florida Limited Liability company and Kennya
Quesada, Case No. 1:14-cv-24614 (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Car Depot of Miramar is a used car dealer in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEDAR RAPIDS, MI: Motorists Challenge Cameras Calibration Process
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B.A. Morelli, writing for The Gazette, reports that motorists
suing over automated traffic camera services here are challenging
the camera's calibration process, the appeals process, and
misinformation in the violation notices, according to a 34-page
motion arguing why a federal class action lawsuit shouldn't be
dismissed.

The new filing -- a memorandum to oppose the defendant's motion to
dismiss the case -- is part of a federal class action lawsuit that
aims to shut down the camera program and refund millions of
dollars to drivers.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion to amend their
complaint to include some of the new allegations.

The defendants -- the city and Gatso USA -- asked all charges be
dismissed because some plaintiffs had never received a citation,
and claimed others waived their rights by not contesting the
ticket.

The motion to dismiss, filed in early November, claimed the court
lacks jurisdiction because the drivers can't show injury in fact
(which requires they have a personal stake in the outcome); the
plaintiffs failed to "state a claim for which relief can be
granted"; and the argument that the system creates different
classes of drivers and treats out of state and in state drivers
differently is not rational.

In the latest filings, plaintiffs contend the system puts their
"fundamental right to travel at risk."  They also claim the
violation notices contain several misstatements of fact and law,
in violation of due process, according to the filing.

While plaintiffs Gary Hughes and David Mazgaj haven't received a
traffic camera citation, they "feel an imminent threat of harm to
their constitutionally-protected due process rights and property
interests," the filing states.

Meanwhile, errors and misinformation in and connected to notices
of violation -- such as a statement in an FAQ that drivers could
lose their license if they fail to pay the civil fine -- negate
claims that other plaintiffs waived their due process rights by
not contesting tickets, according to the filing.

The filing claims the process to appeal tickets does not provide
violators with "constitutionally-based defenses" and the
administrative hearing board that consider appeals is
"unconstitutional in itself" and has no jurisdiction to hear the
cases.

Also, the method used to calibrate the traffic camera system does
not comply with state standards, according to the lawsuit.

"The city and Gatso, in this case, have failed and refused to
abide by state law and are not calibrating the cameras as often as
is -- or in the manner -- required by state law," according to the
filing, adding cameras are to be calibrated quarterly by a city
employee.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in September in Linn County
District Court by residents in the county and outside the state of
Iowa, the city and Gatso USA moved the case to U.S. District.  The
lawsuit claims the speed cameras fail to provide adequate notice
to motorists, and that the cameras target certain motorists while
thousands more are exempt from the rules.

Cedar Rapids has operated automated speed and red light
enforcement cameras since 2010 along Interstate 380 and several
intersections within the city.  Critics say the cameras are
intended to generate revenue, while supporters consider it an
innovative tool to slow traffic, save lives and free up law
enforcement to fight crime.


CONTANGO OIL: Del. Chancery Court Drops Suit Over Crimson Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Contango Oil & Gas Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Delaware
Chancery Court issued an opinion dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint in the Delaware class action litigation in its entirety.

On October 1, 2013, the Company completed a merger with Crimson
Exploration Inc. ("Crimson"), in an all-stock transaction (the
"Merger") pursuant to which Crimson became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Contango.

Contango said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that in connection with the
Merger, several class action lawsuits have been brought by Crimson
stockholders in Delaware Chancery Court seeking damages and
injunctive relief including, among other things, compensatory
damages and costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuits.
Various combinations of the Company, certain subsidiaries of the
Company, members of Crimson's pre-merger board of directors,
members of Crimson's pre-merger management team and Oaktree
Capital Management L.P. have been named as defendants in these
lawsuits. The Delaware lawsuits have been consolidated into a
single action referred to as In Re: Crimson Exploration Inc.
Stockholder Litigation; C.A. 8541-VCP.

Additionally, on July 13, 2013, a separate and similar complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County Texas, in the
matter of Fisichella Family Trust v. Crimson Exploration Inc.

The merger-related lawsuits allege, among other things, that
Crimson's board of directors failed to take steps to obtain a fair
price, failed to properly value Crimson, failed to protect against
alleged conflicts of interest, failed to conduct a reasonably
informed evaluation of whether the transaction was in the best
interests of stockholders, failed to fully disclose all material
information to stockholders, acted in bad faith and for improper
motives, engaged in self-dealing, discouraged other strategic
alternatives, took steps to avoid competitive bidding, and agreed
to allegedly unreasonable deal protection mechanisms, including
the no-shop, fiduciary-out provisions and termination fee. The
lawsuits also allege that Contango and certain other defendants
aided and abetted the other defendants in violating duties to the
Crimson stockholders. The known plaintiffs in these lawsuits
collectively owned a very small percentage of the total
outstanding shares of Crimson common stock at the time of the
Merger, which was approved by Contango's pre-merger shareholders
(89% of outstanding shares and 99% of voted shares were voted in
favor of the Merger) and Crimson's pre-merger shareholders (69% of
outstanding shares and 88% of voted shares were voted in favor of
the Merger).

On October 24, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an opinion
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint in the Delaware litigation in
its entirety, although the plaintiffs may pursue an appeal of the
trial court's ruling.  The Company believes that these merger-
related lawsuits are without merit and will contest any appeal
vigorously.


CULINART INC: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Formella, a single man; Ronald Hewitt, a single man v.
Culinart, Inc., a New York Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02651-SPL
(D. Ariz., December 9, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and were not compensated at
time and home half for their overtime hours.

Culinart, Inc. is incorporated in New York and headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.  The Company manages dining facilities for
corporations, law and financial services firms, independent
schools, colleges and universities, graduate schools, long-term
care facilities and a variety of recreation/leisure destinations
across the country.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trey Dayes, Esq.
          Sean Davis, Esq.
          PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC
          3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 288-1610
          Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
          E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com
                  seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com


DAVID LERNER: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Messages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A1 Title & Escrow, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., a New York
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-24617 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2014),
arises out of the Defendant's practices of sending unsolicited
facsimile advertisement.

David Lerner Associates, Inc. is a private broker and dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Esq.
      Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
      Marc Aaron Wites, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
              sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mwites@wklawyers.com

         - and -

      Marc A. Wites, Esq.
      WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
      4400 N. Federal Highway
      Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
      Telephone: (954) 570-8989
      Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
      E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com


DENDREON CORPORATION: "Bolling" Class Action in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class action
lawsuit by Christoph Bolling et al. is now in the discovery phase.

The Company and three former officers are named defendants in a
securities action pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington (the "District Court") and
brought by a group of individual investors who elected to opt out
of a securities class action lawsuit that was settled in August
2013. The pending action, filed May 16, 2013, is captioned
Christoph Bolling, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:13-cv-0872 JLR. Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company
made various false or misleading statements between April 29, 2010
and August 3, 2011 concerning the Company, its finances, business
operations and prospects with a focus on the market launch of
PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician adoption, and
revenue from sales of PROVENGE. Based on information provided
informally by plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiff group, which
totals approximately 30 persons, purports to have purchased
approximately 250,000 shares of Dendreon common stock during the
relevant period.

The Bolling plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 16,
2013, alleging both violations of certain provisions of the
federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and provisions of
Washington state law and seeking unspecified damages. In response
to a motion by defendants, the federal claims were dismissed with
leave to amend in January 2014. On February 17, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint which defendants moved to dismiss
on March 24, 2014.

After briefing, the District Court, by order dated June 5, 2014,
again dismissed the federal claims, but denied the motion as to
the plaintiffs' Washington state law claims for fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation. The case is now in the discovery
phase.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation; however, the
Company intends to continue defending against claims vigorously,"
the Company said.


DHR RESTAURANT: Faces "Vidales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Vidales, Benito Garcia, Alejandro Mixcoatl, Bernabe Ramirez,
Erica Macias, Fidencio Cuapio, Fransisco Garcia Tamayo, Geovannie
Zamudio, Juan Solano Nava, Manuel Asitimbay, Obet Celestino
Ramierez, Sandra Mejia, Victor De La Cruz, Norberto Farciert on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DHR
Restaurant Co., LLC, d/b/a Rare Bar & Grill, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09633 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

DHR Restaurant Co., LLC owns and operates Rare Bar and Grill
restaurant located at the Affinia Shelbourne Hotel, 303 Lexington
Avenue, in the County, City and State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon Louis Norinsberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JON L. NORINSBERG
      225 Broadway, Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 791-5396
      Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
      E-mail: norinsberg@aol.com


EASTERN 1996D: PDC Energy Settled California Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
PDC Energy, Inc. is a defendant in a class action lawsuit between
limited partners of other similarly situated oil and gas limited
partnerships, Schulein, et al. v. Petroleum Development
Corporation, et al., Case No. SACV-11-1891 AG, pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "California Litigation"). The plaintiffs in the
California Litigation alleged that PDC breached its fiduciary
duties as managing general partner and violated federal securities
law, alleging that a proxy statement issued in connection with a
proposed merger misrepresented or omitted the value of limited
partnership assets, including the value of the limited
partnerships' oil and gas reserves. According to the limited
partners in that case, the resulting mergers cashed out the
limited partners at grossly unfair prices and thereby enriched PDC
at the limited partners' expense. PDC disputes all of the
allegations in the California Litigation and any liability related
to same.

The parties ultimately reached a settlement of the California
Litigation. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the
California Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice and all
claims will be released. PDC's settlement obligation consists of
two components: first, an up-front cash payment by PDC of
approximately $11.5 million and second, a transfer of interests,
primarily net profit interests, in certain Wattenberg wells to be
drilled in 2015 and 2016. Beginning in 2027, plaintiffs would have
the right to require that PDC repurchase such interests. The
proposed settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various
conditions, including but not limited to the following:
negotiation and execution of the necessary agreements, including a
formal settlement agreement relating to the net profit interests;
funding to plaintiffs by PDC's insurance carriers of $6 million in
addition to the above PDC payment; preliminary approval by the
court; and final court approval following notice to members of the
class.

The information was disclosed in the Disclosure Statement for the
Joint Chapter 11 Plan co-proposed by Eastern 1996D Limited
Partnership and its related entities, PDC Energy, and the official
committee of equity security holders.  The Plan documents were
filed as exhibits to Eastern 1996D's Form 8-K Current Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014.
A copy of the Disclosure Statement is available at
http://is.gd/c0hddp


EPIRUS BIOPHARMA: Plaintiff Atty Seeks Award of $350,000 in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $350,000 in fees and
expenses, and the Company disputes the contentions in the motion
and will vigorously defend against the claim.

Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in
the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County, against Zalicus, EB Sub, Inc. the members
of Zalicus' board of directors and Private Epirus. Plaintiff has
since voluntarily dismissed one of these actions, Civil A. No. 14-
1380. The remaining two actions, Civ. A. No. 14-1381 and Civ. A.
No. 14-1455, have been consolidated into a single action, In re
Zalicus Shareholder Litigation, Lead Civ. A. No. 14-1381 (the
"Massachusetts Action"). The Massachusetts Action alleges that the
Zalicus board of directors breached its fiduciary duties, and that
Private Epirus and EB Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the purported
breaches, in connection with the proposed Merger. The
Massachusetts Action seeks relief including, among other things, a
declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach
of fiduciary duties and is unlawful and unenforceable, an order
enjoining defendants from proceeding with the Merger, an order
enjoining defendants from consummating the Merger unless and until
additional procedures are implemented and all material information
in connection with the proposed Merger is disclosed, rescission of
the Merger or any terms thereof to the extent implemented (or an
award of rescissory damages), compensatory damages and interest,
and an award of all costs of the Massachusetts Actions, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On October 27, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Massachusetts
actions served the Company with a motion for voluntary dismissal
and an award of attorney's fees. The motion alleges, as set forth
in the consolidated amended complaint filed in the Massachusetts
actions on May 21, 2014, that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the SEC on May 8, 2014 contained numerous material
misstatements and/or omissions that prevented the Company's
shareholders from being able to evaluate the reasonableness of the
Merger. The motion further alleges that in the Amended
Registration Statement filed on June 4, 2014, the Company
supplemented the disclosures and addressed the allegedly material
misstatements and omissions contained in the initial Registration
Statement, and that the Company did so in response to the claims
made in the Massachusetts Actions.  Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $350,000 in fees and expenses. The Company disputes the
contentions in the motion and will vigorously defend against the
claim.


EPIRUS BIOPHARMA: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Hearing Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2014, EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and private company ("Private Epirus"), completed its
merger with EB Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zalicus
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Zalicus"), pursuant to the terms of
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (as
amended, the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of April 15, 2014, by
and among Private Epirus, Zalicus and EB Sub, Inc., formerly known
as BRunning, Inc. (the "Merger"). As part of the Merger, Zalicus
was renamed EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Public Epirus") and
Private Epirus was renamed EB Sub, Inc. ("EB Sub").  The boards of
directors of Private Epirus and Zalicus approved the Merger on
April 15, 2014, and the stockholders of Private Epirus and Zalicus
approved the Merger and related matters on July 15, 2014.
Following completion of the Merger, Private Epirus, now known as
EB Sub, Inc., is the surviving corporation of the Merger and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Public Epirus.

Epirus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Delaware Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion seeking to
schedule a preliminary injunction hearing in advance of the
stockholder vote on the proposed Merger, and seeking expedited
discovery in advance of that hearing.

Between May 1, and May 16, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Zalicus,
Zalicus' directors, Private Epirus and/or EB Sub, Inc., Stein v.
Zalicus Inc., et al. , No. 9602;  Do v. Zalicus, Inc., et al. ,
No. 9636; and Mendlowitz, et al. v. Zalicus Inc., et al. , No.
9664 (the "Delaware Actions"). On May 23, 2014, plaintiff Harvey
Stein filed a verified amended complaint, and on May 27, 2014,
plaintiff Tuan Do filed a verified amended complaint. The Delaware
Actions allege that the Zalicus board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties, and Private Epirus and/or EB Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted the purported breaches, in connection with the proposed
Merger. The Delaware Actions seek relief including, among other
things, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the proposed
Merger, to enjoin consummation of the proposed Merger and rescind
the Merger if consummated (or to award rescissionary damages), an
award of compensatory damages, and an award of all costs of the
Delaware Actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.

On June 6, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware Actions filed
a motion seeking to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing in
advance of the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger, and
seeking expedited discovery in advance of that hearing. Zalicus,
Private Epirus, and the individual defendants opposed the motion.
After a hearing, on June 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
denied plaintiffs' motion.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision
written by Circuit Judge Murguia, reversed the district court's
entry of summary judgment in the class action Plaintiff Vathana
brought for breach of contract against Defendant Everbank on
behalf of all Everbank WorldCurrency CD customers whose ISK-
denominated WorldCurrency CDs matured.

The appellate case is captioned EK VATHANA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
EVERBANK, AKA EverBank Direct, AKA EverBank Federal Savings
Association; EVERBANK FINANCIAL CORP.; EVERBANK WORLD MARKETS,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-15587 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiff claims that Defendant breached the Terms and Conditions
by (1) closing the WorldCurrency CDs without the class members'
consent, and (2) delivering the value of the closed CDs in U.S.
dollars at the exchange rate that Everbank obtained in the
wholesale market.

