---

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

          Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 250


                             Headlines

ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Complaint
AEGERION PHARMA: Expects Lead Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
ALLIED SIGNAL: Court Refuses to Take Up Appeal of Asbestos Cases
ALTA INC: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN APPAREL: Settlement in Wage & Hour Actions Has Final OK

AMERICAN APPAREL: Insurer to Pay $4.8MM for Class Suit Deal
AMERICAN CONSUMER: Faces "Barrett" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Complaint
APPLE INC: Judge Strikes Class Representative in Antitrust Suit
AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Class Suits Over Merger With Targa Resources
BERNARD MADOFF: Trustee Can't Claw Back Fictitious Profits
BP PLC: Supreme Court Tosses Oil Spill Settlement Appeal
BREITBURN ENERGY: Reached Agreement to Settle QRE Merger Suits
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Has MOU to Settle Emeritus Merger Actions

BUCCANEERS LTD: Offer of Full Relief Could Not Moot Class Action
CARGILL: Settles Class Action Over Truvia Marketing for $6.1MM
CENTURY MORTGAGE: Faces "Back" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally collects Debt, "Ashkenazi" Suit Says
CHALMETTE REFINING: Plaintiffs' Claims in Toxic Gas Suit Tossed

CHRYSLER: Safety Group Wants to Intervene in TIPM Class Action
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Court Consolidated Five Lawsuits
DAKOTA PLAINS: Faces Actions Over Lac-Megantic Train Derailment
DANOS AND CUROLE: "Case" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DISH NETWORK: AutoHop Deal Ends CBS Programming Blackout

DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Month-Long Channel Blackout
FOOT RELAXING: "Ren" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORD MOTOR: Faces "McAlister" Suit Over Defective Diesel Engine
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Orders Employee Performance Evaluations
GIANT EAGLE: Class Action Plaintiff Can Sue Over Unvisited Stores

GILEAD SCIENCES: Accused of Over Pricing of Hepatitis Drug
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sanctions Sought Against Hagens Berman
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Hagens Berman to Oppose Recommended Sanctions
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Drummond" Suit Says
HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Seek Final OK of Consumer Class Suit Deal

HIGHER ONE: Response to Securities Class Suit Due
JOHN M. GLOVER: Faces "Bohling" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
JOHNY UTAH: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Faces 60 Coal Tar Pitch Cases
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits of Class Action Stayed

KOPPERS HOLDINGS: KPC Defendant in Class Action in Virgin Islands
LIFELOCK INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Bien" Consolidated Amended Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Status Conference in Richardson Case in July 2015
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Falsely Marketed Flooring Products, Suit Says
MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Minor League Monopoly

MAKER'S MARK: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Misleading Product Labeling
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued in Fla. Over Violation of the TCPA
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces Two Class action Lawsuits
MIMEDX GROUP: Motion for Reconsideration Currently Pending
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN: Faces "Kalan" Suit Over Violation of ERISA

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Meningitis Victims to Get $135 Million
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Deal in 2010 Shareholder Suit Takes Effect
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Dismissal of 2013 Shareholder Case Sought
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold to Koch Too Cheaply, Suit Says
PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

PACCAR: Recalls 389 Model Due to Steering Wheel Fastener Nut
PARADISE BAKERY: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Agreement Reached in Waterford Township Action
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Transfer of Appeal to Conn. Supreme Court Sought
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Fracasse and Brown Case Now Concluded

PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Held" Suit Over Unsafe Lacrosse Helmet
PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Hemberger" Suit Over Lacrosse Helmet
PETRO SERVICES: "Byers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Brightview XCT Imaging System

PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls CT TAVI Planning Application
PIZZA PLUS: Faces "Chimbay" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
PRINCESS AUTO: Recalls Emergency Automotive Hammer
PURITY FACTORIES: Recalls Spearmint Lumps and Bull's Eyes
RUDOLPH'S BAKERIES: Recalls Breads Due to Undeclared Milk

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Clinitek Urine Chemistry Analyzer
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Various Vista Flex Reagent Cartridges
SKINFX INC: Recalls SunFX WhiteOut Instant Spray-On Tan
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Two of Three Counts in Lawsuit

SUPERSTAT CORPORATION: Recalls Superstat Collagen Hemostat
SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into Settlement in Class Action
SYNGENTA SEEDS: Sued in Ind. Over Illegal Sale of Viptera Corn
TELEFLEX MEDICAL: Recalls Hudson RCI Sheridan/CF Tracheal Tube
TONSELL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Krakus Red Borscht Soup

TOYOTA: Recalls Camry and Camry HV models Due to Suspension Arm
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Granted Stay of Appeal
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Dismissed in All Non-California Cases
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Made Cash Payment in Class Action
TUV RHEINLAND: Warns of Unauthorized Mark on TreadDesk Treadmills

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Charging Bogus Airport Fee in Cal.
VENMAR VENTILATION: Expands Recall of Air Exchangers
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces "Lima" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces "Parham" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WINGSPAN PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Illegal Termination of Employees


                            *********


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acelrx Pharmaceuticals, 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 October
1, 2014, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers. The
complaint alleges that between December 2, 2013 and September 25,
2014, the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with statements related to the Company's lead drug
candidate, Zalviso. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company's statements were false and misleading because the Company
failed to disclose that the Instructions for Use for Zalviso were
designed improperly and the Company did not submit to the FDA
sufficient data to support the shelf life of the product. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses and intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.


AEGERION PHARMA: Expects Lead Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, 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 ater the
appointment of a lead plaintiff in a class action is approved by
the Court, the Company expects the lead plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.

The Company said, "On January 15, 2014, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers
(the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (the "Court") alleging certain
misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID
and the Company's financial performance in violation of federal
securities laws. On February 6, 2014, the plaintiffs agreed to a
motion suspending the Defendants' obligation to answer, move, or
otherwise respond to the complaint until the court appoints a lead
plaintiff and an anticipated amended complaint is filed."

"On March 31, 2014, one of three separate motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff was withdrawn, and a motion was filed for the
other two plaintiffs to serve together as lead plaintiff. After
the appointment of a lead plaintiff is approved by the Court, we
expect the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made
in this lawsuit."


ALLIED SIGNAL: Court Refuses to Take Up Appeal of Asbestos Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the state Supreme Court has declined to take up the appeal of 18
asbestos cases that were ordered to be transferred from the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' mass torts program to
Northampton County.

The justices issued a one-page per curiam order in denying
allocatur in the consolidated appeals of Stettler v. Allied Signal
on Dec. 3.  The decision lets stand a ruling from the state
Superior Court in January that affirmed a Philadelphia judge's
ruling to change the venue.

The plaintiffs in the cases brought suit against a series of
defendants alleging that occupational exposure to asbestos caused
them to develop cancer.  On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed the
cases should remain in Philadelphia.

The trial court granted the motion to change venue in favor of all
moving defendants, Senior Judge William H. Platt wrote in the
Superior Court's opinion.  The defendants claimed in their motion
that Philadelphia was inconvenient to them and Northampton County
would provide easier access to witnesses.

Judge Platt said the trial court correctly granted the defendants'
motion.  He noted that much of the evidence and many of the fact
witnesses were in or near Northampton County.

Furthermore, while the Philadelphia cases pertained to issues of
malignancy, Judge Platt said there were parallel asbestos cases
related to non-malignant diseases including many of the same
plaintiffs and defendants ongoing in Northampton County.

Judge Platt mentioned the underlying litigation arose out of
claims alleging asbestos exposure in the workplace, notably at
Bethlehem Steel's plant, and secondary exposure to workers' family
members at home from fibers carried on work clothing.

On Jan. 12, 2012, the defendants filed their forum non conveniens
motion noting that Northampton County was a better venue and that
current parallel cases involving non-malignant diseases were under
way there, according to Judge Platt.

Additionally, at argument the plaintiffs' counsel "candidly
conceded the plaintiffs chose Philadelphia for malignancy cases
based on counsel's perception that Philadelphia juries would
generally be more sympathetic to plaintiffs than juries might be
in Northampton County," Judge Platt said.

Shortly after the trial court granted the defendants' motion to
change venue and denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
in late 2012, Platt said, the plaintiffs appealed.

The issue raised by the plaintiffs was that the defendants did not
demonstrate that Philadelphia was "oppressive and vexatious" as a
venue, citing the state Supreme Court's 1997 opinion in Cheeseman
v. Lethal Exterminator, according to Judge Platt.

The plaintiffs contended that "'in 18 separate cases, [the
defendants] have proffered not a single affidavit, not a single
deposition, nor any piece of record evidence showing that anyone
would be oppressed by litigating these cases in Philadelphia,'"
according to Judge Platt.

However, Judge Platt said there was no failure on the part of the
trial court in not holding the defendants to a burden of proof.

Citing the Superior Court's decision in Wood v. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co., Judge Platt said Cheeseman does not require "any
particular form of proof.  All that is required is that the moving
party present a sufficient factual basis for the petition.  The
trial court retains the discretion to determine whether the
particular form of proof presented in support of the petition is
sufficient."

Judge Platt added the court received several boxes filled with
documents, so it was inaccurate to assert that there was a lack of
detailed information to support a motion to transfer venue.

Raynes McCarty attorney Roy DeCaro, who represented the plaintiffs
on appeal, said he was not surprised by the ruling.

"It's very rare for them to grant allocatur," he said, adding he
was more surprised by the Superior Court's opinion.  Mr. DeCaro
said he felt the Superior Court decision was based on a
"philosophical bent" to move the cases out of Philadelphia.  "I
think these plaintiffs we have got caught in a buzz saw."

George A. Weber III of the Peter Angelos law firm, which also
represented the plaintiffs, did not return a call for comment
Dec. 5.

John Hare -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall Dennehey Warner
Coleman & Goggin in Philadelphia represented Hobart Brothers,
Lincoln Electric and Linde LLC, the parties that filed the motion
to transfer in which the other defendants joined.

"We think the court made the right decision in light of its recent
decision in Bratic v. Rubendall, which really clarified forum non
conveniens in Pennsylvania," he said.