The parties moved for summary judgment which was eventually
granted by the district court in favor of Everbank's claim by
rejecting Vathana's argument on its allegation in relation to the
currency conversion rate and noting that there is no factual
dispute that Everbank had not breach the Terms and Conditions.

Vathana filed an appeal.

In his opinion, Circuit Judge Murguia agreed with the district
court that Vathana failed to introduce evidence sufficient for a
reasonable jury to find that EverBank breached the Terms and
Conditions by exercising its discretion under paragraph 1.17 in
bad faith to limit losses to itself or its customers.  Also, Judge
Murguia states that Vathana has not pointed to any facts
demonstrating that no reasonable person would have made the same
discretionary decision that EverBank made under the circumstances.

However, in reversing the district court's entry of summary
judgment, Judge Murgui ruled that the district court erred in
deciding as a matter of law that EverBank did not breach its
agreement with the class members by converting the value of their
CDs into U.S. dollars at a currency conversion rate within 1% of
the wholesale spot price.

"We remand to the district court to resolve whether EverBank
breached the Terms and Conditions when it returned the value of
the WorldCurrency CDs to the class members," Judge Murgui said.

A copy of the Opinion dated October 31, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1s1FWYB from Leagle.com.

Michael Millen, Esq., at Law Office of Michael Millen, in Los
Gatos, California, argues for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq. -- dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com -- at
Goodwin Procter LLP, in Boston, Massachusetts; Robert B. Bader,
Esq. -- rbader@goodwinprocter.com -- at Goodwin Procter LLP, in
San Francisco, California; and William M. Jay, Esq. --
wjay@goodwinprocter.com -- at Goodwin Procter LLP, in Washington,
D.C., argue for the Defendants-Appellees.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Rules on Motions to Sever Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt ruled on motions filed by
defendants Express Scripts, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, now
known as "CVS Health Corporation", Optum Rx, Inc., and Prime
Therapeutics, LLC, to sever claims in a multi-party antitrust
action brought by the Plaintiff HM Compounding Services, LLC; and
three individuals, Victor Paduano; Frank Scala; and Nick Canner,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, who
desire to purchase compound medications from HMC.

Specifically Judge Spatt granted Express Scripts' motion to sever
HMC's claims against it and transfer those claims to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) and the forum selection clause
in the ESI Provider Agreement.  The Court said that (1) the forum
selection clause encompasses ESI's extra-contractual claims; (2)
the clause is mandatory rather than permissive; and (3) the public
interests in avoiding duplicative proceedings and potentially
inconsistent results do not significantly outweigh the private
interest in litigating a portion of this dispute in Missouri.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion of
Caremark sever HMC's claims against it and to compel arbitration
of those claims.  The Court held that public policy does not
militate against arbitration of HMC's Donnelly Act claims against
Caremark. The Court declines to address the "arbitrability" of
HMC's claims against Caremark, as HMC and Caremark reserved that
question for the arbitrator.  Therefore, to be clear, the Court is
referring HMC's claims to arbitration rather than "compelling"
arbitration of those claims.  The Court held that HMC has failed
to establish that the arbitration provision incorporated into the
Caremark Provider Agreement is procedurally unconscionable under
Arizona law. However, the Court said that the limitation on
discovery in that arbitration provision is substantially
unconscionable under Arizona law and strikes that term. The Court
said HMC's remaining arguments regarding substantive
unconscionability to be without merit.  The Court directed HMC to
submit its clams against Caremark to arbitration in accordance
with the remaining terms of the arbitration provision.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion of Optum
to sever HMC's claims against it and to compel arbitration of
those claims.  The Court said that public policy does not militate
against arbitration of HMC's Donnelly Act claims against Optum.
The Court declined to address the "arbitrability" of HMC's claims
against Optum, as HMC and Optum reserved that question for the
arbitrator. Therefore, the Court is referring HMC's claims to
arbitration rather than "compelling" arbitration of those claims.
The Court said HMC has failed to establish that the arbitration
provision in the Optum Provider Agreement is procedurally
unconscionable under California law. The Court declined to address
whether HMC has established that any of the provisions of that
arbitration provision are substantively unconscionable under
California law.

The Court also granted in part and denied in part Prime's motion
to sever HMC's claims against it and to compel arbitration of
those claims.

The case is, VICTOR PADUANO, FRANK SCALA, NICK CANNER on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals, and HM
COMPOUNDING SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.
CVS CAREMARK CORP., OPTUMRx, INC., and PRIME THERAPEUTICS LLC,
Defendants, No. 14-CV-5376 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants have engaged in a concerted and
coordinated effort to eliminate HMC, and other independent
compounding pharmacies as competitors in the prescription benefit
drug market by placing unwarranted and illegal restrictions on
patient access to compounded medications.

Defendants collectively moved to sever HMC's claims and to compel
arbitration based on the arbitration provision incorporated in
their respective agreements, and also for the dismissal of the
complaint based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.

A copy of the Memorandum of Decision and Order dated October 27,
2014, is available at http://bit.ly/13s2ZHLfrom Leagle.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement in "Farley" Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond P. Moore granted the Joint Motion for
Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by parties in the case
captioned JULIE FARLEY, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. and
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF COLORADO INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-CV-00325-RM-MJV (D. Colo.).

Plaintiff claimed that she and other Store Managers were salaried
employees who regularly worked in excess of 12 hours a day or 40
hours per week with no overtime pay because Defendants improperly
considered Store Managers to be overtime-exempt executives or
supervisors.

Plaintiff argued that Defendants violated the Colorado ware laws
and implied contracts by improperly misclassifying her and other
Store Managers as exempt executive/supervisors.

Defendants, however, asserted Plaintiff was properly classified as
an exempt executive/supervisor, denied that any contract existed
between the parties.  Defendants moved for summary judgment.

Eventually, the parties proposed for a Settlement Agreement which
was subsequently approved by the court.  The court found the deal
as being fairly and honestly negotiated.

The Court approved the settlement with a gross settlement amount
of $2,300,000.00, with payments of (1) attorney's fees and costs
in the amount of $698,049.32 in fees and $60,950.68 in costs; (2)
the settlement administrator costs of $24,500.00; (3) an
enhancement to Plaintiff Julie Farley in the amount of $15,000.00;
and (4) the balance of $1,501,500.00 to be distributed to the 488
Class Members (who did not opt-out of the settlement) in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

In granting the parties Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement
Agreement, Judge Moore considered the fact that no Class Member
objected to the settlement, and evaluated the reasonableness of
the proposed reductions to the settlement fund.

Further, Judge Moore states that there is no evidence that the
agreement was a product of collusion or coercion and that the
value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of
future relief after protracted and expensive litigation.

A copy of the Order dated October 30, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1y0MWJV from Leagle.com.

Julie Farley, Plaintiff, is represented by Brian David Gonzales,
The Law Offices of Brian D. Gonzales, Peter David Winebrake,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC & Robert Andrew Santillo, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC.

Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and Family Dollar Stores of
Colorado, Inc., are represented by Joshua B. Kirkpatrick, Littler
Mendelson, PC, Elizabeth Amanda Cyr, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &
Feld, LLP, Evan Bennett Stephenson, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP,
Joel M. Cohn -- jcohn@akingump.com -- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &
Feld, LLP, John M. Fitzpatrick, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, John
Anthony Ybarra, Littler Mendelson, PC, Scott S. Barker --
barker@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & William
Frederick Allen, Littler Mendelson, PC.


FERRELLGAS LP: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Propane Cylinders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Temi Treibatch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P., d/b/a Blue Rhino, Ferrellgas
Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, Inc., Ferrellgas Partners Finance
Corp., Ferrellgas Finance Corp, UGI Corporation, Amerigas Propane,
Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Partners, L.P., d/b/a
Amerigas Cylinder Exchange, Case No. 2:14-cv-09398 (C.D. Cal.,
December 5, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' practice of
taking back partially filled propane cylinders yet not providing
the customers with any credit or refund for the propane unused yet
paid for by them.

The Defendants are the nation's leading sellers of pre-filled
propane cylinders in the propane cylinder exchange industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
              dbower@faruqilaw.com


FIFTH GENERATION: Removes "McBrearty" Suit to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McBrearty, et al. v. Fifth
Generation, Inc., et al., Case No. BER-L-10067-14, was removed
from the New Jersey Superior Court Law Division, Bergen County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07667-SDW-SCM
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry J. Gainey, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          95 Route 17 South, Suite 310
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: (201) 225-9001
          Facsimile: (201) 225-9002
          E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron Van Nostrand, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Telephone: (973) 443-3557
          Facsimile: (973) 295-1321
          E-mail: vannostranda@gtlaw.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Massachusetts Court Dismissed "Smith" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered an order dismissing the case entitled Smith v. The First
Marblehead Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.).

On August 28, 2013, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against FMD, Daniel Meyers, FMD's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the FMD Board of Directors, and Kenneth Klipper, FMD's
former Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director. The action
is entitled Smith v. The First Marblehead Corp. et al., Civ. A.
No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.).  The Company said, "The plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material information
in various filings with the SEC, press releases and other public
statements concerning our corporate income tax filings. The
complaint alleged various claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper. On April 7, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint filed in the action. On October 28,
2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss."


FIRST NATIONAL: "Antonik" Class Action in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the
Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed on
August 13, 2013, a consumer protection class action against the
Company and Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas,
seeking equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an
alleged pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating
to the repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members'
financed motor vehicles.  This matter is in the discovery stage.
At this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome
or potential range of loss.


FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------
First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that Charles Saxe, III individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated filed on September 17, 2013, a consumer
class action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform
Commercial Code in connection with the repossession and resale of
financed vehicles.  This matter is in the discovery stage.  At
this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or
potential range of loss.


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Transfer Case Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 6, 2014 and
July 28, 2014. The complaints allege that the defendants made
false or misleading statements in certain press releases and other
public statements in violation of the federal securities laws. The
complaints seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations
in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims.

By order entered August 22, 2014, the Court consolidated the three
putative class actions. The Court's consolidation order relieves
the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints
currently on file and provides that defendants may respond to a
consolidated amended complaint once it is filed by the lead
plaintiff(s) to be appointed by the Court. Defendants' motion to
transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
is currently fully briefed and pending.

Galectin Therapeutics is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company that is applying its leadership in galectin science and
drug development to create new therapies for fibrotic disease and
cancer.


GEBRUEDER KNAUF: "Bennett" Suit Included in Chinese Drywall MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bennett, et al. v. Gebrueder Knauf
Verwaltungsgesellschaft KG, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02204, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana (New Orleans).  The Louisiana District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02722-EEF-JCW to the proceeding.

The case is transferred to Louisiana for inclusion in the
multidistrict litigation known as In re: Chinese-Manufactured
Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-
JCW.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated owners and
residents of real property containing alleged defective Chinese
manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported,
exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed,
sold or installed by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Victor Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (205) 332-1362
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: "Esguerra" Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the following
the filing of the City of Pontiac class action lawsuit, the
Esguerra class action lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed.

In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief
executive officer and its current chief financial officer were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra
v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges
securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013
and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the
same defendants, alleges the same security law violations, seeks
the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra
lawsuit.

Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the
City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has not yet designated
a Lead Plaintiff.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Hialeah Employee Retirement System Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in April 2014,
Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and
its current chief financial officer were named in a putative class
action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  "Plaintiff
alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in
2012 concerning Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business,
including our plans for an initial public offering of the
business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and
attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court
may deem proper. We intend to vigorously defend this action," the
Company said.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 2nd Cir. Denied Bid for Leave to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
appeal the District Court's denial of their motion to certify a
class.

The Company said, "in December 2009, one of our former non-
insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary's officers
and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings,
Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth
Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law
and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by
our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client
Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary and other
relief. Oral argument on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
action was conducted on January 30, 2013. On April 15, 2014, the
court issued its decision denying the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class. On April 29, 2014 plaintiffs filed a motion with
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to appeal the
District Court's denial of their motion to certify a class, which
we opposed. On July 9, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
denied plaintiffs' motion."


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Riddle Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the Riddle
action.

The Company said, "beginning in December 2011 and continuing
through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance
subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurers
and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class
action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive reinsurance
arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. On June 26, 2014, the
court in the Hill action granted our motion for summary judgment.
In July 2014, the Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals."

"In the Riddle case, in November 2013, the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted our motion
for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs appealed this
dismissal. In October 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld the dismissal of the Riddle action. We intend to vigorously
defend the remaining actions."


GEORGIA ENERGY: Individual Defendants Win Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Randal Hall granted the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by defendants Tammy Cisco Walker and Aletha Cisco
Shave in the case captioned JONATHAN SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GEORGIA ENERGY USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, NO. CV 208-020 (S.D.
Ga.).

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made a fraudulent calibration
of gasoline and diesel pumps at its three filling stations,
misrepresented the cost per gallon of gasoline and negligently
maintained the fuel pumps at the filling stations in furtherance
of the fraud. In addition, Plaintiffs also contended that Ms.
Walker and Ms. Shave conducted their corporate and personal
business on an interchangeable or joint basis.

On the other hand, Ms. Walker and Ms. Shave contended that there
is no basis to impose personal liability against them, either on
the grounds of (1) personal participation in the fraudulent scheme
or (2) piercing the corporate veil.  Further, they argued that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact in support of
Plaintiffs' allegations that they (1) played a role in the fraud
that occurred at the filling stations and (2) had any knowledge of
the fraudulent calibration scheme until the allegations appeared
on the news. Hence, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment to which the court accordingly granted.

In his Order granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,
District Judge Hall ruled that the record contains no evidence
that Ms. Walker or Ms. Shave personally directed the particular
fraudulent acts nor is there evidence that they personally
participated or cooperated in any fraudulent transactions and that
the entities' cessation of business via sale was an illicit
purpose to avoid future liability related to the fraudulent
calibration scheme. Judge Hall also stated that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

A copy of the Order dated November 4, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1BQR1Whfrom Leagle.com.

Defendants Tammy Cisco Walker and Aletha Cisco Shave are
represented by Steven G. Blackerby -- sblackerby@brbcsw.com --
Brown, Readdick, Bumgartner, Carter, Strickland, Emily Rose
Hancock, Brown, Readdick & Bumgartner & Laura P. Roberts, Roberts
Tate, LLC.


GFI GROUP: Delaware Class Actions Consolidated
----------------------------------------------
GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a consolidation
order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster, consolidating the
Delaware shareholder class action suits under the caption In re
GFI Group Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10136-VCL.

Following the announcement of the GFI/CME Merger, nine putative
class action complaints challenging the GFI/CME Merger were filed
on behalf of purported GFI Stockholders (one of which also
purports to be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and one in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaints are captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et
al., Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Suprina v. GFI Group,
Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Brown v. GFI
Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch.), Hughes
v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-VCL (Del. Ch.),
Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch.),
Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del.
Ch.), City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al.,
Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.), Michocki v. Gooch., et al.,
Civil Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch.) and Szarek v. GFI Group
Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y.).

On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted voluntary
dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a
consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster,
consolidating the Delaware cases under the caption In re GFI Group
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10136-VCL.