ALTA INC: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efren Torres, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Alta, Inc., and Nadim Saleh, Case No. 1:14-
cv-09882 (N.D. Ill., December 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a company that is engaged in
commerce doing business within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN APPAREL: Settlement in Wage & Hour Actions Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, 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, the
five former employees' wage and hour cases including Guillermo
Ruiz, Antonio Partida, Emily Truong, Jessica Heupel, and Anthony
Heupel were settled on an aggregate and class-wide basis for
$850,000, and a final approval was granted by the presiding
arbitrator. On September 12, 2014, the court granted final
approval of the settlement. The Company did not have insurance
coverage for this matter.

American Apparel is a vertically-integrated manufacturer,
distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel
products and designs.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Insurer to Pay $4.8MM for Class Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, 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 of
the Federal Securities Action will result in a payment by the
Company's insurance carrier of $4,800,000.

Four putative class action lawsuits (Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx),
Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106516 MMM (RCx), and Case
No. CV106680 GW (JCGx)) were filed in fall of 2010 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
("USDC") which were subsequently consolidated for all purposes
into a case entitled In re American Apparel, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM (JCGx) (the "Federal
Securities Action"). The lead plaintiff appointed by the USDC
alleges two causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section
10(b), arising out of alleged misrepresentations contained in the
Company's press releases, public filings with the SEC, and other
public statements relating to (i) the adequacy of the Company's
internal and financial control policies and procedures; (ii) the
Company's employment practices; and (iii) the effect that the
dismissal of over 1,500 employees following an Immigration and
Customs Enforcement inspection would have on the Company.
Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief as the USDC may
deem proper.

On November 6, 2013, the USDC issued an order staying the case
pending ongoing settlement discussions between the parties.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion of preliminary approval which
was granted on April 16, 2014 without oral argument. On July 28,
2014, the USDC approved the settlement, and final judgment was
entered on July 30, 2014. The settlement will result in a payment
by the Company's insurance carrier of $4,800,000.

American Apparel is a vertically-integrated manufacturer,
distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic apparel
products and designs.


AMERICAN CONSUMER: Faces "Barrett" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Barrett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Consumer Credit, LLC, Case No.
3:14-cv-02903 (S.D. Cal., December 9, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

American Consumer Credit, LLC owns and operates a full service
credit repair and debt settlement company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust 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
plaintiffs in a securities class action filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers are defendants
in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in
February 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to
represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013. On April 24, 2014, the
court issued an order consolidating the related actions,
appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of co-lead
counsel. On September 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and
other relief. Plaintiffs assert the Section 11 claim on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased our Series A preferred stock in
or traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013 and did not
sell those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to December
12, 2013."

"We believe the allegations to be unfounded and will vigorously
pursue its defenses; however, we cannot reasonably estimate the
potential range of loss, if any. In addition, we have received
three shareholder demands for production, pursuant to Section 220
of the Delaware General Corporation Law, of our books and
records."


APPLE INC: Judge Strikes Class Representative in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that with trial
underway, a federal judge on Dec. 8 threw a wrench into an
antitrust class action against Apple Inc. over the company's
popular iPods.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern
District of California struck plaintiffs' one remaining class
representative, giving lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
until Dec. 9, to find a replacement.

Apple's lawyers, led by William Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com
-- and Karen Dunn -- kdunn@bsfllp.com -- of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, first raised objections that Marianna Rosen hadn't
purchased an iPod within the class period.  Ruling from the bench,
Judge Gonzalez Rogers sided with the company, calling Ms. Rosen an
inadequate class representative.

That leaves the plaintiffs, who are seeking up to $1 billion in
damages, scrambling to salvage the 10-year-old case.  Bonny
Sweeney -- bonnys@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller had already
conceded that two former class representatives didn't buy affected
iPods.  They withdrew named plaintiff Somtai Charoensak in
October, followed by Melanie Wilson on Dec. 5.  Ms. Rosen, a soft-
spoken mother from New Jersey, told the court last week she had an
iPod Touch in her purse purchased during the class period.

But Apple lawyers said they checked the serial number of that iPod
and found she bought it in July 2009, more than three months after
the class period ended. So Rosen submitted a declaration over the
weekend claiming she also bought two iPods in September 2008 -- an
iPod Touch for her son and an iPod Nano for herself.

After checking the serial numbers of the 2008 iPods, Apple's
lawyers said Rosen didn't buy them.  The lawyers said the iPods
were ordered by The Rosen Law Firm, run by Rosen's ex-husband,
Laurence Rosen.

Though Apple's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case on
Dec. 5 based on Rosen's lack of standing, they specified that
Apple would be happy to wait until the end of trial for an answer.

"We want to win this case on the merits," Mr. Isaacson told the
court on Dec. 8.  "And we think we're going to."  Plaintiffs
lawyers called Apple's claims "baseless."  They argued Ms. Rosen
frequently used the law firm credit card for personal purchases.
They say her name was also on the card.

"Ms. Rosen purchased the 2008 iPods for her own use," plaintiffs
lawyers wrote.  "She was not asked or directed by anyone to buy
the iPods."

The case centers on a pair of 2006 and 2007 iTunes updates that
prevented iPods from playing music downloaded from competing
online music stores.  Plaintiffs argue the updates allowed Apple
to maintain an illegal monopoly, while Apple contends they patched
security holes.

The case was filed roughly a decade ago, and U.S. District Judge
James Ware, now retired, certified a class in 2011.  Since then,
the lawyers have changed their definition of which iPod models
were affected by the exclusionary updates, causing some confusion
over plaintiffs' standing.

If plaintiffs produce a new representative on Dec. 9, the court
will excuse the jury and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine
if the representative or representatives are adequate.

Before Judge Gonzalez Roger's game-changing announcement at the
end of the day, the trial proceeded on Dec. 8 with testimony from
economist Roger Noll, a Stanford University professor.  Mr. Noll
previously served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in O'Bannon
v. NCAA, the summer's highly publicized trial over the right of
college athletes to profit from television and video game
contracts.

Mr. Noll told the jury on Dec. 8 the launch of the iTunes Music
Store in 2001 was the catalyst that eventually gave Apple control
of 80 percent of the MP3 player market.

"iPod's market share became sufficient to give Apple monopoly
power," he said.

Mr. Noll said Apple sustained the monopoly in part by "locking in"
customers, or making it difficult to switch to a non-Apple music
player.  Customers with large iTunes music libraries either had to
abandon their music, burn it onto CDs and then upload it again to
their computers, or re-purchase the songs.

"If you want to switch from iPod to one of its competitors,"
Mr. Noll said, "you have to pay a little tax."

Apple's monopoly drove up prices, Mr. Noll testified, and
consumers were overcharged about $16 per iPod.  He estimates that
together consumers and iPod resellers sustained $350 million in
damages, which would be tripled to $1 billion under antitrust law.
During cross-examination, Mr. Isaacson pointed out Mr. Noll
couldn't determine whether that injury was caused by specific
exclusionary code changes in the 2006 and 2007 iTunes updates.

Mr. Noll conceded it would have been "impossible to disentangle"
damages caused by those specific codes.

                     Apple Says Lead Plaintiff
                 Didn't Buy iPods Relevant to Case

Steve Jobs' videotaped appearance in federal court on December 5
wasn't the only big development in the Apple iTunes antitrust
trial, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

The company's lawyers have also found a way to potentially close
the case in their favor.  In a new motion to dismiss the decade-
old class action, Apple's lawyers say the only remaining lead
plaintiff didn't buy any of the iPods relevant to the case.  The
2005 lawsuit accuses the company of preventing iPods from playing
music purchased from competing music stores.

The latest motion, filed on December 5 by Apple lawyer William
Isaacson, of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, says the company's
business records show that lead plaintiff Marianna Rosen's iPods
were either purchased outside the 2006 to 2009 class period, or
weren't bought by her.

Attorneys for the class agreed to dismiss Melanie Tucker, the
second lead plaintiff, from the case for the same reason,
according to the motion.  This leaves Rosen as the only person
representing an estimated eight million consumers and 500
businesses.

Tucker will no longer testify as expected.  Rosen already
testified in front of a jury on December 3.  Plaintiffs' attorneys
said they'd file a response to the motion on December 6.

Also during the trial's fourth day, attorneys for the class played
clips from a 2011 videotaped deposition of Apple co-founder and
former CEO Steve Jobs.  Jobs died six months after the deposition.
Part of the trial's focus is on software by RealNetwork called
Harmony, which allowed songs from Real's music store to be played
on the iPod until iTunes updates prevented that.  The class claims
the updates were intended to stifle competition, but Jobs appeared
unconcerned about the accusation in the video.

"Are you familiar with a company called RealNetworks?" an attorney
asked Jobs.

"Yeah," said Jobs, dressed in his signature long-sleeve black
pullover.  "Do they still exist?"

In the clips, Jobs answered many questions with the response "I
don't remember."

Jobs did say that in the early years of iTunes, music companies
were concerned about piracy and put pressure on Apple when there
were hacks that affected Apple's digital rights management (DRM)
code.

Attorneys also questioned Jeffrey Robbin, Apple's vice president
of iTunes engineering.

Like other Apple officials that have taken the stand, Robbin
maintained that updates to iTunes were to prevent hacking.

The trial was scheduled to continue December 8.

                  Witness Defends iTunes Updates

Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Apple
Inc.'s security director did his best on Dec. 3 to convince a jury
that the company's controversial iTunes updates were desperately
needed to protect a system continually at risk of hacker attacks.
Augustin Farrugia, hired in 2005 to improve the security of
Apple's iTunes Music Store, was the first company employee to
testify in an antitrust trial unfolding in Oakland federal court.
More than once he took a possessive tone when talking about
Apple's security system and seemed personally offended by third-
party infiltration.

"People from the outside, they are not allowed to put things on my
world to be able to crack my system," he said.

Mr. Farrugia, a thin, silver-haired man with a thick French
accent, told the jury software updates in 2006 and 2007 countered
attacks from notorious hackers with names like DVD Jon, as well as
intrusions by competing music stores such as RealNetworks Inc.

Plaintiffs, represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, argue the
updates, which prevented iPods from supporting non-iTunes music,
illegally excluded competition. They are asking for $350 million
on behalf of iPod buyers, which would be tripled to $1 billion
under antitrust law.  Apple is represented by Boies, Schiller &
Flexner attorneys William Isaacson and Karen Dunn.