The complaints name as defendants various combinations of GFI, IDB
Buyer, the members of the GFI Board, GFI's managing director Mr.
Brown, CME, Merger Sub 1, Merger Sub 2, Cheetah Acquisition Corp.,
Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New JPI.  The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the GFI
Board breached their fiduciary duties to GFI Stockholders during
merger negotiations by entering into the GFI/CME Merger Agreement
and approving the GFI/CME Merger, and that GFI, CME, Merger Sub 1,
Merger Sub 2, IDB Buyer, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah
Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New JPI aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties. The complaints further allege, among other
things, (i) that the merger consideration provided for in the
GFI/CME Merger Agreement undervalues GFI, (ii) that the sales
process leading up to the GFI/CME Merger was flawed due to the
members of the GFI Board's and Jefferies' conflicts of interest,
and (iii) that certain provisions of the GFI/CME Merger Agreement
inappropriately favor CME and preclude or impede third parties
from submitting potentially superior proposals.

In addition, the Hughes complaint asserts a derivative claim on
behalf of GFI against the members of the GFI Board for breaching
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to GFI by negotiating
and agreeing to the GFI/CME Merger and against defendants Gooch
and Heffron for usurping a corporate opportunity. The Michocki
complaint alleges that the GFI/CME Merger is not a solitary
transaction, but a series of related transactions and further
alleges that the IDB Transaction must be approved by an
affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms of
the Charter.

The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the GFI/CME Merger, (iii)
a declaration that the members of the GFI Board breached their
fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the GFI/CME Merger
Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members of the GFI
Board to execute their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in
the best interest of GFI Stockholders, (v) rescission of the
GFI/CME Merger to the extent already implemented, (iv) granting of
rescissory damages and an accounting of all of the damages
suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, (v) and
reimbursement of fees and costs. The Coyne and Suprina Complaints
also demand a jury trial.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously.

Based on currently available information, the outcome of the
Company's outstanding legal proceedings are not expected to have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial position.
However, the outcome of any such matters may be material to the
Company's results of operations or cash flows in a given period.
It is not presently possible to determine the Company's ultimate
exposure to these matters and there is no assurance that the
resolution of the Company's outstanding matters will not
significantly exceed any reserves accrued by the Company.

For a limited number of legal matters for which, a loss (whether
in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no
accrued liability) is not probable but is reasonably possible in
future periods, the Company is sometimes able to estimate a range
of possible loss.  In determining whether it is able to estimate a
range of possible loss, the Company reviews and evaluates its
material litigation and regulatory and other matters on an ongoing
basis.  In cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range
of possible loss, the aggregate total of such estimated possible
losses is disclosed below.

There may be other matters for which a loss is probable or
reasonably possible but for which a range of possible loss may not
be estimable.  For those matters for which a range of possible
loss is estimable, management currently estimates the aggregate
range of possible loss as $0 to approximately $8.1 million in
excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters.
The estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently
available information and is subject to significant judgment and a
variety of assumptions and uncertainties.  The matters underlying
the estimated range will vary from time to time, and actual
results may vary significantly from the current estimate.
Management is generally unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for matters other than those included in the
estimate above, including where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs
have not claimed an amount of monetary damages (unless management
can otherwise determine an amount), (ii) the matters are in early
stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending
appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to
be resolved, (v) there are novel legal issues presented, among
other reasons.  Those matters for which an estimate is not
possible are excluded from the estimated range above, therefore,
the estimated range above does not represent the Company's maximum
loss exposure.

The purchase price paid in connection with the acquisition of
Contigo Limited included contingent consideration with an
estimated net present value, at the time of the acquisition, of
GBP2,458,000 (or approximately $3,942,000). Subsequent changes in
the estimated fair value of the contingent consideration, which is
to be settled in 2015, will be recorded in Other income, net in
the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and the
estimated fair value of the contingent consideration as of
September 30, 2014 is included within Other liabilities in the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition.


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Martin" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02877
(S.D. Cal., December 5, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's
practice of making unauthorized phone calls to cellular telephones
using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or a
prerecorded voice.

Global Tel*Link Corporation provides inmate calling services and
offender management solutions for customer's nationwide, serving
over 2,100 facilities and 1.1 million inmates in 50 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patric A. Lester, Esq.
      LESTER & ASSOCIATES
      5694 Mission Center Road, #385
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 665-3888
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
      E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com


GT ADVANCED: Sued in New Hampshire Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk County Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Richard J. Gaynor,
Kenwardev Raja Singh Bal, Daniel W. Squiller, J. Michael Conaway,
Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E. Massengill, Mary
Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G. Watson, Thomas Wroe, Jr.,
Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., and Canaccord
Genuity Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00547 (D.N.H., December 5, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that there were significant risks that the
Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements of the Apple
Agreement to supply sapphire material, that the Company's sapphire
material would not be used in the Apple iPhone 6 devices, that, as
a result of the Apple Agreement problems, the Company was facing a
liquidity crisis.

GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a diversified technology company
producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth
equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics,
solar and LED industries.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of GT
Advanced Technologies Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
      MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC
      3 North Spring Street
      Concord, NH 03301
      Telephone: (603) 228-2277
      E-mail: mark@mallloryandfriedman.com

         - and -

      Kimberly Donaldson Smith, Esq.
      Christina Donato Saler, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      E-mail: kds@chimicles.com
              cdsaler@chimicles.com


GT ADVANCED: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against GT Advanced
Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of New
Hampshire, and docketed under 14-cv-00485, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased GT Advanced
securities between November 5, 2013 and October 6, 2014,
inclusive.  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 GT Advanced securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 8, 2014 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.

GT Advanced is a diversified technology company producing advanced
materials and innovative crystal growth equipment for the global
consumer electronics, power electronics, solar and LED industries.

On November 4, 2013, the Company announced that it had entered
into a multiyear supply agreement with Apple Inc. to provide
sapphire material.  Under the Apple Agreement, GT Advanced would
own and operate ASF furnaces and related equipment to produce the
material at an Apple facility in Arizona.  Pursuant to the Apple
Agreement, Apple would provide GT Advanced with a prepayment of
approximately $578 million paid in four installments and, starting
in 2015, the Company would reimburse Apple for the prepayment over
a five-year period.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
there were significant risks that the Company would be unable to
fulfill the requirements of the Apple Agreement to supply sapphire
material; (2) that the Company's sapphire material would not be
used in the Apple iPhone 6 devices; (3) that, as a result of the
Apple Agreement problems, the Company was facing a liquidity
crisis; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about GT Advanced's business, operations, and
prospects, including the Company's revenue guidance for 2014, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 9, 2014, Apple revealed that its new iPhone 6 and
iPhone 6 Plus smartphones utilized Corning's Gorilla Glass for the
display instead of GT Advanced's sapphire material as investors
were expecting.

On this news, shares of GT Advanced declined $2.29 per share,
nearly 13%, to close on September 9, 2014, at 14.94 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

On October 6, 2014, GT Advanced announced that the Company was
filing for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11.  According to
the Company, as of September 29, 2014 GT Advanced had
approximately $85 million of cash remaining and the Company was
seeking debtor-in-possession financing in order to satisfy
obligations associated with the daily operation of its business.

On this news, shares of GT Advanced declined $10.25 per share,
nearly 93%, to close on October 6, 2014, at $0.80 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

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.


HARTMAN AND TYNER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christopher Rowland, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated employees v. Hartman and Tyner, Inc. d/b/a Mardi Gras
Casino, Case No. 0:14-cv-62772 (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Hartman and Tyner, Inc. owns and operates a bar and casino located
at 831 North Federal Highway, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Frederick Grover, Esq.
      STEVEN F. GROVER, PA
      1 E Broward Boulevard
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 356-0005
      Facsimile: 356-0010
      E-mail: lawhelp@earthlink.net


HC2 HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Challenging Buyout of Schuff
-------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on November 6,
2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging
the buyout by the Company of the minority interest in Schuff
International, Inc. ("Schuff International") was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs
v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R.
Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2
Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No.
10323 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges, among other
things, that in connection with the buyout the individual members
of the Schuff International board of directors and the Company, as
the controlling stockholder of Schuff International, breached
their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The
Complaint seeks a rescission of the buyout or rescissory and
compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.
The Company believes that the allegations and claims set forth in
the Complaint are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously.

"Legal proceedings could affect the timing and increase the price
we pay in our acquisition of Schuff," the Company said.

HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company focused on acquiring
and investing in businesses with attractive assets that the
Company considers to be undervalued or fairly valued and growing
its acquired businesses.


IMPACT SELECTOR: "Stepp" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stepp, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Impact Selector, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04300 (N.D. Tex.,
December 6, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Impact Selector, Inc. is an oilfield services company providing
specialized wire line jar tools and service to the drilling
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      James A. Jones, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
              jjones@brucknerburch.com


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in N.D. Ill. Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery is
ongoing in a class action lawsuit.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former j2
Canada employee as additional defendants in an existing purported
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
the j2 Global affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc.
("Sabon"), was added. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to
dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The
Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the j2 Canada
employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing.


J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that briefing on the
appeal in a multi-district litigation was stayed pending the
Northern District of Illinois's resolution of the defendants'
motion to declare the case exceptional.

On October 16, 2013, one of j2 Global's affiliates entered its
appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending
in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted the '074, '141, '306, '313, and '148
Patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some
defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed
counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement,
unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On
December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014. Briefing
on the appeal was stayed on September 26, 2014, pending the
Northern District of Illinois's resolution of the defendants'
motion to declare the case exceptional.


J2 GLOBAL: "Jenkins" Case Dismissed Pursuant to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class action
lawsuit filed by Anthony Jenkins was dismissed pursuant to a
settlement agreement.

On December 16, 2013, Anthony Jenkins filed a purported class
action against a j2 Global affiliate in the Central District of
California (No. 2:13-cv-09226).  An amended complaint was filed on
March 18, 2014 adding two additional named plaintiffs. The amended
complaint includes causes of action for breach of contract,
several California statutory violations, and conversion.  The
claims arose from the alleged difficulties some users encountered
in canceling their eFax(R) accounts.  The potential class
representatives sought, among other things, damages and injunctive
relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of
allegedly similarly situated persons.  On May 23, 2014, the
Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' breach of
contract and conversion claims, as well as certain statutory
claims. On September 15, 2014, this case was dismissed pursuant to
a settlement agreement.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Free-Vychine" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery is
ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Andre Free-Vychine.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court"). The complaint alleges two
California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in
certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a
purported nationwide class of allegedly similarly situated
persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. (collectively, "LEO") filed a purported class
action against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles
Superior Court. The complaint alleges three California statutory
violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims
relating to late fees levied in certain Onebox(R) accounts. LEO is
seeking, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of itself and a purported nationwide class of allegedly
similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles
Superior Court ordered both cases related. Discovery is ongoing.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Briefing Done With Respect to Case Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that briefing was
completed with respect to a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit and oral argument was held on
October 6, 2014 with respect to that motion. The Court has taken
the matter under submission and will issue an order with respect
thereto.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants").On July 30, 2013, a second purported
class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations
against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the
"Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case
No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to
replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8,
2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First
Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections
and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the
claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company
allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated.  The
foregoing is a summary of the pleadings and is subject to the text
of the pleadings which are on file with the Court. Briefing was
completed with respect to a motion to dismiss the SAC and oral
argument was held on October 6, 2014 with respect to that motion.
The Court has taken the matter under submission and will issue an
order with respect thereto.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because
the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you
as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.

The Company is a worldwide producer and marketer of children's
toys and other consumer products, principally engaged in the
design, development, production, marketing and distribution of its
diverse portfolio of products.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Nixes Suit Over Listerine Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the Defendant in the case captioned SUSANNA BOWLING and
EDWARD BUCHANNAN, individually and on behalf of all others
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, McNEIL-PPC, INC., and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, Defendants. (No. 14-CV-3727
(SAS)).

Plaintiff Suzanna Bowling filed an action on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated alleging that Defendants Johnson &
Johnson ("J&J") violated (1) numerous state statutes, as well as
(2) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), when it misbranded
Listerine Total Care ("LTC"), a line of mouthwashes.  Plaintiff
alleged that J&J by labeling its products, warrants that LTC would
restore enamel when in fact it does not, hence it violated such
warranty.

Defendants argued that the Restores Enamel label is not a warranty
within the meaning of the statute because it does not guarantee
performance over a specific period of time but it simply explains
how LTC works. Further, it does not guarantee enamel restoration
over any period of time but rather a product description.

District Judge Scheindlin granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by
the Defendant. Judge Scheindlin agreed with J&J's argument that
the Restores Enamel label is not a warranty within the meaning of
the MMWA statute because it does not guarantee performance over a
`specific period of time. Thus, the MMWA claim fails as a matter
of law.

A copy of the Opinion dated November 4, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1pA8nm4 from Leagle.com.

Neal J. Deckant, Esq. -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A., New York, NY, and Patrick C. Cooper, Esq., Ward & Wilson,
LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Steven A. Zalesin, Esq. -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Peter A. Nelso,
Esq., Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendants.


KIOR INC: Faces Class Actions for Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mufson, writing for Washington Post, reports that just over
a year ago, billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla was
bubbling with optimism about one of his latest investments: KiOR,
a biofuel outfit he said would turn wood chips into hydrocarbons
that could be poured straight into a refinery, pipeline or
vehicle.

The KiOR refinery in Columbus, Miss., was "an amazing facility,"
Khosla gushed.  "It is exactly the same as what nature does, but
nature takes a million years and we take a few minutes," Khosla
said in a November 2013 e-mail to The Washington Post.  In a "60
Minutes" interview broadcast in January, Khosla boasted of the
company's "magic catalyst."

Now, however, the spell has been broken.  On Nov. 10, KiOR filed
for bankruptcy, leaving behind 2,067 creditors, including the
state of Mississippi, which had given KiOR a $75 million, 20-year,
no-interest loan after the company assured officials that it would
invest $500 million in the plant and create 1,000 jobs by December
2015.

During its short life, KiOR lost money on every gallon it
produced; costs ran $5 to $10 a gallon even without counting the
cost of building the plant, according to biofuel industry
analysts.  According to court papers, KiOR's revenue totaled just
$2.25 million; losses amounted to $629.3 million.  Even injections
of money from Khosla ($85 million) and Bill Gates ($15 million) in
October 2013 could not stave off bankruptcy.

Shareholders -- including Khosla Ventures, which had a 28 percent
stake -- absorbed the blow.  The stock peaked at more than $20 a
share in September 2011, giving it a market value of $1.7 billion.
At the time of the bankruptcy, KiOR stock closed at 2.5 cents a
share, essentially worthless.

Separate class-action lawsuits brought by shareholders accuse KiOR
executives of misleading investors.  "Our case is that the company
was not being truthful about the realities at the Columbus
facility," said Phillip Kim, an attorney at the Rosen law firm
representing the plaintiffs.  "It was characterizing problems as
start-up issues, whereas the facility had design and systemic
issues."

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued subpoenas to KiOR in
January and July seeking information about progress at the
Columbus plant, according to KiOR filings.

Some oil industry veterans think Khosla was overconfident.
Producing motor fuel cheap and plentiful enough to have a
meaningful impact on the nation's fuel mix has proven intractable.