Plaintiffs lawyer Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- with
Robbins Geller, suggested the so-called "hacks" by RealNetworks
did no harm to the iPod user's experience.  Under direct
questioning, Mr. Farrugia conceded the third-party music files
were not corrupt.

"So somebody buys a song from RealNetworks," Mr. Coughlin said,
"You're saying you're going to stop their right to put that on
their iPod?"

Mr. Farrugia insisted the updates "fixed the flaw" that third-
party music introduced into the system.

Mr. Coughlin then pulled up a 2005 report written by Mr. Farrugia,
and called the jury's attention to a line that said preventing
third-party content from playing on iTunes or iPods would
"consequently downgrade the user experience."

No, Mr. Farrugia said, the updates maintained a "very good user
experience."  Later he added: "Basically, we love our customers."
During cross-examination for Apple, Dunn showed the jury several
consumer complaints that appeared to illustrate problems users
encountered when playing non-iTunes songs on iPods.  One user said
his songs started skipping.  Another user's entire iTunes library
was deleted and his iPod began acting strangely.

Ms. Dunn also pulled up emails in which Mr. Farrugia and other
Apple insiders discussed threats posted on hymn-project.org, an
online hacking forum.  The hackers were "making progress,"
Mr. Farrugia's boss warned him in 2005.

"But for the time being we are still up and running," Mr. Farrugia
had responded, adding a smiley face.

Once the new iTunes updates were in place in 2006, it took hackers
more than two years to infiltrate the main security system -- a
pretty good record, Mr. Farrugia said.

The day ended with testimony from Mariana Rosen, one of the suit's
named plaintiffs.  A New Jersey mother of two, Ms. Rosen bought
five iPods for gifts and personal use between 2004 and 2008.  She
told the jury she considered switching to another brand of player
after her first iPod began freezing during her workouts.  But she
abandoned the idea when she realized that would mean replacing her
entire iTunes music library.

"I was a little frustrated with the issue," Ms. Rosen said.
Plaintiffs lawyer Alexandra Bernay -- xanb@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller asked Rosen if she suffered damages as a result of
Apple's allegedly anticompetitive conduct.

"Damaged is a very strong word," Ms. Rosen said.  "I wouldn't say
I was really, really damaged."


AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Avanir
Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through an unfair process to Otsuka
Pharmaceutical, for $17 a share or $3.5 billion, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Class Suits Over Merger With Targa Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy, L.P. 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 faces
class action lawsuit over the merger transaction with Targa
Resources Corp. and Targa Resources GP LLC.

On October 13, 2014 the Partnership announced the transactions
(the "Merger") contemplated by the definitive Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") between the Partnership, the
General Partner, Targa Resources Corp. ("TRC") and Targa Resources
GP LLC. Concurrently with the Merger Agreement, Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P. ("APL") announced that it entered into a definitive
merger agreement with Atlas Pipeline Partners GP, LLC ( "APL GP"),
the Partnership, TRC, Targa Resources Partners LP ("TRP") and
certain other parties, pursuant to which TRP agreed to acquire APL
through a merger of a newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary of TRP
with and into APL (the "APL Merger").

In October 2014, three alleged public unitholders of APL (the "APL
Plaintiffs") filed class action lawsuits against the Partnership,
APL, APL GP, its managers, TRC, TRP, Targa Resources GP LLC, and
Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (the "APL Lawsuit Defendants"). These
lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Alleghany County,
Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation
Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the District
Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma; and (c) Greenthal Living Trust
U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the
Court of Common Pleas for Alleghany County, Pennsylvania (the "APL
Lawsuits").

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

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

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

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

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


BERNARD MADOFF: Trustee Can't Claw Back Fictitious Profits
----------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Bernie
Madoff's humongous Ponzi scheme failed, costing investors a
fortune, because it was built on deceit.  But the deception paid
off for many years, delivering conjured-up profits to Madoff's
customers.

On Dec. 8, investors who pocketed billions in the six years before
the scheme collapsed deflected a bid by Madoff bankruptcy trustee
Irving Picard to claw back a big chunk of their "fictitious"
profits. Affirming a lower court judge, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit concluded that Mr. Picard's campaign to
recover much of the investors' earnings is barred by a bankruptcy
law provision that was designed, ironically, to minimize
uncertainty in the securities markets.

Three years ago we named Karen Wagner --
karen.wagner@davispolk.com -- of Davis Polk & Wardwell Litigator
of the Week for winning the key lower court decision that the
Second Circuit's ruling affirms.  That 2011 decision had the
immediate effect of erasing massive liability for Wagner's
clients, New York Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz.

Messrs. Wilpon and Katz later settled with Mr. Picard, however, so
this time around the job of arguing for the investors fell to
Richard Levy Jr. of Pryor Cashman, P. Gregory Schwed of Loeb &
Loeb, and Helen Chaitman -- hchaitman@bplegal.com -- of Becker &
Poliakoff.

In a statement, Mr. Schwed said the ruling would wipe out $1.6
billion in potential claims against about 1,600 Madoff investors.
"The Court's ruling sharply restricts the trustee's litigation
campaign against innocent victims of Madoff's fraud," Mr. Schwed
said. "This ruling respects the balance set by Congress between
the trustee's goal of collecting money and the right of Madoff
victims to keep amounts they received in good faith many years
ago."

The appeal hinged on Section 546(e) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code,
which was enacted in the wake of the Enron debacle to protect
institutions with ongoing trading obligations from certain
clawback actions related to "settlement payments" made "in
connection with a securities contract."  The idea, as the Second
Circuit recounts in the Dec. 8 opinion, was to temper financial
market turbulence stemming from industry-shaking bankruptcies.
Mr. Picard, represented as always by his partner David Sheehan --
dsheehan@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler, maintained that
Sec. 546(e) has no bearing on the clawback actions against
Madoff's net winners, since there were no "securities contracts"
behind the investors' profits -- only Madoff's Ponzi fantasy.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan rebuffed that argument
in September 2011, finding that the safe harbor provision barred
much of Mr. Picard's case against Katz and Wilpon's company,
Sterling Equities.  Judge Rakoff applied the same reasoning in
dismissing 84 additional clawback actions the following year.

Those decisions don't stop Mr. Picard from seeking to claw back
fraudulent payments made by Mr. Madoff's firm in the two years
leading up to the bankruptcy, which are covered by separate rules.
They served to wipe out claims related to net winnings reaching
back six years before the scheme collapsed, however, putting a
major crimp in Picard's efforts to collect on behalf of Madoff
victims.

In affirming Judge Rakoff on Dec. 8, the Second Circuit determined
that even if Madoff's earnings were bogus, the net winners'
profits were indeed "settlement payments" made "in connection with
a securities contract," and thus the safe harbor provision
applies.

"The clawback defendants, having every reason to believe that
[Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities] was actually engaged in
the business of effecting securities transactions, have every
right to avail themselves of all the protections afforded to the
clients of stockbrokers, including the protection offered by Sec.
546(e)," the panel wrote.  "Permitting the clawback of millions,
if not billions, of dollars from BLMIS clients -- many of whom are
institutional investors and feeder funds -- would likely cause the
very 'displacement' that Congress hoped to minimize in enacting
Sec. 546(e)."

Mr. Picard so far has recovered nearly $10.5 billion for victims
of Madoff's scheme.


BP PLC: Supreme Court Tosses Oil Spill Settlement Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for Supreme Court Brief, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8 eliminated what could have been a
major roadblock in the multibillion-dollar settlement reached in
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill four years ago.

In BP Production & Development v. Lake Eugenie Land & Development,
the justices, without comment, declined to review BP PLC's claims
that the settlement violated the Constitution and federal class
action rules because it provided damages to parties who were not
injured.

The high court's denial is "very gratifying," said Joseph Rice --
jrice@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice, a lead negotiator of the
2012 settlement.  BP told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit from the outset, he said, that it did not dispute
causation.  "So this was purely BP's attempt to rewrite the
settlement agreement," he said.  "It had no business being in the
Supreme Court."

Geoff Morrell, BP's senior vice president for U.S. communications
and external affairs, said in a written statement that the company
had been successful in the Fifth Circuit in correcting "matching"
accounting rules fashioned by the claims program, "and we are
hopeful that the new policies will improve the program's
compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court has declined to review
the lower court decisions relating to causation."

The company continues to be concerned about no-injury awards,
Mr. Morrell said.  "On behalf of all our stakeholders, we will
therefore continue to advocate for the investigation of suspicious
or implausible claims and to fight fraud where it is uncovered.
In doing so, we hope to prevent further exploitation of our
commitment to compensating all those legitimately harmed by the
spill.

An explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling rig occurred on
April 20, 2010, leading to the spill of an estimated 200 million
gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico.  Two years later, BP
and attorneys for a putative class of injured Gulf Coast residents
and businesses reached a proposed class settlement of claims
arising from the spill.

In the Supreme Court, BP, represented by Theodore Olson --
tolson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, claimed that
the settlement class included "vast numbers" of members who had
not suffered any injury caused by the oil spill.

The Fifth Circuit's decision approving the settlement class,
Mr. Olson argued, conflicted with decisions by four other circuit
courts, which held that classes with noninjured members did not
satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Article III of the
Constitution.

BP had drawn supporting amicus briefs from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the United Kingdom, the Federation of German Industries,
the Washington Legal Foundation and Kenneth Feinberg,
administrator of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, a compensation
plan created by BP.

Lake Eugenie, represented by Samuel Issacharoff of New York
University School of Law, countered in a brief opposing high court
review, "This case is about a contract that BP signed but now
wishes it hadn't.  BP negotiated a comprehensive class settlement
to escape liability for the devastation caused by the Deepwater
Horizon explosion.  Now, however, BP has developed buyer's remorse
and wants out of the agreement it entered into."

Gulf Coast area chambers of commerce broke with the national
chamber to support the settlement agreement.

That agreement is now final, Mr. Rice said.

"Implementation has to continue," he said.  "In the implementation
process, there are limited rights to appeal. I'm sure BP is going
to attempt to exercise every right to appeal and delay they can.
The settlement will be processed; it may take more time and be
more expensive, but these claimants ultimately will be paid."

Mr. Rice said that "several million" businesses and individuals
comprise the settlement class, "and there are millions of
businesses that have yet to file their claims."  The latter have a
six-month deadline to file, which should fall sometime in June, he
said.

The economic and property damages Rule 23 class action settlement
is estimated to be worth between $7.8 billion and $18 billion to
class members, according to Mr. Rice.

A separate $1.028 billion settlement was reached between the
plaintiffs' steering committee and Halliburton Energy Services
Inc., for Halliburton's role in the disaster.


BREITBURN ENERGY: Reached Agreement to Settle QRE Merger Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Breitburn Energy Partners LP said in its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, that on November 10, 2014, QR Energy, LP, ("QRE"), QRE GP,
LLC ("QRE GP"), Breitburn Energy Partners L.P. ("Breitburn"),
Breitburn GP, LLC ("Breitburn GP") and Boom Merger Sub, LLC
("Merger Sub") reached an agreement in principle to settle a
consolidated unitholder class action lawsuit on behalf of QRE
common unitholders filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (the "Consolidated Unitholder
Action") on the terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of
understanding.

The Consolidated Unitholder Action, captioned In re QR Energy LP
Unitholder Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-02195, names as defendants QRE,
QRE GP, the members of the QRE GP board of directors, Breitburn,
Breitburn GP and Merger Sub. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Unitholder Action each allege that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith,
and independence owed to the QRE unitholders by allegedly
approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), dated July 24, 2014, by and among QRE, Breitburn and
Merger Sub, at an unfair price and through an unfair process.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of the QRE unitholders, which was scheduled to be held on November
18, 2014, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to QRE
unitholders in connection with the proposed transaction. The
settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of
wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. The defendants continue
to believe that the Consolidated Unitholder Action is without
merit and vigorously deny the allegations contained therein.
Likewise, defendants do not believe that any disclosures regarding
the merger are required under applicable laws other than that
which has already been provided in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.
Furthermore, nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K (this
"Report") or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth
in this Report. However, to avoid the risk of the Consolidated
Unitholder Action delaying or adversely affecting the merger, to
minimize the substantial expense, burden, distraction and
inconvenience of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the claims, QRE, Breitburn and Merger Sub have agreed to
make these amended and supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation"). The
memorandum of understanding further provides that, among other
things, (1) the parties will submit the Stipulation to the
Delaware court for review and approval; (2) the Stipulation will
provide for dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated
Unitholder Action; (3) all proceedings in the Consolidated
Unitholder Action, except for those related to the settlement,
shall be stayed and the plaintiffs agree to stay and not to
initiate any other proceedings other than those incident to the
settlement itself; (4) the Stipulation will include a general
release of defendants of all claims relating to the merger and
related transactions and (5) the proposed settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the merger,
class certification and final approval of the settlement.

In connection with the settlement of the Consolidated Unitholder
Action, QRE and Breitburn have agreed to make the following
amended and supplemental disclosures (the "Amended and
Supplemental Disclosures") to the proxy statement/prospectus filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014
(the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). The Amended and Supplemental
Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety.
Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set
forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Has MOU to Settle Emeritus Merger Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living 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
connection with the acquisition of Emeritus Corporation, three
purported class action lawsuits relating to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of February 20, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"),
by and among the Company, Emeritus and Broadway Merger Sub
Corporation ("Merger Sub"), were filed on behalf of Emeritus
shareholders in the Superior Court of King County, Washington
against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board of directors, the
Company and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which lawsuits were
subsequently consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Emeritus Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-2-06385-7 SEA (the
"Washington Action").

On June 26, 2014, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to
a proposed settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which
the parties agreed, among other things, that the Company and
Emeritus would make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which supplemental disclosures were made by
the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014 and
incorporated by reference into the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 and the joint proxy statement/prospectus of
the Company and Emeritus included therein. The parties have agreed
to use their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of
the settlement and the dismissal of the Washington Action with
prejudice. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery
by counsel to the plaintiffs, the Memorandum of Understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
Emeritus' shareholders.

As explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, if the settlement
is finally approved by the Washington court, the parties
anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims in all
actions pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to former
Emeritus shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Washington Action will
file a petition in the Washington court for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by the Company. The Company will pay
or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by
the Washington court. There can be no assurance that the parties
will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Washington court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may
be terminated.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is the operator of senior living
communities throughout the United States.


BUCCANEERS LTD: Offer of Full Relief Could Not Moot Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an appellate court ruled in Stein, D.D.S.; M.S.D.; P.A. et al v.
Buccaneers Limited Partnership that an offer of full relief to
named plaintiffs could not moot a class action.

Rejecting such an offer could neither moot the suit nor serve as
grounds to decline a class certification, said District Judge
Robert L. Hinkle, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. (Judge Hinkle, a trial judge in the Northern
District of Florida, sat by designation.)

In August 2013, Jeffrey Stein and five other named plaintiffs sued
the football team for sending unsolicited faxes to advertise their
National Football League games, in alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  They asked for damages of $500
to $1,500 per fax for each class member.

Before the plaintiffs had applied for class certification, some
received more faxes from the Buccaneers -- this time, they were
settlement offers.  The team proposed to pay amounts ranging from
$7,500 to $1,500 to each of the named plaintiff, and then filed to
dismiss the case.

A day later, the plaintiffs asked for class certification.  Judge
Steven D. Merryday of the Florida Middle District Court dismissed
their motion, finding it "terse" and "premature."  In October
2013, he dismissed the whole case.

The Buccaneers had invoked Rule 28 to argue that because the named
plaintiffs had declined their offer of full relief, their suit was
mooted.

But Judge Hinkle disagreed, citing a dissenting opinion from
Justice Elena Kagan in the Supreme Court case, Genesis Healthcare
Corp. v. Symczyk.  "[A] note to all other courts of appeals," she
wrote, referring to the "mootness by-unaccepted-offer" doctrine.
"Don't try this at home."

Judge Hinkle concluded: "BLP invites us to try this at home.  We
decline."

Plaintiff-appellants' attorneys are with Siprut, Law Offices of
James M. Thomas, Esq. Defendant-appellees' attorneys are with Cole
Scott & Kissane and Buccaneers Limited Partnership.


CARGILL: Settles Class Action Over Truvia Marketing for $6.1MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Cargill will pay $6.1 million to settle a class action targeting
its marketing of Truvia sweeteners as "natural," but the company
will still be permitted to use that adjective on labels and
advertising to describe the products.

The final settlement in the litigation, which combined five
putative class actions in four states, means an estimated 5
million consumers will be eligible for cash or vouchers for Truvia
goods.

The plaintiffs' attorneys will be able to claim up to $1.83
million of the settlement fund for fees and costs.  Cargill is
permitted to deny any wrongdoing and to attest that its Truvia
Natural Sweeteners are just that.

In their complaints, first filed in July 2013, the plaintiffs
contended that the main ingredients in the sugar substitutes --
the South American stevia plant and the sugar alcohol erythritol
-- did not meet the definition of "natural," because of their
processing with chemicals and synthetic substances.  They alleged
Cargill deceptively advertised and marketed the products in
violation of state business codes and consumer law statutes.

The final settlement of Howerton v. Cargill, filed Nov. 26 in U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawaii, offers consumers four
levels of recompense, depending on how much Truvia they say they
bought.  The refunds will range from $7.50 cash or three vouchers,
valued at $6 each, for Truvia products, up to $45 in cash or 15
vouchers.

Under the agreement, Cargill also will modify labels on the
products and add language to the www.truvia.com website.

Among other things, the company will add asterisks next to certain
phrases or sentences on packaging or labels -- such as "Nature's
Calorie-Free Sweetener," "Natural Ingredients," and "Natural
flavors complement the clean sweet taste of Truvia natural
sweetener" -- and add this language: "*For more information about
our ingredients go to Truvia.com/FAQ."  The parties also hammered
out revised questions and answers for that webpage, according to
settlement documents.

Cargill also agreed to replace on all packaging the sentence
"Erythritol is a natural sweetener, produced by a natural process,
and is also found in fruits like grapes and pears," with this
language: "Erythritol is a natural sweetener, produced by a
fermentation process.  Erythritol is also found in fruits like
grapes and pears."

The settlement documents also provided the results of market
research into the demographics and "psychographics" of Truvia
customers, courtesy of John Grudnowski, founder and CEO of FRWD
Co., a Minneapolis digital-marketing firm.

The research found that 64 percent of Truvia purchasers are
female, most customers are between the ages of 45 and 55, and have
an average annual household income of more than $78,000.  About 72
percent of the Truvia buyers are married, and 54 percent have
children, the research showed.

Defense counsel include attorneys from the firms Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi; and Cades Schutte.  Plaintiffs' counsel include
attorneys from the firms Scott+Scott; Halunen & Associates; Reese
Richman; Wood Law Firm; Davis & Taliaferro; Beck & Lee; Marlin &
Saltzman; and Bickerton Dang.


CENTURY MORTGAGE: Faces "Back" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Back, John Hishmeh, Jeffrey Panec, Kerri Gragg and Heather
Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Century Mortgage Company d/b/a Century Lending, Case No. 1:14-
cv-00173 (W.D. Ky., December 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Century Mortgage Company is a mortgage banking institution dealing
in residential real estate mortgage transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew James Baker, Esq.
      911 College Street, Suite 200
      Bowling Green, KY 42101
      Telephone: (270) 746-2385
      Facsimile:  (270) 746-9621
      E-mail: mbakerlaw@bellsouth.net


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally collects Debt, "Ashkenazi" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Ashkenazi, on behalf of himself andall others similarly
situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, and John Does 1-
25, Case No. 3:14-cv-07627 (D.N.J., December 8, 2014), seeks to
redress the  Defendant's actions of using an unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is a collection agency with
its principal office located at PO Box 336, Raritan, NJ 08869.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHALMETTE REFINING: Plaintiffs' Claims in Toxic Gas Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs' case in a suit against Chalmette Refining LLC, a
Louisiana plant that released toxic gases into the air in October
2011, suffered a setback on Dec. 2.

Judge Susie Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana dismissed the claims of four plaintiffs,
including the original complainants, finding their evidence was
not sound enough to prove causation.

The opinion of their meteorological expert Russell F. Lee
"carr[ied] no weight," Judge Morgan found.