Khosla "felt that with the Silicon Valley can-do attitude he could
come in and show the oil industry how to do this," said Robert
Rapier, a chemical engineer who has worked for ConocoPhillips and
is now head of the alternative fuels division of Advanced Green
Innovations.  "He cites Moore's law. That's his bible."  But Mr.
Rapier, who writes a blog called R-Squared, adds that "the oil
industry has been at this for 100 years, including what KiOR tried
to do."

In KiOR, Khosla thought he had a winner -- one that would produce
hydrocarbons, not ethanol, which is corrosive and thus requires
special rail cars or car engines.

The company was formed in 2007 to convert waste biomass into fuels
and chemicals by using catalytic pyrolysis, or cracking, a concept
invented and explored by a Dutch company called BIOeCON.

KiOR built a pilot plant and then on New Year's Day 2010 launched
construction of a demonstration plant capable of producing 15
barrels of oil a day.  The company said that its research produced
70 patents and more than 2,000 other intellectual property claims.
Alberta Investment Management Corp. and San Francisco hedge fund
Artis Capital Management provided additional financing.

Ready to build a commercial-size facility, Khosla Ventures
arranged meetings with three southeastern governors before
choosing a location.  Within a weekend, the company Web site says,
KiOR had picked Mississippi thanks to Barbour's offer of help.
The company still owes the state $69.5 million.

The company and Khosla had skeptics -- some were in-house.

Paul O'Connor, then a KiOR director, said in a 2012 technology
assessment that the yields from the KiOR process had "not improved
considerably over the past two years."  In August 2014, he
submitted a letter of resignation, saying that he had been
"shocked" by the lack of progress and that the company had
disregarded his recommendation to take a "drastically different
approach."

According to the shareholders' class-action suit, the conveyer
system for feeding wood chips into the Columbus plant frequently
jammed, and KiOR bought new blades for turning wood into chips,
but they were the wrong size. In addition, tar would build up in a
portion of the plant for treating the feedstock.  The plaintiffs
quote a confidential witness as saying "the whole damn thing was a
design issue.  It was hastily put together and they were trying to
make it run."

Mr. Rapier said that the process that KiOR was using wasn't
fundamentally new.  Pyrolysis heats organic materials to high
temperatures to produce oil.  But in contrast to what Khosla said,
Mr. Rapier said the pyrolysis oil would not be ready to be pumped
into the existing oil infrastructure.  Moreover, he said, the
Columbus plant relied on natural gas, a fossil fuel.

"In order to be used as transportation fuel, these compounds
require further upgrading, and less than 40 percent of the mass of
the pyrolysis oil is converted to gasoline or diesel," Mr. Rapier
said.  "The yields are very poor.  The majority of it ends up as
carbon dioxide and water." And that meant higher costs that were
unsustainable.

Mr. Rapier says the fundamental flaw was, in part, a larger
cultural issue.

"Failure in business is to be expected, and we certainly need
visionaries who push the boundaries of new technology," he said.
But, he wrote online, "while I strongly support the development of
advanced biofuels, Vinod Khosla has done a lot of harm to the
sector by overpromising on various technologies and then failing
to deliver.  This leads to public perception that advanced
biofuels are a boondoggle."


KNIGHTSBRIDGE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Barbato and Francisco Rodriguez on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated v. Knightsbridge Properties,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07043 (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Knightsbridge Properties owns and operates a real estate
investment, development and management firm with interests in New
York and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Granovsky, Esq.
      GRANOVSKY & SUNDARESH PLLC
      48 Wall Street, 11th Fl.
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 524-6001


LADENBURG THALMANN: 11th Circuit Court Affirmed Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the second amended complaint in a class
action lawsuit.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
("District Court") against FriendFinder Networks, Inc.
("FriendFinder"), various individuals, and Ladenburg and another
broker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011 FriendFinder
initial public offering. On June 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed its
second amended complaint, alleging that the defendants, including
Ladenburg, were liable for violations of federal securities laws.
On March 18, 2014, the District Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice. On October 24, 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
second amended complaint.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the settlement agreement in the class action suit filed
in the Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities is subject to court approval.

In December 2012, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities. The complaint alleged that the defendants,
including Ladenburg, are liable for violations of state securities
laws, and does not specify the amount of damages sought. On August
11, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
resolving all claims in the complaint, which is subject to court
approval. The amount expected to be paid by Ladenburg in
connection with the settlement was accrued at December 31, 2013.


LAGRANGE COUNTY, IN: Unlawful Detainment Class Action May Split
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Gibson, writing for Fox28, reports that hundreds of people
in Indiana unlawfully detained in jail could wind up splitting a
class-action lawsuit filed on their behalf.  The suit stems from
cases where people were jailed more than 48 hours without probable
cause.

One lawsuit involved a LaGrange County man and woman arrested in
2008 near a methamphetamine lab.  Lawsuits are also pending in 4
other Indiana counties, including St. Joseph County.

The Times of Northwest Indiana reports the cases have revealed
problem-riddled jail policies.  The news service goes on to report
the LaGrange County jail is changing its policy on bookings,
insisting officers extend their shifts to finish paperwork
connected to arrests.


LE PETIT: "Carmona" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deimi Carmona and other similarly situated individuals v. Le Petit
Bistro, Inc. d/b/a Le Provencal Restaurant, France K. Guillou,
Case No. 0:14-cv-62773 (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGNUM AUTOMOTIVE: Faces "Porras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Porras individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Magnum Automotive Inc. (d/b/a Magnum Automotive) and
Maurice Albanese, Case No. 1:14-cv-07122 (E.D.N.Y., December 5,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a fast food restaurant
located at 37-27 57th St, Queens, NY 11377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
      FUSTER LAW PC
      37-10 37th Avenue, Suite 204
      Long Island City, NY 11101
      Telephone: (718) 702-1622
      Facsimile: (866) 477-0735
      E-mail: lfranco@fusterlaw.com s


MANUAL THERAPY: Faces "Turner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Manual Therapy Center Inc. v. d/b/a Manual Therapy
Center and Zaghloul Ahmed, Case No. 1:14-cv-09628 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Manual Therapy Center Inc. owns and operates a physical therapy
clinic located at 431 Bay Ridge Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11209.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor Bell Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


MB FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Presented for Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
MB Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a proposed class
action settlement was expected to be presented to the Court for
final approval on or about November 12, 2014.

On July 26, 2013, an action captioned James Sullivan v. Taylor
Capital Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 (the "Sullivan
Action") was commenced against Taylor Capital, the board of
directors of Taylor Capital (the "Taylor Capital Board"), and MB
Financial (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"), alleging that the Taylor
Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
MB Financial/Taylor Capital merger (the "Merger") and that MB
Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.  On
August 8, 2013, a stockholder class action captioned Dennis
Panozzo v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2013-CH-
18546 (the "Panozzo Action") was commenced against the Defendants
in the Court making similar allegations in connection with the
Merger.  Subsequently, on September 10, 2013, the Sullivan Action
and the Panozzo Action were consolidated pursuant to Court order
under the first-filed Sullivan Action, Case No. 2013-CH17751 (as
so consolidated, the "Action").  On October 24, 2013, the
plaintiffs in the Action (the "Plaintiffs") filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint, alleging that the Taylor Capital
Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger,
including by making incomplete and misleading disclosures
concerning the Merger, and that MB Financial aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.

On February 17, 2014, solely to eliminate the costs, risks,
burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, the
Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
with the Plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Action
pursuant to which Taylor Capital and MB Financial agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Merger, which each
of Taylor Capital and MB Financial did in a Current Report on Form
8-K filed by each company on February 18, 2014 (the "Form 8-Ks").

On July 10, 2014, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement.   The agreement provides that, solely for purposes of
settlement, the Court will certify a class consisting of all
persons who were record or beneficial stockholders of Taylor
Capital when the Merger was approved by the Taylor Capital Board
or any time thereafter (the "Class").  In addition, the agreement
provides that, subject to approval by the Court after notice to
the members of the Class (the "Class Members"), the Action will be
dismissed with prejudice and all claims that the Class Members may
possess with regard to the Merger, with the exception of claims
for statutory appraisal, will be released.  Class Members will be
afforded an opportunity to opt out of the class solely with regard
to any monetary claims they may possess.  In connection with the
settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel has expressed their intention
to seek an award by the Court of attorneys' fees and expenses.
The amount of the award to the Plaintiffs' counsel will ultimately
be determined by the Court.  This payment will not affect the
amount of merger consideration paid by MB Financial or that any
Taylor Capital stockholder received in the Merger.  The proposed
settlement has been presented to the Court, and received
preliminary approval.  It is expected that the proposed settlement
would be presented to the Court for final approval on or about
November 12, 2014. There can be no assurance that the Court will
approve the settlement.  In the absence of such approval, the
proposed settlement will terminate.

The Defendants continue to believe that the Action is without
merit, have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny,
all of the allegations of wrongful or actionable conduct asserted
in the Action, and the Taylor Capital Board vigorously maintains
that it diligently and scrupulously complied with its fiduciary
duties, that the joint proxy statement/prospectus dated January
14, 2014 mailed to the stockholders of Taylor Capital and MB
Financial was complete and accurate in all material respects and
that no further disclosure was required under applicable law. The
Defendants entered into the MOU and the settlement solely to
eliminate the costs, risks, burden, distraction and expense of
further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have
been asserted to rest.  Nothing in the MOU, any settlement
agreement or any public filing, including the Form 8-Ks, shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the
materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional
information contained therein or in any public filing associated
with the proposed settlement of the Action.


MEDTRONIC INC: Moves "McCarthy" Suit to Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled McCarthy v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No.
CT-005129-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee (Memphis).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02941-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

Robert McCarthy is a resident of Quincy, Norfolk County,
Massachusetts.  He alleges that he suffered injuries as a result
of his exposure to components or individual parts of Medtronic's
Infuse(R) Bone Graft/LT-Cage(TM) Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device
(Infuse(R)) and other Class II medical devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com
                  lcronen@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine T. Heacox, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Tower 56
          126 E. 56th Street, Floor 6
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-2800
          Facsimile: (212) 421-2878

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MERITAGE HOMES: Opt-Ins Allowed to Participate in Lipnicki Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Greeg Costa granted defendant's motion to decertify
the class in the case captioned DAVID LIPNICKI, et al, Plaintiffs,
v. MERITAGE HOMES CORPORATION, et al, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-CV-00325-RM-MJV (S.D. Tex.).

Judge Costa also ruled on whether the opt-in claimants should be
allowed to intervene and participate in the case on an individual
basis.

Plaintiffs filed a collective action case against the Defendant
allegedly for denying minimum wage and overtime pay in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and alleged that the Sales
Associates have the same primary job duties and perform those
duties using Defendant's standardized sales procedures.

After the Court conditionally certified the collective action, 104
Meritage Sales Associates opted in but only 70 remain.  Hence, the
Defendants seek decertification.

Meritage also argued that the opt-ins are not similarly situated
because of substantially different accounts of how and where they
perform their sales duties. Defendants also contended that despite
having the same job description and training, the opt-ins work in
different communities and physical settings. As such, they
participate in varied outside sales activities, and generally
conduct their day-to-day duties in an individualized manner.

Plaintiffs respond that a collective trial is appropriate because
they are all subject to the same Meritage decision to treat the
Sales Associate position as an exempt "outside sales" one.
Soon after the Court denied the cross motions for summary judgment
on the classification issue, Defendant filed a Motion to
Decertify.

In his Memorandum and Order, District Costa issued the
decertification order and subsequently directed any opt-ins
wishing to participate in the case as individual Plaintiffs to
file a motion to intervene which afterwards was granted for being
timely filed.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated November 4, 2014, is
available at http://bit.ly/137FkeLfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs David Lipnicki, Neil Alba, and Donna Armstrong are
represented by John M Padilla -- jpadilla@pandrlaw.com -- Padilla
& Rodriguez, L.L.P. & Rhonda Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

The Wills, Wills Law Firm also represents the remaining
Plaintiffs.

Meritage Homes Corporation, Defendant, represented by Scott Robert
McLaughlin-- smclaughlin@jw.com -- Jackson Walker LLP, Amanda A
Zimmerman, Jackson Walker LLP, Anita Jewel Barksdale, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Chevazz Brown, Jackson Walker LLP, Marlene C
Williams, Jackson Walker L.L.P. & Russell Stanley Post, Beck
Redden Secrest LLP.


METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: 11th Cir. Upheld Remand of "Porter" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action PORTER v. MetroPCS COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
Case No. 14-14239, was filed in a Florida state court alleging
that CAI International, Inc., an authorized MetroPCS
Communications Inc. retailer, overcharged customers in Florida who
purchased Samsung Galaxy Indulge Cellular phones by charging tax
based on the pre-rebate price.

MetroPCS removed the class action to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, asserting jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  Plaintiff Jorge Porter moved
to remand to Florida state court, arguing that MetroPCS
overestimated the amount in controversy by including all Florida
customers in its calculation, even though they did not all meet
the class definition. The district court agreed with Porter and
remanded.

The Defendants appealed the district court order granting the
motion to remand.

In a Nov. 14, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/ljbwrtfrom
Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the lower court's ruling.

"Because MetroPCS failed to establish the minimum amount in
controversy, the district court was correct to grant Porter's
motion to remand," the Circuit Court opined.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Ward, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
09435 (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sang Rhee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
09436 (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com


MINNESOTA: February Jury Trial Set for Sex Offender Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Serres, writing for StarTribune, reports that the state
agency charged with protecting Minnesota's most vulnerable
populations is imposing across-the-board spending restrictions
after incurring millions of dollars in unexpected costs related to
two high-profile lawsuits.

The Minnesota Department of Human Services, a giant agency with
6,628 employees and a biennial budget of $28.2 billion, is
imposing limits on everything from filling vacant positions to
out-of-state travel.  The belt-tightening became necessary to
bring the agency back on fiscal track after it racked up more than
$4 million in costs from litigation over the treatment of sex
offenders and the alleged abuse of people with disabilities, among
other costs.

"It's never easy to cut back spending, especially in an agency
where the work is so critical," Human Services Commissioner
Lucinda Jesson wrote in a Nov. 14 memo to department employees.

The fiscal pinch sets the stage for a debate at the State Capitol
this spring over spending priorities at the state's largest
agency, which serves more than 1 million Minnesotans.  Already,
House and Senate committee chairs who oversee health and human
services are girding for a debate over how to absorb millions of
dollars in court-ordered costs while sustaining programs for those
who are poor, disabled or mentally ill, among other vulnerable
populations served by the department.

"Unfortunately, our ineffective response to problems over the past
10 to 12 years is catching up with us," said Sen. Kathy Sheran,
DFL-Mankato, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Human Services and
Housing Committee.  "Now we have no choice but to act."  Lawmakers
will have to wrestle with how to pay for the ongoing legal cases
before considering further spending increases the agency's
programs or projects, Ms. Sheran said.

Litigation costs stand among a series of unexpected expenses that
have thrown the department's budget off track.  These include $10
million in improvements to the Minnesota Security Hospital in
St. Peter, the state's largest facility for treating those who are
mentally ill and dangerous; and a 3 percent salary increase for
about 1,800 employees at the central offices in St. Paul.