He had used a modeling technology with which he had no prior
experience to demonstrate how the leaked hydrogen sulfide and
sulfur dioxide have traveled downwind and a diagram concerning
different gases to show how they traveled upwind.

The Judge also dismissed the testimony of a toxicologist who
relied on these meteorological models to assert that physical
symptoms displayed by the four witnesses were related to the leak.

The four concerned plaintiffs -- Florine Shanley, Stephanie Byes,
James Graves and Roanna Fleming -- also displayed physical
symptoms at the time of the gas release.

But that was not enough to prove causation at the standard
required in a case of toxic emissions in Louisiana, the judge
found.  The proof required was that it was "more probable than
not" that the injuries were caused by the accident.

Other evidence in the case included complaints of a foul odor as
well as physical symptoms, like burning and nose irritation,
communicated to the fire department during the hours the accident
lasted.

This still leaves 1,832 plaintiffs in the case, Shanley et al v.
Chalmette Refining, which was filed as a class action in state
court.  "We'll retool our experts and start over," said Jerald N.
Andry Jr, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are represented by the Law Offices of Sidney D. Torres
and Jerald N. Andry, Jr. Defendants are represented by attorneys
at Liskow & Lewis and Thorne D. Harris, III.


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

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

The consumer group has fielded about 200 complaints from customers
who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs.  Some
people have also been injured in accidents, said Clarence Ditlow,
executive director of the Center for Auto Safety.

The group's access to discovery in the class action --
particularly associated with a motion the plaintiffs had filed for
a preliminary injunction warning customers of the defect -- will
support its petition filed with the NHTSA, Mr. Ditlow said.  The
NHTSA has until Dec. 19 to decide whether to initiate an
investigation.

Michael Palese, a spokesman for Chrysler Group, which is a
subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., declined to comment.
On Dec. 1, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson of the Central
District of California heard arguments about the intervention
motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Court Consolidated Five Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications 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 five putative class action lawsuits have been filed by
alleged Enventis shareholders challenging the Company's proposed
merger with Enventis in which the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc.,
Enventis and members of the Enventis board of directors have been
named as defendants.  The shareholder actions were filed in the
Fifth Judicial District, Blue Earth County, Minnesota.

The actions are called: Hoepner v. Enventis Corp. et al, filed
July 15, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489, Bockley v. Finke et al,
filed July 18, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2551, Kaplan et al v.
Enventis Corp. et al, filed July 21, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2575,
Marcial v. Enventis Corp. et al., filed July 25, 2014, Case No.
07-CV-14-2628, and Barta v. Finke et al, filed August 14, 2014,
Case No. 07-CV-14-2854.  The actions generally allege, among other
things, that each member of the Enventis board of directors
breached fiduciary duties to Enventis and its shareholders by
authorizing the sale of Enventis to the Company for consideration
that allegedly is unfair to the Enventis shareholders, agreeing to
terms that allegedly unduly restrict other bidders from making a
competing offer, as well as allegations regarding disclosure
deficiencies in the joint proxy statement/prospectus.  The
complaints also allege that the Company and Sky Merger Sub Inc.
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly
committed by the members of the Enventis board of directors.  The
lawsuits seek, amongst other things, equitable relief, including
an order to prevent the defendants from consummating the merger on
the agreed-upon terms.  The Enventis board of directors appointed
a Special Litigation Committee to address the claims.

"We believe that these claims are without merit," the Company
said.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the five lawsuits as In Re: Enventis Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489.  On September 23,
2014, the District Court entered an order that denied the
plaintiffs' request for expedited proceedings and stayed all
proceedings "pending the completion of the Special Litigation
Committee and the issuance of its decision."

The Company is an established telecommunications services company
providing a wide range of telecommunications services to
residential and business customers in Illinois, Texas,
Pennsylvania, California, Kansas and Missouri.


DAKOTA PLAINS: Faces Actions Over Lac-Megantic Train Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Plains 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, certain of its subsidiaries Dakota Petroleum Transport
Solutions, LLC ("DPTS"), and DPTS Marketing LLC ("DPTSM") are
among the many defendants named in various lawsuits relating to
the derailment of a Montreal Main & Atlantic Railroad, Ltd.
("MM&A") train in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

"We believe all claims asserted against us, our subsidiaries,
DPTS, and DPTSM are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against such claims," the Company said.

The Company added, "On July 6, 2013, an unmanned freight train
operated by MM&A with 72 tank cars carrying approximately 50,000
barrels of crude oil rolled downhill and derailed in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec. The derailment resulted in significant loss of life,
damage to the environment from spilled crude oil and extensive
property damage. DPTSM, a crude oil marketing joint venture in
which we indirectly own a 50% membership interest, subleased the
tank cars involved in the incident from an affiliate of our joint
venture partner. An affiliate of our joint venture partner owned
title to the crude oil being carried in the derailed tank cars.
DPTS, a crude oil transloading joint venture in which we also
indirectly own a 50% membership interest, arranged for the
transloading of the crude oil for DPTSM into tank cars at DPTS's
facility in New Town, North Dakota. A different affiliate of our
joint venture partner contracted with Canadian Pacific Railway
("CPR") for the transportation of the tank cars and the crude oil
from New Town, North Dakota to a customer in New Brunswick,
Canada. CPR subcontracted a portion of that route to MM&A.

"On July 15, 2013, four named parties filed a petition in the
Canadian Province of Quebec seeking permission from the court to
pursue a class action seeking to recover compensatory and punitive
damages along with costs. On June 18, 2014 the petitioners sought
permission from the Quebec Superior Court to discontinue the
proceedings without prejudice against Dakota Plains Holdings,
Inc., Dakota Plains Marketing LLC and Dakota Plains Transloading
LLC. The Court granted permission for the discontinuance, and
consequently those companies have been removed from the
proceeding. The most recent iteration of the petition, filed on
July 7, 2014, removes us and certain of our subsidiaries pursuant
to the discontinuance, but still includes DPTS and DPTSM, along
with over 30 third parties, including CPR, MM&A and certain of its
affiliates, several manufacturers and lessors of tank cars, as
well as the intended purchaser and certain suppliers of the crude
oil. The petition generally alleges wrongful death and negligence
in the failure to provide for the proper and safe transportation
of crude oil. We believe these claims against DPTS and DPTSM are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against such claims
and pursue any and all defenses available.

"Around July 29, 2013, nineteen individuals filed lawsuits in Cook
County, Illinois seeking unspecified damages for their injuries
from the accident. The lawsuits assert claims for negligence
against the eight defendants noted above. On August 7, 2013, MM&A
filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition in the bankruptcy court in
Maine. On August 29, 2013, the defendants jointly removed the
cases from state court in Cook County to the United States
District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. On September
13, 2013, the bankruptcy trustee for MM&A, and World Fuel
Services, Corporation and Petroleum Transport Solutions, LLC filed
motions seeking to transfer the nineteen personal injury cases
from federal court in Illinois to the United States District Court
for the District of Maine (the "ME District Court"). On March 21,
2014, the ME District Court granted the transfer motion. On April
4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the
order granting the transfer motion and a motion requesting the ME
District Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the
cases. The motion for reconsideration was denied and the motion
for abstention remains pending. On May 1, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the ME District Court's order granting the transfer
motion to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17, 2014,
the ME District Court entered a consent order staying proceedings
in the transferred cases pending the appeal. On September 25,
2014, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ordered plaintiffs to
voluntarily dismiss their appeal or show cause why their appeal
should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The parties have
responded to the First Circuit's order to show cause, and its
decision is pending.

"As a result of the Lac-Megantic derailment, the Canadian
Transportation Safety Board is conducting an investigation into
the cause of the derailment and the events surrounding it. In
addition, the Quebec police are conducting a criminal
investigation and are reported to be coordinating with Canadian
and U.S. law enforcement authorities.


DANOS AND CUROLE: "Case" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Case, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Danos And Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C., a
Louisiana Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02775 (E.D.
La., December 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Danos And Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C. is a worldwide
oilfield service company providing quality service in the areas of
construction, fabrication, production personnel, painting and
blasting and a wide range of highly skilled consultants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Virginia Lynn LoCoco, Esq.
      LOCOCO & LOCOCO, PA
      10243 Central Ave., P. O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39540
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      Facsimile:  (228) 392-3890
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com


DISH NETWORK: AutoHop Deal Ends CBS Programming Blackout
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Shuchman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
after failing for two years to neutralize Dish Network's
ad-skipping AutoHop feature in the courts, CBS Corp. finally made
peace with the satellite television provider over the weekend.
The companies' deal -- which ended a blackout of CBS programming
that had affected Dish subscribers in 18 major markets -- will end
the litigation, and keep the ads flowing.

Rather than wait for a New York federal judge to rule on such
issues as fair use and contract fraud, CBS used the blackout and
its contract negotiations with Dish to gain leverage.  Just 12
hours after it stopped broadcasting to many of the satellite's
subscribers, including in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, the
parties reached an agreement early on Dec. 6 and CBS broadcasts
resumed.  CBS and Dish had been in negotiations over their
contract for months, and had been fighting in court over the
legality of the auto-hopper technology since 2012.

The battle highlighted ongoing tensions between content owners,
who are still mostly established broadcast networks, and purveyors
of new technology.  "We're likely to see many more of these
disputes in the coming years as we try to determine how consumers
will receive, access and pay for content in the future," said
Boies, Schiller & Flexner partner Josh Schiller --
jschiller@bsfllp.com -- who represents CBS.

Under the Dec. 6 agreement, the financial terms of which were not
disclosed, Dish agreed to disable its AutoHop feature on CBS for
seven days after shows first air in prime time.  For broadcasters,
those seven days are a critical period in which Nielsen estimates
the number of commercial viewers for each show.  Broadcasters use
those figures to sell and set prices for advertising spots.

Dish sued CBS and other networks for declaratory judgment in
May 2012, claiming the broadcasters were threatening litigation
intended to stifle Dish's innovative ad-skipping technology.  The
networks alleged that the AutoHop feature infringed their
copyrights, and that Dish defrauded them by failing to disclose it
was about to launch the technology before the companies' inked
transmission agreements.

Disney, which owns ABC, requested a preliminary injunction, but
U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan denied the
request last year, determining that use of the ad-skipping feature
probably qualifies as fair use under federal copyright law.  Then
in March, with renewal of the companies' transmission contract
looming, Dish agreed to disable the AutoHop function for three
days following a show's first broadcast on ABC.  Dish and ABC
reached their agreement one month after they argued before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but before the panel
issued its opinion. They also agreed to drop pending litigation.
Litigation between Fox Broadcasting Company and Dish continues,
however.  The district court in Los Angeles denied Fox's request
for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  In
October, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a tentative decision
finding that Dish's AutoHop doesn't infringe Fox's copyrights and
qualifies as fair use.

The Fox case, which is being closely watched, is expected to go to
trial early next year.

A team from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe led by Peter Bicks --
pbicks@orrick.com -- is representing Dish.  Calls to Orrick
attorneys were referred to the company, which said it is not
commenting beyond its news release announcing the settlement.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Month-Long Channel Blackout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalita Clozel, writing for Law.com, reports that DISH Network LLC
faces a potential class action over its month-long blackout of
several major channels earlier this year.

Missouri resident Craig Felzien filed a putative class action in
Missouri Eastern District Court on Nov. 25, alleging the company
had willingly turned off CNN, the Cartoon Network, TCM and other
channels in the midst of tense negotiations for a contract renewal
with the Turner Broadcasting System Inc.

In Felzien v. Dish Network, L.L.C., he seeks damages worth the
lost value in his television subscription plus interests, for
himself and others who lost access to these channels between Oct.
21 and Nov. 20.

Particularly grating to Mr. Felzien, who had been a DISH
subscriber since 2000, is that the blackout covered the 2014
midterm elections -- "when millions of viewers would want to tune
into CNN, HLN, or CNN en Espanol for news information," says the
complaint.  He also alleges that advertisements for DISH running
during the blackout continued to cite the channels that were no
longer available.

Mr. Felzien further charges DISH of providing "an illegal,
illusory contract" for its television subscriptions, allowing the
network to change the programming and other features of the
product at will.

However, he argues that because the contract does not use the word
"your" to specify it can change the individual customer's bundle,
it only gives DISH the right to modify the programming for future
subscribers.

The plaintiff is represented by Medler Law Firm.


FOOT RELAXING: "Ren" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Min Ren and Cui Hu, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Foot Relaxing Station, Inc., Jie
Tian, Ming Wu Wang, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 2:14-
cv-07154 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a massage salon located at 250-60
Jericho Turnpike, Floral Park, New York, 11001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces "McAlister" Suit Over Defective Diesel Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack McAlister, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ford Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Case No.
5:14-cv-01351 (W.D. Okla., December 8, 2014), arises out of the
defective 6.7L Power Stroke diesel engine installed in a number of
trucks, SUVs, vans, and other vehicles designed and manufactured
by the Defendant.

Ford Motor Company is engaged in the motor vehicle business
throughout Oklahoma including selling and servicing vehicles
through various Ford dealerships

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake Sonne, Esq.
      SONNE LAW FIRM, PLC
      P.O. Box 667
      Norman, OK 73070
      Telephone: (405) 664-2919
      Facsimile: (405) 321-8897
      E-mail: bsonne21@yahoo.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Orders Employee Performance Evaluations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has ordered General Motors Co. to produce
performance evaluations of 32 current and former employees,
including many in the legal department who were highlighted in an
internal report for failing to alert senior executives about a
dangerous ignition-switch defect.

The order comes as GM has sought to stop briefing in a
consolidated national class action filed on behalf of consumers
seeking economic damages.  The next status conference is Dec. 15.

On Nov. 25, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered that GM
provide performance evaluations of William Kemp, its former top
attorney on safety issues, as well as Michael Robinson, who was
general counsel to GM North America in 2008 and 2009.  Judge
Furman's order also included Lawrence Buonomo, who headed GM's
product litigation cases, and attorneys Ron Porter, Jaclyn Palmer
and Jennifer Sevigny, as well as engineer Ray DeGiorgio, whose
statements in a deposition led to the discovery of the defect.

Judge Furman also ordered GM to produce portions of former CEO
Rick Wagoner's performance evaluation in 2009 -- if one exists --
that refer to ignition-switch issues or the safety-recall process.
Mr. Wagoner resigned under pressure in 2009 in the months leading
up to GM's bankruptcy filing.

More than 130 lawsuits have been filed over the defect, which can
disable air bags and power steering.  GM recalled about 2.6
million cars and trucks worldwide this year.  Judge Furman is
overseeing most of that litigation in a coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York.

The personnel files came up initially in an individual case, in
Georgia state court, filed by the parents of Brooke Melton, who
died in 2010 after her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt careened off a
highway.  Her parents are attempting to rescind a settlement they
reached last year with GM given Mr. DeGiorgio's deposition, in
which he denied that he had approved changes to fix the ignition
switch.

In the Melton case, attorney Lance Cooper sought the evaluations
of GM employees who were identified in an internal report
conducted by Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas.  Lead
plaintiffs attorneys in the coordinated litigation before Judge
Furman joined in the request, adding Mr. Wagoner and general
counsel Michael Millikin to the list.

GM, citing privacy concerns, wanted to provide only those portions
of employee evaluations that dealt with ignition-switch issues or
the safety-recall process.  The plaintiffs' attorneys wanted the
entire files.

"They were obviously involved in one way or the other in the
ignition-switch issues, whether on the engineering side or
investigating the legal side of it," said Mr. Cooper, founding
partner of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga.  "If they had a bad
performance evaluation, why did they continue to remain in that
position?"

Judge Furman's order rejected requests for the evaluations of 11
other GM employees, including Mr. Millikin.

GM spokesman James Cain said in an email: "We will comply with the
court's order."

GM, meantime, has moved to halt briefing in a separate
consolidated class action filed by consumers who claim their cars
have lost value due to the recalls.  Lead plaintiffs attorneys on
Oct. 14 brought two class actions on behalf of 30 million
customers nationwide.

One complaint was brought on behalf of consumers who bought or
leased their vehicles before July 11, 2009, when today's GM
acquired the assets of old GM.  GM has moved to bar those claims
in U.S. bankruptcy court.  The other complaint was brought for
consumers who bought or leased their vehicles between July 11,
2009, and July 3, 2014.

On Nov. 25, GM filed court papers to halt briefing in the latter
case until U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber rules on its
motion.  Though crafted to avoid the bankruptcy issue, the
complaint is "packed with plaintiffs who acquired used Old GM
vehicles," wrote GM attorney Andrew Bloomer --
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- a partner at Chicago's Kirkland &
Ellis.  In fact, only nine of the 68 sets of named plaintiffs
bought cars made by GM after its bankruptcy.
Lead plaintiffs attorneys have opposed the request.


GIANT EAGLE: Class Action Plaintiff Can Sue Over Unvisited Stores
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a potential class representative in an Americans with Disabilities
Act suit against a grocery store chain need not have visited all
of the stores at issue to have standing to bring the suit, a
Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge has ruled.

Grocer Giant Eagle and Echo Realty argued in their motion to
dismiss Mielo v. Giant Eagle that plaintiff Christopher Mielo only
had standing to raise claims against two of the 11 locations he
alleged were not compliant with ADA standards on wheelchair
access.  It was only those two locations, the parties agreed, that
Mr. Mielo had ever routinely visited or to which he planned to
return.

In denying the defendants' motion, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia
R. Eddy of the Western District of Pennsylvania said in her Dec. 3
opinion that the defendants' reliance on her Western District
colleague's 2013 decision in Anderson v. Kohl's was misplaced.

In Anderson, the plaintiff sought the removal of barriers at 16
stores, 15 of which she had never visited.  The court denied all
of plaintiff Christina Anderson's claims but for the one relating
to the store she had visited.

"Defendants' reliance is misplaced as Anderson is not a class
action and the plaintiff there did not seek classwide relief,"
Judge Eddy said.

Judge Eddy said that in the context of an individual action, the
Anderson court's analysis was correct, but she said it was
inapplicable to class claims.  Judge Eddy said Mr. Mielo doesn't
have to have visited the other locations raised in his complaint
to establish standing.

"Rather, that is an issue of class certification," Judge Eddy
said.  "Therefore, defendants' argument about the scope of
available injunctive relief based upon various stores that
plaintiff has not visited, goes to plaintiff's ability to serve as
a class representative, which is not ripe for disposition at this
time."

The Anderson court outlined a four-factor test to determine the
likelihood of a plaintiff returning to the place at issue in Title
III ADA cases in which plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to
cure discriminatory practices, Judge Eddy said.  The goal is to
determine whether the threat of injury still exists given Title
III cases don't provide for monetary damages, but only injunctive
relief, according to the opinion.

The four-factor test looks at the plaintiff's proximity to the
place of public accommodation, the plaintiff's past patronage, the
definitiveness of the plaintiff's plan to return and the
plaintiff's frequency of nearby travel, according to the opinion
in Mr. Mielo.

According to his complaint, Mr. Mielo alleges that the parking
lots at 10 Giant Eagle supermarkets and one GetGo gas station
contain access barriers that make the facilities not fully
accessible to patrons in wheelchairs.

Mr. Mielo lives near and regularly visits the Penn Highway Giant
Eagle in Pittsburgh and the Monroeville Boulevard GetGo in
Monroeville, Pa., according to the complaint.

Mr. Mielo alleged he experienced "excessively sloped surfaces" in
a handicapped accessible parking space and access aisle.  On
Mr. Mielo's behalf, investigators found violations at the other
locations, including alleged excessive slopes, the absence of
van-accessible parking and the absence of access aisles from
accessible parking spaces, according to the opinion.

As part of their motion to dismiss, the defendants had also argued
Mr. Mielo failed to allege "commonality of architecture."
Judge Eddy rejected that argument, noting the complaint "alleges
numerous violations at 11 locations in the Pittsburgh area that
share a commonality of issues."