But it's the ongoing legal bills associated with two prolonged and
complex legal cases that could pose the biggest threat to the
agency's fiscal health.  One case stems from the abusive treatment
of people with developmental disabilities at a state-licensed
home.  The other case centers on the constitutionality of
indefinitely confining hundreds of sex offenders in state
facilities after they have completed their prison terms.  As these
cases have dragged on in federal court, costs have mounted for
attorneys, expert witnesses and fact-finding reports.

The department's foot-dragging is partly to blame. In 2011, the
state reached a sweeping agreement to resolve allegations that
staff at a state facility for developmentally disabled people had
overused seclusion and restraints, including metal handcuffs and
leg hobbles.  The agreement, known as the Jensen settlement,
required the state to phase out the use of such punitive measures
and implement an ambitious plan to move thousands of people out of
segregated settings, such as group homes, and into their own homes
and communities.

The reforms, however, have been slow in coming.  Frustrated by the
delays, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in 2012 appointed a
special court monitor to oversee implementation of the Jensen
settlement after the agency missed a series of court-appointed
deadlines.

The monitor, David Ferleger, has found multiple violations of the
settlement, including the continued use of restraints and
seclusion in state-licensed programs for disabled people.  One
woman urinated on herself after being strapped to a restraint
chair in a group home for up to nine hours a day without food or
bathroom breaks, Mr. Ferleger found in a recent report.

The state's costs over the past two fiscal years in the Jensen
case have totaled $3.2 million, which includes $790,000 in
payments to the special court monitor.

"The budgetary issues are a result of DHS' own . . . failure to
comply with their promises to families and loved ones of people
with disabilities," said Shamus O'Meara, a Minneapolis attorney
representing families in the Jensen settlement.  Roberta Opheim,
state ombudsman for mental health and developmental disabilities,
said, "Every dime spent on the court monitor only came about
because DHS hadn't accomplished the things they were supposed to
be doing."

The department also faces a hefty legal bill for a prolonged fight
in federal court over the constitutionality of the state sex
offender program.  A group of sex offenders has sued the state as
a class, alleging that the Minnesota Sex Offender Program violated
their right to due process by failing to give them adequate
treatment and a clear path for release.  A jury trial begins in
February that could result in the court ordering costly reforms on
the program, including the development of less-restrictive
treatment options in the community.

The state's costs in the sex offender case have reached $915,000
in the past two fiscal years.

To absorb these costs, the department is now asking each of its
units to limit spending on travel, hiring and discretionary
expenses.  "We are carefully reviewing each vacant position before
it is filled to ensure it meets a critical business need or is
part of a high priority agency project and that adequate funding
is available," Ms. Jesson wrote in her memo.

Rep. Tara Mack, R-Apple Valley, chair of the House Health and
Human Services Reform Committee, said she applauded the agency for
targeting its own spending before asking the Legislature for more
money.  However, she warned, "If these bills continue to ratchet
up, it's a safe guess there will be a conversation among
policymakers to make sure our priorities do not get out of whack."


MORO FOOD: "Bojaj" Labor Suit Dismissed Against 3 Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
The case BOJAJ v. MORO FOOD CORP., Case No. 13-Civ.-9202, is a
class action complaint brought by former employees of several
restaurants on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
They alleged that restaurants and their operators withheld
overtime pay, minimum wages, and tips.

Three defendants -- Mamma Ristorante Corp., The Five Amigos Inc.,
and Ramon Mario Zarate -- moved to dismiss the claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Mamma and Five Amigos
contended they did not employ plaintiffs, or that the claims
against them are otherwise defective.  Zarate argued that he did
not operate any restaurants that employed plaintiffs.

In a Nov. 13, 2014 Opinion, District Judge Thomas P. Griesa
granted the motions, dismissing the claims against those three
defendants.  Claims against all other defendants remain.

A copy of the District Court's Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/bnbx8Jfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are Astrid Bojaj, Francisco Puello, Vicente
Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Rodrigo Palma Quintero, Ramon L. Puello,
Franklin Rodriguez, Alejandro Gonzales-Jones, Ovidio Bonilla,
Mario Brito, Jose Antonio Suarez-Juarez, Frank Rossi, Juan Carlos
Juarez, Alejandro Gonzalez Jones, and Juan Roa.  They are
The Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Francis Ferrari and
Robert Vincent Ferrari, attorneys at law, with business address at
630 3rd Ave Fl 16, New York, NY 10017, Office No. (212)972-7040.

Moro Food Corp. and the other defendants are represented by ant,
represented by Michael Marc Rabinowitz, Esq. --
mrabinowitz@randglaw.net -- of Rabinowitz and Galina.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Faces Miami Employee Trust's Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Nabors and Red
Lion, along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("CJES"), and the
members of the board of directors of CJES, including its
management directors, were sued on July 30, 2014, in a putative
shareholder class action by the stockholders of CJES.  The case is
styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust, et al. v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.;
C.A. No. 9980; In the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The complaint alleges that the CJES directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction between CJES,
Nabors and Red Lion, and that CJES, Nabors and Red Lion aided and
abetted these alleged violations.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including an injunction against the consummation of the
transactions, together with attorney's fees and costs.

"We believe that the case is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend it," the Company said.

Nabors has grown from a land drilling business centered in the
United States and Canada to a global business aimed at optimizing
the entire well life cycle, with operations on land and offshore
in most of the major oil and gas markets in the world.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Faces Probe Over Misuse of Pain Medications
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sally Jenkins and Rick Maese, writing for Washington Post, report
that ex-offensive lineman Rex Hadnot described the moment he
joined a class action accusing NFL teams of misusing narcotics and
other pain medications to keep players on the field despite
injuries.  It was the day a lawyer explained to him that the
powerful anti-inflammatory Toradol should not be used for more
than five days under Food and Drug Administration guidelines, at
risk of kidney damage.  By Mr. Hadnot's estimate, medical staffs
from four NFL teams gave him Toradol injections or Toradol pills
virtually once a week -- for nine years, from 2004 until he
retired after the 2012 season, without explaining potential side
effects.

Accounts such as these have spurred a federal investigation into
NFL painkilling practices, which has grown to include interviews
with NFL physicians, former players and even pharmacies that
supply teams, according to law enforcement sources.  The
investigation was triggered by the class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in May, in which more than 1,300 former players said
NFL medical staffs routinely violated federal and state laws in
plying them with powerful narcotics to mask injuries on game days.
One law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because it is ongoing, called material contained in the
suit "compelling."

Asked to respond to accounts of irregularities in handling
prescription painkillers, the multiple NFL teams named in this
story declined to comment because of "pending litigation."  League
spokesman Greg Aiello said the NFL couldn't comment for the same
reason, "but we are confident that our physicians understand their
obligations under the law."

Asked last year whether the league is satisfied its 32 teams are
following federal drug laws, NFL Executive Vice President Jeff
Pash told the Post: "Our goal is full compliance across the board.
I think you have very substantial compliance across the board."

The investigation is being led by one of the most aggressive and
effective prosecutors in the country, Preet Bharara, the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in concert with
Drug Enforcement Administration agents.  Mr. Bharara's office
would not comment about an ongoing investigation, but DEA
spokesman Rusty Payne confirmed NFL physicians were being looked
into after agents surprised at least five teams with spot checks
of medical staffs at stadiums and airports following their Nov. 16
games.

According to law enforcement sources, investigators are focused
less on individuals than on a broad range of alleged illegal
dispensation practices in the NFL, which may facilitate
addictions, abuses and pill trafficking.

The investigation is being conducted by the civil side of the U.S.
Attorney's office and is characterized as "administrative," but
criminal charges are not out of the question "if major violations"
are found, law enforcement sources said.

Two people familiar with the investigation said six former players
have been interviewed, and the list is expected to grow.  At least
100 of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit retired in the past five
years, and a law enforcement official said investigators are
focused on what they suspect to be current practices.  Messrs.
Fujita and Hadnot retired in 2013 after playing for four teams
apiece over their respective careers.  Neither has spoken with
federal investigators, but in interviews this week, each offered
similar accounts of team practices with painkillers that would
appear to violate federal law.  While Mr. Hadnot is a plaintiff in
the suit, Mr. Fujita is not.

Both Messrs. Hadnot and Fujita described athletic trainers
distributing drugs to players while traveling -- an apparent
violation of federal law.  Under the Controlled Substances Act,
only properly licensed doctors and practitioners can dispense
drugs and only in states where they are registered to practice.
The act also contains strict requirements for acquiring, logging,
storing, labeling and transporting drugs.

On Oct. 24, lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a discovery motion
that included reference to a subpoena issued to CVS Pharmacy,
seeking information about alleged irregularities in prescriptions
filled for the Miami Dolphins "in the name of team trainer(s) as
the 'patient(s).'  "A CVS corporate spokesperson declined to
comment or furnish any additional information on the subpoena.


NATIONAL GENERAL: Seeks Dismissal of Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
National General Insurance Co., as expected, had denied violating
federal and state wage and hour laws affecting employees at its
five call centers, including in Winston-Salem.

An employee at its St. Louis call center, Rhonda Jackson, is the
plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit filed Nov. 5 in the
U.S. District Court of the Middle District of N.C. in Durham.
Jackson has been an employee since January 2004.

The complaint says National General "willfully has failed to pay
its call center employees all earned wages and overtime, and
failed to accurately record all time worked before and after their
shifts."

The insurer filed its response Nov. 20, saying the lawsuit should
be dismissed, in part because it is not Jackson's employer, but
instead it is National General Management Corp.

Ms. Jackson's attorneys filed an amended complaint on Nov. 25 to
list National General Management Corp. as a defendant.  The
attorneys consider the companies as joint employers of Ms. Jackson
and potential other class-action participants because "they share
common ownership, financial control and management."

The Middle District was chosen for the filing because National
General's main principal operations are based in Winston-Salem and
National General Management operates a call center in Winston-
Salem.

The plaintiff wants to receive unpaid wages and overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri state
law.  The federal law allows plaintiffs to seek back wages for up
to three years if the violations are considered as willful.

National General, which was formerly GMAC Insurance, specializes
in underwriting auto insurance.  Nearly 700 employees recently
moved into 116,000 square feet of space at Madison Park in
northwest Winston-Salem.  It is not clear how many local employees
work in the call center.

The insurer said in its response that National General Management
has about 260 customer service representatives work in the call
centers cited in the lawsuit. The others are in Cleveland;
Hillsboro, Ore.; and Ontario, Calif.

"We believe there are 1,000 or more call-center employees at any
time," Mark Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- an attorney
with the law firm of Weinhaus & Potashnick of St. Louis that is
representing Jackson.

"But there are probably at least three times that many eligible to
join due to employee turnover."

The essence of the lawsuit is that National General is violating
federal and state wage and hour laws by not paying call-center
employees for the time required to prepare for their work shift,
including arriving early to access computer systems and programs.

According to a press release by the law firms of Weinhaus &
Potashnick, Lieberman, Goldstein & Karsh and Patterson Haryanvi,
"the lawsuit claims the time spent booting up and shutting down
computers, systems and programs is therefore performed off-the-
clock and without pay, which violates the law."

The lawsuit says employees were required to read company
communications outside their paid shifts.

National General Insurance said in its response that: Jackson
"failed to satisfy all conditions" for bringing a class-action
lawsuit; statutes of limitation limit or bar claims for overtime
liability in excess of two or three years; and National General
Management did not have "a written or unwritten policy, practice
or custom" that violates Missouri wage and hour laws.

The insurer said Ms. Jackson's claim for breach of contract "is
barred because she knew upon hire and at all times afterward that
she was not going to be compensated for the preliminary and
postliminary activities alleged in the compliant."


NII HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Denied
---------------------------------------------------
NII Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit was denied, and the case
is currently continuing as to the remaining individual defendants.

On March 4, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, NII Capital Corp. and certain of the
Company's current and former directors and executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the Company or NII Capital
Corp. between February 25, 2010 and February 27, 2014. The lawsuit
is captioned In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
Number 14-CV-227. On July 18, 2014, the parties that have been
designated as the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed a second
amended complaint, which generally alleges that the defendants
made false or misleading statements or concealed material adverse
information about the Company's financial condition and operations
in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, fees and injunctive relief.

On September 22, 2014, the judge issued an order staying all
proceedings against the Company following the Company's petition
for relief under Chapter 11. On October 6, 2014, the Company's
motion to dismiss was denied, and the case is currently continuing
as to the remaining individual defendants. The Company and the
named individuals will continue to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter.


NONGSHIM COMPANY: Court Narrows "Fenerjian" Price-Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted, in part, Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned STEPHEN FENERJIAN , et
al., Plaintiffs, v. NONGSHIM COMPANY, LTD, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 13-CV-04115-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are various direct and indirect purchasers of
Defendants' Korean Noodles.  They filed a price-fixing conspiracy
actions alleging that the Korean and U.S. Defendants conspired to
raise the price of Korean Noodles sold in the United States.
Plaintiffs further alleged that they paid more for Korean Noodles
as a result of the price-fixing conspiracy than they would have
paid in a competitive market.  Plaintiffs further alleged that the
U.S. Defendants are owned, controlled and directed by the Korean
Defendants and that the prices of Defendants' Korean Noodles in
the United States did in fact rise in correlation with the price
increases in Korea.

Defendants moved to dismiss the direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser complaints on the grounds, among others, that Plaintiffs
have not plausibly pleaded a conspiracy to fix prices in the
United States. Also, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs'
allegations of correlated and parallel price increases are
insufficient to plausibly plead the existence of a conspiracy to
raise prices on Korean Noodles sold in the United States.

In partly granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, District Judge
Orrick ruled that Defendants are correct that mere allegations of
correlated or parallel price increases alone would be insufficient
to state a Sherman Act Section 1 claim. To establish that a
Defendant is a member of a conspiracy, Plaintiff must include
allegations specific to each allegation as to the Defendant's role
in the alleged conspiracy, and must make allegations that
plausibly suggest that each Defendant participated in the
conspiracy.

However, Judge Orrick ordered that Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded and plausibly alleged that Nongshim America and Ottogi
Korea were part of the conspiracy to fix prices on Korean Noodles
sold in the United States. Thus, Nongshim America and Ottogi
Korea's motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claims were denied.

A copy of the Order dated November 4, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1xmS66Hfrom Leagle.com.

Stephen Fenerjian, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik --
aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Izard Nobel LLP, Michael
Stuart Strimling, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP,
Nicole Anne Veno, Izard Nobel LLP & Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel,
LLP-CT.

Rockman Company (USA), Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Manuel Juan
Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Thomas C. Bright
-- tbright@gbcslaw.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP &
Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP.

M.T. Trading Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas C.
Bright, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP & Manuel Juan Dominguez,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

The Plaza Company, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Michael P.
Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP & Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP.

Eleanor Pelobello, Plaintiff, represented by Reginald Von Terrell,
The Terrell Law Group & Nicole Anne Veno, Izard Nobel LLP.

Christina Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Byron Seho Ahn, Reich
Radcliffe Kuttler LLP & Marc Gene Reich, Reich Radcliffe and
Kuttler LLP.

Nong Shim Company, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Anne Choi
Goodwin, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, J. Brady Dugan, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Kate E Kim, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP &
Mark C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Nongshim America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark C. Dosker,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Anne Choi Goodwin, Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, J. Brady Dugan, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP &
Kate E Kim, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Ottogi Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joel Steven
Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Minae Yu, Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher.