R. Bruce Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- and Benjamin J.
Sweet -- bsweet@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch in Pittsburgh
represented Mr. Mielo.  Bernard D. Marcus -- marcus@marcus-
shapira.com -- James S. Larrimer and Elly M. Heller-Toig --
ehtoig@marcus-shapira.com -- of Marcus & Shapira in Pittsburgh
represented Giant Eagle and Echo Realty.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Accused of Over Pricing of Hepatitis Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gilead Sciences,
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06978 (E.D. Pa., December 9, 2014), arises
out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of unreasonable and
excessive charging of Hepatitis-C drug,
Sovaldi.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. is an American biotechnology company that
discovers, develops and commercializes therapeutics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Ave
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8200
      E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sanctions Sought Against Hagens Berman
-------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a discovery master appointed to sort out attorney sanctions
motions in three of the 52 thalidomide cases brought against GSK
and others said in his order recommending sanctions that Seattle-
based plaintiffs firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro engaged in
"bad-faith advocacy."

Special discovery master William Hangley of Hangley Aronchick
Segal Pudlin & Schiller focused on Hagens Berman's arguments in
opposing the sanctions motions as reasons for granting the
motions.

All of the 52 cases, eventually consolidated in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, involved statute of limitations issues
because the plaintiffs claimed their birth defects were caused by
their mothers taking thalidomide while pregnant in the 1950s and
1960s.  Rather than allow defendants GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal
GmbH and Sanofi-Aventis to raise statute of limitations claims as
an affirmative defense, Mr. Hangley said, all of the plaintiffs
asserted fraudulent concealment theories to argue they didn't know
about thalidomide's effects until no more than two years before
filing their suits between 2011 and 2013.

The sanctions motions, filed by GSK and Grunenthal, dealt with
three cases -- Jack Merica, Lawrence Boiardi and Roel Garza.

"I do find that in each of these plaintiffs' cases, Hagens
Berman's conduct has multiplied the proceedings in an unreasonable
and vexatious manner, and that the conduct was both intentional
and in bad faith," Mr. Hangley said, noting that the plaintiffs in
these "ill-starred cases" also suffered.

The sanctions requests deal with Hagens Berman's failure to review
and withdraw some of its cases by a defense-imposed deadline of
April 11.  The defendants had gleaned through some discovery that
certain of the cases could not detail that the plaintiffs didn't
know thalidomide caused their injuries let alone that any
fraudulent concealment occurred, Mr. Hangley said.  In other
cases, the plaintiffs couldn't show their mothers took the drug,
he said.

GSK said in a March letter to Hagens Berman that it would bear its
own costs for the litigation through April 11 in any cases
dismissed by Hagens Berman.  But in the cases that proceeded to
more discovery beyond that date, GSK would seek costs and attorney
fees, Mr. Hangley said.  The deadline passed and Hagens Berman did
not dismiss any of the cases.

"False hope is a cruelty.  Persuading a Merica, Boiardi or Garza
to sue, without telling him that he has long since missed his main
chance in litigation (if he ever had one), is not a kindness,"
Mr. Hangley said.  "And plunging forward in the face of
overwhelming evidence that the claim cannot succeed, thereby
subjecting the clients to the mortification of sitting for
depositions and having the most painful threads of their personal
lives picked at and teased out, is not what lawyers should do
unless there is a genuine claim to pursue."

Mr. Hangley recommended Grunenthal be awarded 100 percent of its
reasonable fees and expenses incurred solely in the Merica,
Boiardi and Garza matters and 3/49 of its reasonable fees and
expenses incurred on work that addressed the three plaintiffs'
matters as well as other plaintiffs' matters.  The 49 represents
the remaining cases after three repeat claimants were dismissed,
according to Mr. Hangley's report.

Mr. Hangley held in abeyance GSK's motion for sanctions after
receiving a letter from GSK's counsel that the motion may be
withdrawn as part of an agreement to dismiss all but one of the 30
cases then still pending against GSK.  That agreement is pending
approval from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania judge
overseeing the cases, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond.
Mr. Hangley noted that Diamond said he was "disturbed" by what had
occurred and asked Mr. Hangley to issue a report as to whether all
of the plaintiffs knowingly and willingly consented to the
dismissal of their cases.

Hagens Berman managing partner Steve Berman did not respond to
requests for comment.  Michael Scott of Reed Smith represented the
defendants and declined to comment.

"GSK is gratified by special master Hangley's recommendation," a
GSK spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.  "We believe these
cases should never have been filed.  We have nothing but sympathy
for any individual with birth defects.  As the recommendation
makes clear, we pursued these sanctions against the lawyers
involved, not the individual clients."

In the Merica case, Mr. Hangley said the facts unearthed during
discovery were "stunningly different" from what was pleaded in the
Hagens Berman verified complaint filed on Merica's behalf.  In the
complaint, Merica said he was told his mother took the medication
during her pregnancy but didn't know the names of any of the
companies responsible for the distribution of the drug.  The
nature and roles of those responsible for the drug was not
ascertainable due to acts of concealment, he pleaded, according to
Mr. Hangley.

But during discovery, Merica said his mom told him and doctors
that thalidomide caused his injuries, and in 1983, Merica filed
for Social Security disability for thalidomide-caused injuries.
His wife testified that within 30 seconds of their first date
Merica told her thalidomide caused his birth defects, according to
Mr. Hangley.

Merica's case was eventually dismissed.

"And then, Hagens Berman made it worse," Mr. Hangley said, noting
the firm fought the sanctions motions on theories that were a
mischaracterization of the law, the complaint and the district
court's rulings.

Hagens Berman argued Merica's complaint was winnable until the
defendants' summary judgment motion when the firm alleged the
defendants "suddenly" interposed Virginia law as an alternative to
Pennsylvania law.  Mr. Hangley found that unpersuasive for several
reasons and said the outcome would have been the same either way.

Mr. Hangley said that when Hagens Berman was fighting the
sanctions motions, the firm also introduced a tolling theory into
Merica's case that was only raised in other plaintiffs' cases who
had argued science didn't evolve until more recently to the point
where they could tell thalidomide caused their injuries.  Merica
didn't raise such a claim, Mr. Hangley said.  He said that was
"bad-faith advocacy" to leave the court and Mr. Hangley with the
impression Merica was raising a claim he had not in fact raised.

In the Boiardi case, Mr. Hangley said, the plaintiff "never had
any facts to begin with and never tried to get them" to show his
mother, who the adopted Boiardi never met, even took the drug.
Even his injuries, Mr. Hangley said, are inconsistent with
thalidomide injuries.  The facts in Garza's case are similar to
those in Boiardi in that Garza never asked whether his mother took
the drug and his injuries were not consistent with the injuries
thalidomide causes.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Hagens Berman to Oppose Recommended Sanctions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
The sanctions recommended Dec. 4 against plaintiffs firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro over its pursuit of three thalidomide cases
has plaintiffs lawyers pointing out the difficulty in immediately
assessing the viability of products liability mass tort cases and
defense lawyers warning plaintiffs counsel to be honest with
themselves.

The special discovery master appointed to weigh in on issues in
what was once 52 thalidomide cases filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania said Hagens Berman engaged in "bad-faith advocacy"
for three of the claims it ultimately withdrew after in-depth
discovery.

All of the cases involved statute of limitations issues because
the plaintiffs claimed their birth defects were caused by their
mothers taking thalidomide while pregnant in the 1950s and 1960s.
Rather than allow defendants GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal GmbH and
Sanofi-Aventis to raise statute of limitations claims as an
affirmative defense, special master William T. Hangley said, all
of the plaintiffs asserted fraudulent concealment theories to
argue they didn't know about thalidomide's effects until no more
than two years before filing their suits between 2011 and 2013.

In the three cases that caused GSK and Grunenthal to file
sanctions motions against plaintiffs counsel, two of the
plaintiffs couldn't show their mother took the drug and the third
admitted during discovery that he knew of thalidomide's possible
effects for decades, even having obtained Social Security
disability benefits for thalidomide injuries in the 1980s,
according to Mr. Hangley's report.

GSK gave Hagens Berman an April 11 deadline to withdraw the suits
prior to further discovery with the agreement the defendants
wouldn't seek attorney fees or costs, but Hagens Berman didn't do
so.  After additional discovery, however, the three suits were
withdrawn. Mr. Hangley said Hagens Berman continued to argue the
worthiness of the suits in fighting the sanctions motions.

Craig Spiegel -- craigs@hbsslaw.com -- a Hagens Berman partner who
worked on the cases, said the firm would object to the sanctions
recommendation, arguing there are some parts of Mr. Hangley's
opinion that "just misunderstand the record."

"We have no incentive to bring a case that we think has no merit,"
Mr. Spiegel said.  "It does our reputation no good and it's not
what any lawyer should do."

Mr. Spiegel said his firm dismissed the cases when it reached the
conclusion that it shouldn't proceed with them, but he said that
until that point the firm prosecuted them appropriately.  A lot of
the evidence in products liability cases is in the defendants'
hands, Mr. Spiegel said.  Firms do everything they can before
filing a suit, but might find out things in discovery that change
the outlook.  He said that is just the nature of any litigation.

Personal injury attorney Stephen Sheller of Sheller P.C., who was
not involved in the thalidomide cases, said plaintiffs lawyers are
often up against statute of limitations concerns and have a duty
to preserve a client's claim, often before all discovery can be
done.  He said plaintiffs firms and defense counsel should work
together to toll the statute while the plaintiffs investigate the
claims. And if defense counsel doesn't agree to that, then they
are acting in bad faith, Mr. Sheller said.

Mr. Sheller said the question of whether the mother took the drug,
for example, could be something plaintiffs counsel would view as a
jury question.  And in cases where the statute of limitations is
unclear because the injury doesn't manifest until years later,
science couldn't diagnose the issue until years later or there was
concerns of fraudulent concealment, how the law will play out on
those issues is often uncertain, Mr. Sheller said.

"I don't know how you conclude that that was a bad-faith decision"
to proceed with claims under those facts, he said.

But, perhaps unsurprisingly, defense counsel takes a more
skeptical view.  While all the defense counsel who spoke with The
Legal said there are certainly a number of fair, honest plaintiffs
firms that take the time to investigate cases before filing them,
one defense lawyer referred to "plaintiffs mills" that simply look
to "roll the dice" on bad claims.  That lawyer said certain
plaintiffs firms will file their best claims first to set a
standard for a mass settlement for all of the other cases, many of
which will never reach any significant discovery to determine
their true value.  To be certain, no defense lawyers mentioned
Hagens Berman as doing anything untoward.