Ottogi America, Inc., Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Joel Steven Sanders,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lindsey Elizabeth Haswell, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher & Minae Yu, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

SamYang Foods Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Dianne Mann, Mayer Brown LLP & Justin Robert Dickerson, Mayer
Brown LLP.

Sam Yang (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward W. Suh,
Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates & Michael Kwonchun
Suh, Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates.

Paldo Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Seong H. Kim --
skim@steptoe.com -- Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Edward B. Schwartz,
DLA Piper US LLP & Matthew David Taggart.


NU SKIN: Plaintiffs File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit and the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss.

The Company is currently being sued in a purported class action
lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and
regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland
China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price.
Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah. On April 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion
requesting that the court consolidate the various purported class
actions, appoint State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action, and appoint the law firm Labaton
Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action.  On May 1, 2014, that stipulated motion was
granted and on June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action
complaint was filed.

On August 29, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case
and on October 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss.

The consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims
on behalf of certain of the Company's stockholders under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M.
Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt.

The consolidated class action complaint alleges that, inter alia,
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its sales operations in and financial results derived
from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid
scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities.  The
Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated
class action complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself.


PENNSYLVANIA: News Agencies May Intervene to Unseal Medical Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvette Kane granted a Motion to Intervene filed by
four publication entities in the case CHESTER v. WETZEL, Case No.
1:08-CV-1261, for the sole purpose of unsealing documents
concerning the pharmacological agents used by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) in its execution protocol.

The Movants are Guardian News & Media LLC, The Philadelphia
Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and the Philadelphia City
Paper.

The original complaint in the class action was filed in November
2007, where the Plaintiff class consists of all persons who are
presently under a sentence of death in Pennsylvania or who at some
point during the pendency of the action will be under a sentence
of death by lethal injection in Pennsylvania. The complaint
alleges that Pennsylvania's lethal injection protocol poses an
unnecessary risk that Plaintiffs will suffer pain in violation of
the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment and the
guarantees of due process of law under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.

A copy of the District Court's Nov. 13, 2014 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/UMpuRffrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Frank Robert Chester, Zachary Wilson and Donald
Hardcastle are represented by:

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG, LLP
          The Cast Iron Building
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South
          Philadelphia, PA  19106
          Tel: (215) 925-4400
          Email: drudovsky@krlawphila.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Hoop Fay, Esq.
          Maxine M. Woelfling, Esq.
          Joseph B.G. Fay, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Kulak, Esq.
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          Email: efay@morganlewis.com
                 mwoelfling@morganlewis.com
                 jfay@morganlewis.com
                 kkulak@morganlewis.com

Terrance Williams, Member of Plaintiff Class, Plaintiff, is
represented by Elizabeth Hoop Fay, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Maxine M. Woelfling, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Maria K.
Pulzetti, Federal Defender Office.

Hubert L. Michael, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Hoop Fay,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Maxine M. Woelfling, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Timothy Patrick Kane, Federal Community Defender
Office.

Defendants Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, David Diguglielmo, and
Franklin J. Tennis are represented by:

          Amy Zapp, Esq.
          PA Office of the Attorney General
          16th Floor, Strawberry Square
          Harrisburg, PA, 17120
          Tel: (717) 787-7189
          Fax: (717) 783-5431

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Lawson, Esq.
          Maria G. Macus, Esq.
          Pennsylvania Office of General Counsel
          1920 Technology Pkwy
          Pa Office Of General Counsel
          Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
          Tel: (717) 728-7763
          Email: ellawson@pa.gov
                 mmacus-bry@pa.gov

Intervenors Guardian News and Media LLC, Philadelphia Inquirer,
and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are represented by Mary Catherine
Roper, Esq. of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.


PINKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL: Norwood Suit Not Afforded Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Norwood, incarcerated at Pinkneyville Correctional Center
serving an 11-year sentence, filed a civil rights actions,
claiming that defendants have promulgated a meal plan and schedule
at the prison that has deprived him of adequate nutrition, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.  He indicated that he wished to
bring the case as a class action.

In a Nov. 18, 2014 order available at http://is.gd/E7cKR4from
Leagle.com, District Judge Micheal J. Reagan held that had the
Plaintiff proceeded with the case as a class action, the motion
would be denied at this stage, because a pro se Plaintiff is not a
proper class representative.

The case is LAMONT NORWOOD, # B-59125, Plaintiff, v. S.A. GODINEZ,
THOMAS SPILLER, TERRI BRYANT, SHERRY BENTON, and SUZAN GRISWOLD,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-1165-MJR (S.D. Ill.).


PLAZA SEAFOOD: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digna Parra, Altagracia Minino, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Plaza Seafood and Fresh Fish, Inc., a Florida
limited liability company, John Pitaluga and Abel Gault, Case No.
1:14-cv-24611 (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRA GROUP: Court Stayed TCPA Class Action Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court stayed a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action litigation until
such time as the United States Federal Communications Commission
has ruled on various petitions concerning the TCPA.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.

On December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court").

On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").

On May 20, 2014, the Court stayed this litigation until such time
as the United States Federal Communications Commission has ruled
on various petitions concerning the TCPA.

PRA Group is a global financial and business services company with
operations in North America and Europe. Its primary business is
the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of defaulted
consumer receivables.


REALPAGE INC: Preparing Response to "Jenkins" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in November, the
Company was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the
Eastern District of Virginia, Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No.
3:14cv758. This case is at an early stage and the Company is in
the process of analyzing the case and preparing a response.

RealPage is a provider of property management solutions that
enable owners and managers of single-family and a wide variety of
multi-family rental property types to manage their marketing,
pricing, screening, leasing, accounting, purchasing and other
property operations.


SAMUEL RUDICK: Fires Worker Due to Pregnancy & Gender, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Simancas v. Samuel Rudick, D.D.S. PLLC, West 57th Street
Dental Associates, PLLC, and Samuel Rudick, Individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-09682-VSB (S.D.N.Y., December 9, 2014) seeks damages to
redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a
result of being discriminated against and terminated by the
Defendants solely due to her pregnancy and gender.

Samuel Rudick D.D.S, PLLC and West 57th Street Dental Associates,
PLLC are New York Domestic Professional Service Limited Liability
Companies with their principal place of business located in New
York City.  Samuel Rudick was the Plaintiff's supervisor and had
supervisory authority over the Plaintiff.  Mr. Rudick owns the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212)248-7431
          E-mail: jrose@tpglaws.com


SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: "Kwan" Suit Over SeroVital Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granted Defendants Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned SERENA KWAN, Plaintiff, v. SANMEDICA
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-03287-MEJ (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff sued Defendant over the deceptive advertising of
SeroVital, an over-the-counter supplement marketed to boost human
growth hormone. Plaintiff filed two causes of action in the
lawsuit: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (2) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750.

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that: (1) Plaintiff
brings only substantiation claims, for which there exists no
available private right of action; and (2) even if Plaintiff's
claims are construed to be something other than substantiation
claims, the Complaint fails to demonstrate that Defendant's claims
regarding SeroVital are false.

In his Order granting the Motion to Dismiss, Magistrate Judge
James ruled that Plaintiff private right of action did not exists.
In a substantiation claim, private litigants may only bring claims
for false or misleading advertising and must provide adequate
factual bases for such allegations. Judge James further stated
that the Complaint, as drafted, is insufficient and alleges a
substantiation claim, and not a claim for false or misleading
advertising, and therefore cannot be brought as a private action.

A copy of the Order dated October 30, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1suDhZ4from Leagle.com.

Serena Kwan, Plaintiff, represented by Manfred Patrick Muecke,
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C., Elaine A. Ryan,
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C, Lindsey M Gomez, Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman Balint, Stewart M. Weltman, Stewart M Weltman
LLC & Patricia Nicole Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn et al.

SanMedica International, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher B. Sullivan, Jason M. Kerr, Mark J. Williams & Rollin
Bernard Chippey, II, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Faces Suit in S.D. Illinois Alleging Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank of Trenton, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated institution v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-01361-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., December 9, 2014) asserts claims
for personal injury.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Christopher J. Quinn, Esq.
          DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2440
          St. Louis, IL 63102
          Telephone: (314) 932-3232
          Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
          E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
                  chris@thedriscollfirm.com


SEADRILL LIMITED: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Issek Fuchs and Todd Augenbaum, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Seadrill Limited, John Fredriksen,
Per Wullf and Rune Magnus Lundetrae, Case No. 1:14-cv-09642
(S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Seadrill Limited is a Bermuda-based offshore drilling contractor
that provides offshore drilling services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Katherine Blasy, Esq.
      Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Services Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
              srudman@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-5050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
      E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com


STEEL DYNAMICS: Awaits Court Ruling on Class Certification Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court took the
class certification issue under advisement and it's unclear when
the court will issue its ruling.

The company is involved, along with other steel manufacturing
companies, in a class action antitrust complaint filed in federal
court in Chicago, Illinois in September 2008, which alleges a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at
which steel products were sold in the United States during a
period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the
supply of such steel products. All but one of the complaints were
brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct
purchasers of steel products.  The other complaint was brought on
behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers
of steel products within the same time period.  A ninth complaint,
in December 2010, was brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
steel products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the
original complaints.  All complaints seek treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief.  Following a period of discovery
relating to class certification matters, plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification filed in 2012, and briefing by both
sides, the court, on March 5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, held a class
certification hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
took the class certification issue under advisement. It's unclear
when the court will issue its ruling.

Steel Dynamics is a domestic manufacturer of steel products and
metals recycler.


TANGOE INC: Court Allowed Motion to Dismiss "Stein" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Tangoe Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court allowed
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Lewis
Stein.

The Company said, "On March 1, 2013, Lewis Stein, a purported
purchaser of our common stock, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us,
our President and Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial
Officer, Stein v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and Gary
R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of our
common stock from December 20, 2011 through September 5, 2012 and
alleged that during this period the market price of our common
stock was inflated by false or misleading statements principally
concerning the results of our business.  On April 30, 2013, Mr.
Stein and another purported purchaser of our common stock, James
Gibson, filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in
connection with this putative class action and to have their
attorneys approved as lead counsel.  The court held a hearing on
May 13, 2013 to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for all
of the cases consolidated with this action.  The court denied
without prejudice Mr. Stein's and Mr. Gibson's motion to be
appointed as lead plaintiffs in connection with this putative
class action and to have their attorneys approved as lead counsel.
On May 17, 2013, Mr. Gibson withdrew his request to be appointed
as lead plaintiff in connection with this putative class action,
and Mr. Stein filed a renewed request to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in connection with this putative class action and to
have his attorneys approved as lead counsel.  On August 19, 2013,
the court allowed Mr. Stein's motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in connection with this putative class action and to
have his attorneys approved as lead counsel."

"On October 18, 2013, Mr. Stein filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), which alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act.  In the Amended Complaint, Mr.
Stein sought to represent a class of purchasers of our common
stock from July 27, 2011 through September 4, 2012 and alleged
that during this period the market price of our common stock was
inflated by false or misleading statements principally concerning
the results of our business.  The Amended Complaint asserted
claims against us, Mr. Subbloie, Mr. Martino, and Gary P. Golding,
one of our directors.  On November 18, 2013, the Defendants moved
to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.  On December 18,
2013, Mr. Stein opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On January
17, 2014, the Defendants submitted a reply brief in further
support of their motion to dismiss.  On September 30, 2014, the
court allowed Defendants' motion to dismiss and entered judgment
on Defendants' behalf."

Tangoe provides connection lifecycle management software and
related services to a wide range of global enterprises and service
providers.


TANGOE INC: Court Allowed Motion to Dismiss "Rector" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Tangoe Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court allowed
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Calvin
Rector.

The Company said, "On March 15, 2013, Calvin Rector, a purported
purchaser of our common stock, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us,
our President and Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial
Officer, Rector v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and Gary
R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of
purchasers of our common stock from December 20, 2011 through
September 5, 2012 and alleged that during this period the market
price of our common stock was inflated by false or misleading
statements principally concerning the results of our business.  On
April 3, 2013, the court consolidated this case with the Stein
case and on September 30, 2014 this case was dismissed in
connection with the court's entry of judgment in the Stein case."

Tangoe provides connection lifecycle management software and
related services to a wide range of global enterprises and service
providers.


TANGOE INC: Court Allowed Motion to Dismiss "Kelley" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Tangoe Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the court allowed
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Timothy
Kelley.

The Company said, "On April 12, 2013, Timothy Kelley, a purported
purchaser of our common stock, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us,
our President and Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial
Officer, Kelley v. Tangoe, Inc., Albert R. Subbloie, Jr. and Gary
R. Martino.  The plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of
purchasers of our common stock from December 20, 2011 through
September 5, 2012 and alleged that during this period the market
price of our common stock was inflated by false or misleading
statements principally concerning the results of our business.  On
April 26, 2013, the court consolidated the case with the Stein
case and on September 30, 2014 this case was dismissed in
connection with the court's entry of judgment in the Stein case."

Tangoe provides connection lifecycle management software and
related services to a wide range of global enterprises and service
providers.


TD BANK: Faces "Hurel" Suit in N.J. Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hurel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD Bank, N.A. and The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Case No.
1:14-cv-07621 (D.N.J., December 5, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' unfair and deceptive trade practices, specifically by
assessing and collecting improper and excessive overdraft fees.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank with its designated main office
in the State of New Jersey.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank is a Canadian-chartered bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher V. Langone, Esq.
      LANGONE LAW FIRM
      207 Texas Lane
      Ithaca, NY 14850
      Telephone: (607) 592-2661
      E-mail: langonelaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
      Francis J. "Casey" Flynn Jr., Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
      Telephone:  (314) 725-7700
      E-mail:  tyiatras@careydanis.com
               francisflynn@gmail.com


TOWN SPORTS: Appellate Division Upheld Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of the
class action allegations in two lawsuits.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in
the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. On or about June
18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class
action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI,
LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
all New York purported hourly employees.

On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class
action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to
timely file motions to certify the class actions. The court
granted the motions on January 29, 2013, dismissing the class
action allegations in both lawsuits. Following an appeal in April
2014, the Appellate Division upheld the dismissal. Currently, only
the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

Town Sports is one of the leading owners and operators of fitness
clubs in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United
States and one of the largest fitness club owners and operators in
the United States.


TOWN SPORTS: Document Discovery Deadline Set for December 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014, that the deadline for the completion of pre-class
certification document discovery in the James Labbe et al. lawsuit
is December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a class certification
motion is March 2, 2015.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations.

The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery. The deadline
for the completion of pre-class certification document discovery
is December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a class certification
motion is March 2, 2015. While it is not possible to estimate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the
case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC
intends to contest this case vigorously.

Town Sports is one of the leading owners and operators of fitness
clubs in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United
States and one of the largest fitness club owners and operators in
the United States.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Car Owners Start to Receive Settlement Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bruce, writing for Autoblog, reports that where General
Motors and Takata have grabbed many auto safety-related headlines
this year with their problems with ignition switches and airbag
inflators, a few years ago, a similar sort of scrutiny fell on
Toyota for unintended acceleration.  After multiple settlements
with various parties totaling billions of dollars, the issues seem
largely behind the Japanese automaker now.  Owners are actually
starting to receive their money, but it isn't exactly breaking the
bank.  Payouts are expected to be between $37 and $125 per person.
Computer science student Jonathan Sourbeer received a check for
just $20.91, and he considers what that money actually means in an
op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Sourbeer's biggest gripe is that the roughly 85 lawyers in the
case are receiving $227 million in attorneys' fees and expenses,
while the 25 primary plaintiffs and class representatives receive
a total of just $395,270.  According to the Frequently Asked
Questions about the settlement, Toyota set up a $250 million fund
to pay affected owners, as well.  The money isn't for injuries or
damages but for alleged economic loss to the vehicles.  However,
Mr. Sourbeer says he feels no personal suffering and still has the
same car.

In addition to the settlement, the automaker obviously has its own
legal fees to deal with, as well.  Mr. Sourbeer wonders how this
is all going to affect Toyotas in the future.  Obviously, the
money has to come from somewhere, and it likely gets amortized
over the company's vehicles in the coming years to add a few
dollars to each one.  That puts the problem back onto customers.

Anyone involved in a class-action suit has likely seen this happen
first hand.  The lawyers take a large chunk of the money, and the
rest is distributed in tiny morsels to those actually affected.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sourbeer offers no solutions beyond saying the
system needs to change.


TRANSAM LEASING: Request for Discovery in "Fox" Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt granted Plaintiffs' request
for discovery in the case captioned CANDACE FOX, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. TRANSAM LEASING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
12-2706-CM-GLR (D. Kan.).

Plaintiffs filed their original 15-count Class Action Complaint
against Defendants alleging that Defendants violated the provision
of the Independent Contractor Agreement by requiring them to pay a
satellite communications system usage fee of fifteen dollars per
week and further requested for discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendants countered that the fee is not a forced purchase but
instead, a specifically authorized charge-back. Defendants also
argued that there is no case law holding that a charge cannot
qualify as a charge-back unless the afforded documents clause was
satisfied.

In his Order granting the request for discovery by the Plaintiff,
Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt ruled that Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that the interrogatories and requests for production
appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. In contrast, he declared that Defendants'
objection to discovery was not substantially justified. However,
Plaintiffs' request for fees and expenses were denied.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2014, is
available at bit.ly/1uqdoiX from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Candace Fox et al. are represented by Anne E. Gepford
Smith, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin PC, Daniel M. Runion, Shaffer
Lombardo Shurin PC, Gregory P. Forney, Shaffer Lombardo Shurin PC,
Gregory Leyh, Gregory Leyh, PC & Richard F. Lombardo, Shaffer
Lombardo Shurin PC.

Defendants Transam Leasing, Inc., et al. are represented by
Christopher Marshall McHugh, Seigfreid Bingham PC, Gregory S.
Gerstner, Seigfreid Bingham PC, James C. Sullivan, Polsinelli PC,
Rachel H. Baker, Seigfreid Bingham PC & Shannon Cohorst Johnson,
Seigfreid Bingham PC.


TRAVELERS HOME: Judge Recommends TRO Denial in "Barreras" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the action STEVEN BARRERAS and SHARON HERRERA, Plaintiffs, v.
TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendant,
CASE NO. 12-CV-354 KG/SCY, Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough
recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff's request for a
temporary restraining order and enter an order requiring Defendant
to include information in its settlement offers concerning
Plaintiffs' request for treble damages.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that Travelers and its agents
wrongfully denied class members' claims for uninsured and
underinsured motorist benefits. On October 23, 2014, Travelers
alerted Plaintiffs that it planned on contacting members of the
alleged class in order to offer them individual settlements.
Plaintiffs objected to the proposal.  Plaintiffs decided to file
an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiffs contend that court-oversight of Defendant's
communications is appropriate in the case because there is an
ongoing business relationship between Defendant, an insurer, and
some of the class members, its insureds.

Judge Yarbrough held that the Court agrees with Defendant that the
putative class members, consumers of a fungible product, are not
inherently likely to be coerced into accepting Defendant's
settlement offer merely due to the nature of the business
relationship.  The Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that prohibition of Defendant's speech is
necessary to prevent coercion.

A copy of the Judge's Nov. 13, 2014 Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition is available at http://is.gd/wb4k3v
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Franklin D Azar, Esq.
     FRANKLIN D AZAR & ASSOCIATES
     14426 East Evans Avenue
     Aurora, CO 80014-1480

          - and -

Gordon H Rowe, III, Rowe Law Firm, PC; Jonathan Parrott, Franklin
D Azar & Associates, PC; Joshua R ProctorLevy, Wheeler, Waters,
PC; Keith R. Scranton, Franklin D Azar & Associates PC; Marc R.
Levy, Levy, Wheeler, Waters. P.C.; & Nathan J Axvig, Frank D. Azar
& Associates.

Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company and other Defendants
are represented by:

     Gary W. Larson, Esq.
     HINKLE, HENSLEY, SHANOR & MARTIN, LLP
     218 Montezuma Avenue
     Santa Fe, NM 87501
     Tel: 505-982-4554
     Fax: 505-982-8623;

          - and -

Brett Ingerman -- brett.ingerman@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP;
Gail L Gottehrer -- ggottehrer@axinn.com -- Axinn, Veltrop &
Harkrider LLP; Julie Sakura, Hinkle Hensley Shanor & Martin LLP;
Matthew A Goldberg -- matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper;
Nathan P Heller -- nathan.heller@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper; &
Thomas G Rohback -- trohback@axinn.com -- Axinn, Veltrop &
Harkrider LLP.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Faces Two Racketeering Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlemnts.com reports that two class action
racketeering lawsuits and a lawsuit by the New York Attorney
General have been filed against Donald Trump for swindling
student-victims out of upwards of $35,000 each through their
enrollment in his fictitious institution, Trump University.

Students Charge Donald Trump with Racketeering in "University"
Scheme

The supreme court of New York ruled earlier that Trump University,
now renamed Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, LLC, is liable for its
violation of state education laws in its illegally calling the
program a "university" without the appropriate licensure or
accreditation and for allegedly defrauding students of $40
million.

"University" was "ivy league quality"

The two pending class action lawsuits make the same allegations
against Trump.  The first case is Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC
in which the plaintiff representing the class charged that Trump
University engaged in racketeering activity causing her to hand
over thousands of dollars for enrollment in Trump University.

A parallel class action, Cohen v. Trump, was filed by another
former "student-victim," Art Cohen, who, according to his
complaint, paid more than $35,000 after receiving a "special
invitation to Trump University from Donald Trump" to attend a
three-day event to learn Donald Trump's "real estate secrets."

Using a $6 million advertising campaign, Trump University was
marketed to a database of more than one million potential
students, including many senior citizens, as an "ivy league
quality" university.  The sales pitch claimed that Donald Trump
was so "integrally involved" that student-victims would have an
opportunity similar to his TV show "The Apprentice," effectively
gaining real estate secrets from Trump and his handpicked "faculty
of professors and adjunct professors."

However, Mr. Trump has already admitted in court that:

   * His involvement was "completely absent."
   * He did not participate in events, teaching, content of the
program.
   * He did "not even know if students received a degree."

Playbook Detailing Scheme

Donald Trump created his University as a scheme to make millions
of dollars by promoting the misconception that it was a "real
university with a real admissions process" that would not accept
everyone who applies, according to the complaints.  In marketing
materials for Trump University, Mr. Trump claims to have "hand-
picked" instructors -- but they were actually "independently
contracted high-pressure salesmen" paid on commission.

The plaintiffs charge that after being lured to a Trump University
free event, students continued to be upsold various packages and
products, all promising to give access to Trump's real estate
secrets.  The packages started at $495 and were constantly upsold
with other products and packages to more than $70,000.

According to the plaintiff's claim, the "instructors" were
provided marketing guidelines, a "Playbook" script and
standardized slides depicting an upsell scheme that the salesmen
were contractually bound to follow.

The Playbook "armed [salesman] with objections and rebuttals" for
hesitant student-victims and were also taught to "work the room
with special attention to team members in possession of a credit
card that needs to be run."  At the live events put on by Trump
University, student-victims would fill out detailed financial goal
statements for their personal goals, yet Trump University used the
statements to decide who had liquid assets they could pursue.

Racketeering

Although Trump did not select the "faculty" or the "curriculum,"
according to the complaint, he started Trump University and
provided the initial operating capital, keeping a 93 percent
ownership stake.

Trump University violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) by conducting "an enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity" through acts of mail and wire
fraud, according to the plaintiff's class certification motion.

According to the class actions, Mr. Trump and his University met
the elements required under RICO of his "(1) conduct (2) of an
enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity"
causing harm to the plaintiff's business or property.

Mail and wire fraud are the racketeering activity referenced in
the class action suit. The elements required to be proven by the
plaintiff are as follows:

   * That Trump had a scheme to defraud.
   * That Trump acted with the intent to defraud.
   * That the statements or facts made or omitted were material
misrepresentations capable of influencing the plaintiffs to part
with their money or property.
   * That Trump used mails or wires in furtherance of the scheme.

Interstate Mail and Wire Fraud

When the New York State Education Department (NYSED) informed
Trump in 2005 that it was illegal to use the name "university"
without a license, Mr. Trump did not change the name, but instead
opened a sham office in Delaware, which was used as the address on
all marketing material, but maintained his main place of operation
at the original New York location.

The use of mail or wires in furthering the scheme was done through
a $6 million annual "highly orchestrated" national advertising
campaign.  The promotional materials contained Trump's image,
quotes, and signature in online videos, mass mailings of letters
and personal invitations to free events.

Email blasts were consistently sent to over one million current
and prospective students.  The marketing campaign was used,
misrepresenting Trump's "integral involvement" to lure student-
victims to the Free events, where they would be upsold enrollment
products with the potential of costing $70,000, according to the
complaint.

Trump attempts at procedural defenses

Mr. Trump admitted in court that his involvement in Trump
University was "completely absent" other than his marketing and
scheme involvement.  His defense in fraudulently taking "tens of
millions" of dollars in this scheme is to blame the actual
student-victims.  In the class action lawsuit, Mr. Trump's defense
rested on the following arguments:

   * Cohen and the class failed to prove his mail and wire fraud
acts caused the alleged injury.
   * Cohen failed to provide any evidence of actual harm.
   * That there were a "number of intervening circumstances"
severing the direct link between the alleged racketeering acts and
the claim of injury.
   * The claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

The court found Trump's arguments not properly considered in the
class action case.

Both class action cases, Cohen v. Trump and Makaeff v. Trump
University, LLC, are still pending. The case against Trump for his
illegal use of "university" is The People of The State of New York
v. The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative, LLC.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Wants Supplement to Bill of Fees & Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit MAKAEFF v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, CASE NO. 10CV0940
GPC (WVG) (S.D. Calif.), District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered
an order requiring supplemental briefing in support of
plaintiff/counter defendant Tarla Makaeff's bill of fees and
costs.

The class action was brought in 2010 by Ms. Makaeff against Trump
University, alleging that the real estate-related programs she
took from Trump University were shorter than advertised, and her
university mentors were largely unavailable.

Trump University then filed a defamation counterclaim against
Makaeff.  Makaeff filed a special motion to strike the
counterclaim, but Judge Irma Gonzalez denied the special motion,
along with the subsequent motion for reconsideration.

By January 2011, Makaeff appealed Judge Gonzalez's rulings to the
Ninth Circuit.  The Circuit Court reversed and remanded the order
in April 2011.  And on June 16, 2014, the California district
court granted the special motion to strike.

In July 2014, pursuant to the district court's direction, Makaeff
filed a bill of fees and costs to substantiate the amount of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with bringing the
motion to strike, related appeal, and supplemental briefing.

In a Nov. 18, 2014 ruling available at http://is.gd/sZdqgsfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Curiel ordered Makaeff to submit supplemental
briefing breaking down the attorney fees and costs in relation to
the Bill for Fees and Costs. As Makaeff failed to include a more
detailed breakdown, the breakdown in Makeaff's supplemental brief
shall not include any time spent on the supplemental brief
submitted pursuant to the order. Makaeff was to submit her
supplemental brief by December 12, 2014, and Trump University may
file a supplemental brief in opposition on or before December 23,
2014.

Plaintiffs are represented by Aaron M. Olsen -- aarono@zhlaw.com
-- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; Amber Lee Eck --
ambere@zhlaw.com. -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; Daniel Jacob
Pfefferbaum -- DPfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP; Jason A Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP; Maureen E. Mueller -- mmueller@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Rachel L Jensen --
rjensen@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP; & Thomas
R. Merrick -- tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Trump University, LLC, is represented by Benjamin James Morris -
bmorris@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP; Jeffrey L. Goldman,
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP; Jill Ann Martin, Trump
National Golf Club, Los Angeles & Nancy L. Stagg --
nstagg@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP.


TUFF GUY: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Collins, Dani Fenske, Jimmy Woodson, and all others
similarly situated v. Amanda Reese d/b/a Tuff Guy Landscaping and
Construction, Case No. 4:14-cv-03497 (S.D. Tex., December 7,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Tuff Guy Landscaping and Construction owns and operates a
landscaping and construction company located at 23554 Panky Lane
New Caney TX 77357 in Montgomery County Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hessam Parzivand, Esq.
      THE PARZIVAND LAW FIRM, PLLC
      10701 Corporate Dr.
      Stafford, TX 77477
      Telephone: (713) 533-8171
      E-mail: hp@parzfirm.com


TWINS AUTO: Faces "Cardoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Cardoso, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. Twins Auto Service, Inc., and Margarita
Rodriguez, Case No. 1:14-cv-09808 (N.D. Ill., December 5, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an auto service center in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile:  (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


VENAXIS INC: 10th Cir. Affirmed Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a
class action lawsuit.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (now Venaxis, Inc.)  et al.,
Case No. CV10 7365 ("Wolfe Suit").  This federal securities
purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all
persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock of
the Company during the period between February 22, 2007 and July
19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint named as defendants certain
officers and directors of the Company during such period and
included allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act") and
SEC Rule 10b-5, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, all
related to the Company's blood-based acute appendicitis test in
development.  On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead counsel.  On August 23, 2011, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint,
alleging the same class period.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the United States
District Court for Colorado granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants
without prejudice and the court entered final judgment without
prejudice on behalf of all defendants and against all plaintiffs
in the Wolfe Suit. The order to dismiss the action found in favor
of the Company and all of the individual defendants.

On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of
the order granting the motion to dismiss and of the final judgment
in the Wolfe Suit.   Following oral argument, the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals took the fully-briefed appeal under submission on
September 26, 2013.

On October 17, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's dismissal of the case.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Faces Class Action Over TTM Merger Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 21, 2014, Viasystems Group, Inc. announced that it
had entered into a merger agreement with TTM Technologies, Inc.
("TTM") and a wholly owned subsidiary of TTM.

Viasystems Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that since the public
announcement of the proposed Merger with the Company, its board of
directors, TTM and Merger Sub have been named as defendants in two
putative class action complaints challenging the Merger. The first
lawsuit, filed on September 30, 2014, in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri, and the second lawsuit, filed on October
13, 2014, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
generally allege, among other things, that the Merger fails to
properly value the Company, and that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement
and that those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub
and the Company. The Company believes these lawsuits are without
merit.


VICTOR REFINISHING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan G. Hernandez individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Victor Refinishing Inc., 107 01 Northern Realty Corp,
Autobody By Victor Inc., Victor Collision And Towing Co.(d/b/a
Autobody By Victor), Victor Izquierdo Jr. Roberto Izquierdo, Cesar
Alvarez, John Bodgger and Victor Tolon, Case No. 1:14-cv-07138
(E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a fast food restaurant
located at 10701 Northern Blvd Corona, NY 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
      FUSTER LAW PC
      37-10 37th Avenue, Suite 204
      Long Island City, NY 11101
      Telephone: (718) 702-1622
      Facsimile: (866) 477-0735
      E-mail: lfranco@fusterlaw.com


VIVINT INC: "Venditto" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned PAULETTE VENDITTO, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIVINT,
INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4357 (JLL) (JSD)(D. N.J.).

Plaintiff commenced an action on behalf of herself and all persons
who entered into an Alarm System Purchase and Services Agreement
with the Defendant in relation to the home alarm system and
monitoring services offered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
which is the subject of the Alarm Agreement.  Plaintiff filed a
Complaint alleging, among others, the violation of the Retail
Installment Sales Act ("RISA") and violation of the Door-to-Door
Retail Installment Sales Act ("DDRISA").

Defendant moves to dismiss under the reason that the Alarm
Agreement is not a retail installment contract within the meaning
of RISA and DDRISA which applies only to retail installment
contracts. Further, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff has failed to
adequately plead the violation of any clearly established legal
right and that the Amended Complaint cites no statutory text,
legislative history, relevant precedence or determinative
regulatory interpretation.

District Judge Jose L. Linares granted the Motion to Dismiss on
the basis that Plaintiff failed to plead facially plausible claim
for violation and his blatant failure to meet the Rule 8(a)
pleading standard inasmuch as it fails to provide Defendant with
sufficient notice of the nature of the claim being asserted.

A copy of the Opinion dated November 5, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1DDp4Dafrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff was allowed to file a Second Amended Complaint that
cures the pleading deficiencies on or before December 12, 2014.

PAULETTE VENDITTO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL IVAN RUBIN, THE WOLF
LAW FIRM LLC & DAVID C. RICCI, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC.

VIVINT, INC., formerly known as APX ALARM SECURITY SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, represented by GAVIN J. ROONEY --
grooney@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC & MICHAEL JAMES
HAMPSON, LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Defendants' Responses to Class Action Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
defendants' responses to the consolidated class action complaint
were due in November 2014.

The Company said, "On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative
securities class action suits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against us
and certain of our officers, our board of directors, a former
director and the underwriters for the our initial public offering.
On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.

The consolidated complaint names certain current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters for our initial public
offering and secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
false and materially misleading statements and omissions in the
registration statement for our initial public offering and
secondary offering and in communications regarding its business
and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf
of purchasers of our securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2,
2013, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs,
as well as other relief.  Defendants' responses to the
consolidated complaint were due in November 2014.

Vocera Communications is a provider of secure, integrated,
intelligent communication solutions, focused on empowering mobile
workers in healthcare, hospitality, energy, and other mission-
critical mobile work environments, in the United States and
internationally.


W.W. GRAINGER: Jan. 14 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato granted a joint motion for preliminary
approval of a settlement reached by parties in the case captioned
MARITZA STOVALL-GUSMAN, Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-02540-JD (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Account Manager.
Plaintiff claimed that account managers do not qualify as exempt
employees and therefore covered by federal and state wage and hour
laws applicable to nonexempt employees because they do not spend
more than 50% of their time engaging in sales activities but
instead spend more time at their home offices performing
administrative tasks and other work incidental to sales.

Defendant argued that account managers are required by company
policy to spend more than half their time interacting with
customers in the field, and that many of the administrative tasks
performed by the account managers are directly related to their
sales functions and should be considered sales activities. Thus,
they were not covered by federal and state wage and hour laws
applicable to nonexempt employees.

Eventually, the parties agreed to settle and pointed out, among
others, that W. W. Grainger might successfully argue that the
putative class members are exempt employees, that it was not aware
of the overtime that its account managers were working, or that
the existence of a good faith dispute over whether the account
managers were owed wages precludes waiting time penalties.

The settlement entered into between the parties provides for a
settlement fund of $715,000. Following a motion hearing held on
September 24, 2014, in which the Court informed the parties that
it would not accept the initially-proposed settlement because it
provided for a class representative enhancement and maximum
attorneys' fees of 30% of the settlement fund, the parties
submitted a modified settlement that eliminated the class
representative enhancement and reduced the maximum attorneys' fees
to 25% of the total settlement amount.  A maximum of $20,000 is
set aside for settlement administration and $10,000 for attorneys'
costs.  The remainder is to be divided between the putative class
members who do not opt out based on each member's total number of
work weeks, rounded up to the nearest week.

In granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement of the parties, District Judge Donato ruled that
the proposed class settlement had satisfied and met the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
In addition, he states that a class action is superior to
individual suits, given the relatively small per-employee recovery
and the large number of potential plaintiffs.

The Court sets a hearing for final approval of the settlement on
January 14, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.  The Court directed Class counsel
to file an application for attorneys' fees and costs, and to file
plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action
settlement by January 2, 2015.

A copy of the Order dated October 30, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/137D1rXfrom Leagle.com.

Maritza Stovall-Gusman, Plaintiff, is represented by Hunter Pyle,
Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, J.D. Henderson, Law Offices of J.D.
Henderson, Mana Barari, Sundeen Salinas and Pyle, Michael Hagop
Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey & Thomas Walker Falvey,
Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas J.
Farmer, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Christopher
M. Ahearn, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Henry
Francis Galatz,, W.W. Grainger Inc.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces "Hays" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hays, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
shareholders of Walgreen Co. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-09786 (N.D. Ill., December 5, 2014), alleges
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well
as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

The Defendants own and operate the largest drugstore chain in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Tenth South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile:  (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Ofer Ganot, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (917) 463-1044

         - and -

      Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Telephone: (888) 529-1108


WHITE & BLUE: Faces Class Action Over Bacterial Infections
----------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Keegan, writing for Springfield News-Leader, reports that
a Springfield man and woman got more than they bargained for when
they purchased a do-it-yourself home tattoo kit online.

Jack Bradley and Kristine Murray filed a class-action lawsuit on
Nov. 25 in United States District Court against the company White
& Blue Lion Inc., claiming its tattoo kit caused them painful
bacterial infections and disfigurement.

Mr. Bradley and Ms. Murray are suing for more than $75,000 as they
claim the tattoo kit they purchased online this summer, which has
since been recalled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, sent
them to the emergency room with serious infections that have left
them permanently scarred, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says that Mr. Bradley and Ms. Murray purchased the
tattoo kit, which contained various tools like ink and needles,
through online retailer Amazon.com this summer.

July 7, the lawsuit says, Mr. Bradley used the tattoo kit to give
Ms. Murray a tattoo on her ankle and himself a tattoo on the leg.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Bradley has five years of experience
as a tattoo artist and used gloves and sterile needles at all
times while tattooing Ms. Murray and himself.

For the next three days, the lawsuit says, Mr. Bradley and Ms.
Murray could not walk without suffering intense pain in their
legs, and they noticed sores around the tattoos with the skin
becoming red and hot to the touch.

The conditions persisted for several weeks and the appearance of
the flesh worsened as blisters and scabs formed, according to the
lawsuit.

In early August, the Food and Drug Administration issued a notice
of the recall of White & Blue Lion branded tattoo inks and needles
due to confirmed bacterial contamination in unopened bottles of
inks and on needles.

The FDA's notice states that sepsis, a potentially life-
threatening body-wide infection of the blood, could potentially
result from using the tattoo products, according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Murray and Mr. Bradley's class-action suit is on behalf of all
others similarly situated.  The lawsuit claims White and Blue Lion
Inc. used unlawful merchandising practices since its products were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The lawsuit alleges White and Blue Lion Inc. is guilty of
negligence and a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act.  A jury trial has been requested.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: To File Reply Brief in Support of Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company was to file a reply brief in support of its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received above-
referenced CID from the CFPB. The complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in the matter.

On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On August 12, 2014, lead plaintiff Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint contains similar
allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class
period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan
growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in
the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting
treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16,
2014.

On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
to the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
Company will file a reply brief in support of its motion to
dismiss on or before November 17, 2014, and the Company's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint will be decided by the Court
sometime thereafter.


* Melbourne University Law Review Calls for Class Action Reform
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that the
pressure on the federal government to reform class actions is set
to intensify due to the forthcoming publication of a major
critique of the lack of transparency that protects the financial
beneficiaries of this form of litigation.

Melbourne University Law Review is preparing to publish a call for
greater scrutiny and independent oversight of the legal costs of
class action lawyers and their arrangements with litigation
funding companies.

The reform plan, which has been drawn up by legal academic
Michael Legg, comes as two of Melbourne's most prominent lawyers,
Norman O'Bryan SC and solicitor Mark Elliott, were this week
excluded from acting in a $100 million class action because of
their links with a litigation funder that would have pocketed up
to 30 per cent of whatever they won for their clients.

In the MULR article, Associate Professor Legg outlines four
changes that he believes will help the courts eliminate the risk
of what he refers to as conflicts of interest, collusion and
settlements that do not benefit all claimants in particular class
actions.

His plan calls for:

   * Preventing class action lawyers appointing their own costs
experts to ensure their fees are reasonable.  Instead, these
experts would be appointed by the courts.

   * The appointment of an independent "guardian" to protect the
interests of claimants in each class action.  This guardian would
provide the courts with an independent perspective.

   * Winding back the practice in which the Federal Court has
suppressed evidence that supports the approval of class action
settlements.

   * Encouraging the Federal Court to give more detailed reasons
when approving class action settlements to ensure each settlement
is fair and reasonable.  In some cases settlements had been
approved without a formal judgment.

Professor Legg writes that the ability of courts to alter
contractual relations involving litigation funders is not as clear
as the position of lawyers because funders are not officers of the
court and their fees are not subject to the taxation of costs
process.

"Yet the funder may have greater conflicts of interest as their
recovery directly reduces the compensation payable to group
members," Professor Legg writes.  "Nonetheless, the fees charged
by litigation funders have rarely been examined when a settlement
is approved."

These proposals come soon after Federal Court Chief Justice James
Allsopp revealed plans to streamline the way his court handles
class actions which he said had the capacity to generate large
amounts of fees.

Like Professor Legg, the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform has
also called for a court-pointed claimants' representative to
protect the interests of clients in the increasingly lucrative
class action industry.

That plan called for litigation funders and instructing law firms
to be banned from having an ownership stake in each other, or from
having any other joint economic interest in the outcome of
litigation.

It has been handed to Attorney-General George Brandis, who is also
considering a report from the Productivity Commission that is
believed to contain proposals for the future regulation of class
actions and litigation funders.

Figures compiled by Monash University's Vince Morabito show the
number of class actions has declined since 2003, but a report by
King & Wood Mallesons shows Australian companies have outlaid a
total of $1.1 billion to settle securities class actions.

Five foreign litigation funding companies are active in Australia
along with six Australian funders.

One of the Australian funders is BSL Litigation Partners, 45 per
cent of which is owned by interests associated with Melbourne
solicitor Mark Elliott.  Another 45 per cent is owned by the wife
of prominent Melbourne silk Norman O'Bryan SC.

Both lawyers were this week excluded from acting in a $100 million
class action against Banksia Securities in which BSL would have
received up to 30 per cent of whatever Mr. Elliott and Mr. O'Bryan
would have won for their clients.

The Victorian Supreme Court decided that the proper administration
of justice, when viewed from the perspective of a fair-minded
member of the community, required Mr. O'Bryan and Mr. Elliott to
be prevented from acting in the case.

In reasons handed down on Nov. 26, judge Anne Ferguson said the
litigation funding agreement for the case meant BSL could receive
tens of millions of dollars.

Her judgment shows that BSL's conflict management policy means
that if a dispute were to arise over whether to accept a
settlement offer, advice would be sought from the most senior
counsel retained in the case.

"Mr. O'Bryan's name is on the current form of statement of claim
and there is no evidence that he is not the most senior counsel
retained in the litigation," Justice Ferguson said.

The action to remove the lawyers from the case, initiated by
Banksia Securities director John Godfrey and other defendants, had
been opposed by the class action's lead plaintiff whose counsel
told the Supreme Court that Mr. O'Bryan would not give advice on
whether a proposed settlement was fair.

Mr. O'Bryan and Mr. Elliott did not take part in the case and the
judge said her decision did not mean she had formed any view about
whether they had breached, or were likely to breach, their
statutory duties to the court or any professional conduct rule.

Hundreds of Hoosiers could share in class-action lawsuit over
unlawful detainment


* Senator Warns Consumers About Deceptive Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory B. Hladky, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that U.S.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal warned holiday shoppers on Nov. 28 that
some outlet store bargains featuring allegedly reduced prices on
brand name products may actually be selling goods of lesser
quality using deceptive pricing.

Mr. Blumenthal said he's repeatedly asked the Federal Trade
Commission to investigate such practices.  He said more than 85
percent of outlet store products are made exclusively for outlet
sales and are very different from the actual brand name
merchandise they are advertising as "unbeatable bargains."

One online outlet, Overstock.com, was ordered to pay $6.8 million
earlier this year for deceptively advertising comparison prices to
brand name products that had no bearing to reality, Mr. Blumenthal
said.  The case resulted from a California lawsuit.

According to Mr. Blumenthal, eleven class action lawsuits have
been filed over deceptive advertising issues involving outlet
stores connected to retailers that include Neiman Marcus, Michael
Kors, The Gap, Saks Fifth Avenue, Levi Straus, Nordstrom and Ralph
Lauren.

To bring attention to this consumer issue, Mr. Blumenthal
conducted a State Capitol news conference on Black Friday, one of
the biggest shopping days of the year.  Later, he traveled to the
popular shoreline mall, Clinton Crossing Premium Outlets, to "look
at some of the merchandise and see what shoppers are doing."

"I'm not accusing any particular store of engaging in this
practice," Mr. Blumenthal said. "I'm not focusing on specific
stores, specific goods or specific prices."

He also said some outlet stores are legitimately offering deals on
brand name goods. "They may be getting a bargain, but not
necessarily," said Mr. Blumenthal, urging consumers to be on the
look-out for retailers using deceptive practices.

Mr. Blumenthal said shoppers should ask, "What is the difference
between what I'm buying here . . . and [what similar item is being
sold] in the flagship store."

"They ought to be investigated," Mr. Blumenthal said of outlet
stores that may be attempting to deceive shoppers about prices or
the quality of goods for sale.

Mr. Blumenthal is a former Connecticut attorney general with a
reputation for aggressively suing any companies he thought were
taking advantage of gullible or uninformed consumers.  He is now a
member of the U.S. Senate committee dealing with commerce, science
and transportation. "The FTC is within my jurisdiction," he said.

He said the FTC has so far declined to look into the issues
surrounding outlet store advertising and pricing.  The explanation
federal officials gave Mr. Blumenthal for not launching an
investigation is that they haven't received enough consumer
complaints about this issue.

Mr. Blumenthal called that rationale a "ridiculous, ludicrous
reason," especially since the FTC has no particular threshold
number of consumer complaints necessary to trigger a probe.


                              *********

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  * * *