"When you are dealing with mass-tort pharmaceutical cases, I would
say that the intake by plaintiffs lawyers is horrible," one
defense-side counsel said.

While the lawyer said he understood a plaintiffs counsel's duty to
file a claim if there are statute of limitations concerns, the
attorney said often the only questions asked in advance of filing
are whether the plaintiff took the drug and whether the plaintiff
had injuries.  The attorney said plaintiffs counsel at least
potentially have access to medical records and treating
physicians.  The attorney also said he often finds out at
deposition that the plaintiff met his or her lawyer for the first
time that day.

And early discovery doesn't always change things, the lawyer said,
noting bellwether cases near their trial date and end up getting
withdrawn.

"I can't tell you how many bellwether cases get dropped by
plaintiffs lawyers who realize they don't have a case.  That
happens more often than not," the defense counsel said, noting
later that "defendants are spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars working up a case only to discover at the time of trial or
close to the time of trial that the plaintiffs lawyers realized
they don't have a case."

Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorney Sean Wajert -- swajert@shb.com --
represents defendants in mass tort cases.  He said plaintiffs
firms vary widely on what cases to take, even within the same mass
tort case.  While they may ask similar questions of plaintiffs,
their criteria for accepting a plaintiff differs, Mr. Wajert said.

"If it's done carefully and appropriately, it can involve huge
upfront costs, which is why there is an incentive and temptation
to not cross all the t's and dot all the i's on the intake
process," Mr. Wajert said.

Disputes aren't just between plaintiffs and defense counsel, but
among plaintiffs counsel as well, Mr. Wajert said.  If there is
little discovery in several cases and settlement proceeds are to
be split among counsel, the firms with the most cases often get
the most money, Mr. Wajert said, noting there is an additional
incentive there for plaintiffs firms to take on more cases.

Another mass-torts defense lawyer who didn't want to be named said
plaintiffs counsel's intake process is generally "terrible" and
done with an eye toward building inventory that can be used both
in settlements but also to gain positions on steering committees.
"They have an incentive to increase the numbers," the attorney
said.

The onus then shifts to defense counsel to weed out the cases, the
lawyer said.  While that used to be done mainly through discovery,
defense counsel in large mass tort cases are now asking for
detailed fact sheets on each plaintiff, sometimes upwards of 30 to
40 pages long.  Answering those questions will sometimes result in
plaintiffs counsel dismissing the case on their own or doing so
after defense counsel raises concerns, the lawyer said.

"Our view is this ought to be done on the front end as opposed to
forcing us to spend time and money to do their screening for
them," the defense lawyer said, noting plaintiffs firms clearly
feel the opposite.

A third defense-side products liability attorney said it often
helps to work with plaintiffs counsel under a tolling agreement
while the parties sort through cases.

"Clearly there are firms out there that do their homework and
realize that often their credibility hangs in the balance," the
defense attorney said.  "Because if you bring a large inventory of
cases and the defense then begins the process of whacking through
that inventory issue by issue . . . the court then turns and says,
'What did you really do here?'"

If defense counsel is continually raising issues about the merits
of claims and creating a record that could go before the judge,
plaintiffs firms "really need to pay closer attention," the
defense counsel said.  That is particularly the case when the
plaintiffs' only argument to beat the statute of limitations is
fraudulent concealment.

"Defense will go hammer and tongs after that and unless that is
rock-solid, you know you are going to lose the statute of
limitations issue," the defense counsel said.  "You would hope and
think that all had been nailed down."

For Matt Casey -- mcasey@rossfellercasey.com -- of plaintiffs firm
Ross Feller Casey, nailing down the details is essential before
filing any mass tort cases.

"We apply the same screening process to our mass tort cases that
we do to our individual catastrophic injury cases, and it's an
exhaustive process that begins with a client interview and really
doesn't end until you are sure that the case has merit," Mr. Casey
said.

His firm is currently in the midst of that process in
multidistrict litigation in California involving Risperdal and in
Illinois involving testosterone replacement therapy medication.

Mr. Casey said it is a much more labor-intensive, expensive
process to review mass tort cases because of the sheer volume.
His firm has a team of lawyers and professionals who review each
case.  The cost and time is probably why so few firms do mass
torts work, Mr. Casey said.  While Mr. Casey said there are no
shortcuts in reviewing cases, he said there are logistical
differences between mass tort and single-plaintiff cases.

"There are practical realities of mass tort litigation that make
it more likely, for example, that there is not as much contact
between the lawyer and the client," Mr. Casey said.

And given the volume, there is a greater likelihood that a
plaintiffs firm couldn't get all of the relevant medical records
prior to filing a case.  Mr. Casey said later-discovered
information could certainly change the dynamics of an individual
mass tort case.

"But that really is one of the reasons that the screening process
is so demanding," Mr. Casey said.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Drummond" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Drummond and Dean Shave, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated v. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.,
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford Insurance of The
Midwest, John Does 1-100, and ABC Inc. 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-
01837 (D. Conn., December 8, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.is an insurance and
financial services company and one of the largest providers of
property and casualty insurance and investment products to
individuals and businesses in the United States

Hartford Fire Insurance Company is an affiliate or subsidiary of
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

Hartford Insurance of The Midwest is an affiliate or subsidiary of
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mathew Sorokin, Esq.
      SOROKIN LAW FIRM, LLC
      185 Asylum Street-15th Floor
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Telephone: (860) 776-6017
      Facsimile: (860) 278-7813
      E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com

         - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     155 2nd Street, Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Telephone: (201) 630-0000
     Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
     E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


HIGHER ONE: Plaintiffs Seek Final OK of Consumer Class Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One 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 plaintiffs
in a Consumer Class Action asked the court for final approval of a
settlement agreement.

Higher One, Inc., and Higher One Holdings, Inc. are defendants in
a series of putative class action lawsuits filed in 2012: Ashley
Parker, et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on July
3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Eastern Division; Jeanette Price et al.
v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on July 27, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; John
Brandon Kent et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on
August 17, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division; Jonathan Lanham et al. v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on October 2, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville Division; Aisha DeClue et al. v. Higher One, Inc., et
al., filed on November 5, 2012 in the St. Louis County Circuit
Court of Missouri; and Jill Massey et al. v. Higher One Holdings,
Inc. et al., filed on November 6, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East Saint
Louis Division. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all of these cases to the District of Connecticut for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The proceedings
are referred to as the "In re Higher One OneAccount Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation" or the "MDL." Plaintiffs have filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the MDL that generally alleges,
among other things, violations of state consumer protection
statutes (predicated, in part, on alleged violations of ED rules
and violations of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act) and
various common law claims.

"On April 22, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the case, which
the court denied as moot on March 11, 2014 in light of the
parties' settlement," the Company said.

"In October 2013, we reached an agreement in principle on the key
terms of a settlement that would resolve all of the above class
action litigation that was filed against us in 2012. In February
2014, we executed a settlement agreement, the terms of which
included a payment of $15.0 million to a settlement fund, an
agreement to pay the cost of notice to the class, and an agreement
to make and/or maintain certain practice changes. We made the
payment of $15.0 million to the settlement fund in February 2014.

"On February 14, 2014, plaintiffs asked the court to preliminarily
approve the settlement. On June 2, 2014, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement, directing that notice of
the settlement be sent to the class, setting relevant filing
deadlines, and scheduling a final fairness hearing for November
24, 2014. On October 6, 2014, plaintiffs asked the court for final
approval of the settlement. The court must approve the settlement
before it becomes final and binding.

"There is no assurance that the court will approve the settlement.
During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded an accrual
for an estimated charge of $16.3 million to reflect our current
estimate of the resolution, inclusive of additional legal and
other administrative costs, based on the agreement in principle.
While this estimate is consistent with our view of the current
exposure based on the signed settlement agreement, the actual loss
could vary materially from the current estimate if the settlement
is not finalized and approved."

HOH is a provider of technology-based refund disbursement, payment
processing and data analytics services to higher education
institutions and their students.


HIGHER ONE: Response to Securities Class Suit Due
-------------------------------------------------
Higher One 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 each
defendant's deadline to respond to a Securities Class Action
complaint was December 5, 2014.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. HOH and certain employees have been
named as defendants. Mr. Perez generally alleges that HOH and the
other named defendants made certain misrepresentations in public
filings in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez seeks to represent a
class of any person who purchased HOH securities between August 7,
2012 and May 12, 2014.

On July 28, 2014, Mr. Perez filed a motion to be appointed lead
plaintiff. No other motions to appoint lead plaintiff were filed.
Mr. Perez's motion remains pending. Each Defendant's deadline to
respond to the complaint was December 5, 2014.

HOH intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.
HOH is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.

HOH is a provider of technology-based refund disbursement, payment
processing and data analytics services to higher education
institutions and their students.


JOHN M. GLOVER: Faces "Bohling" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bohling, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated v. John M. Glover Agency, Incorporated d/b/a The John M.
Glover Agency, Forlivio Acquisition Corp, and John O. Forvlivio,
in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 6:14-cv-
01478 (N.D.N.Y., December 8, 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 insurance sales agencies with a
broad range of commercial and personal insurance offerings focused
on markets in the northeastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ameer N. Benno, Esq.
      BENNO & ASSOCIATES PC
      110 Wall Street-11th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 227-9300
      Facsimile: (212) 994-8082
      E-mail: abenno@ameerbenno.com


JOHNY UTAH: Faces "Bray" Suit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Bray, Jessica Carillo, Ashley Carroll, Maimuna Doula,
Victoria Fiorenza, Rhoda Galawanji, Sita Gallagher, Ashlee Gaughen
Toll, Sarah Hicks, Stephany Lebron, Kate Lippstreu, Chelsea
Lovett, Meaghan McCall, Talia McKinney, Merrisa Principe, Joanna
Rrezja, Sylvia Tonska and Noelle Weston, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Johny Utah 51 LLC, d/b/a
Johnny Utah's, Robert Werhane, John Sullivan, Thomas Casabona, and
J.R. Lozada, Case No. 1:14-cv-09677 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2014),
seeks to redress the Defendants' pervasive sexual harassment and
discriminatory practices and policies.

The Defendants own and operate a western-themed restaurant and bar
located in Rockefeller Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
      Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com

          - and -

      Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen, Esq.
      IMBESI, CHRISTENSEN & MICHAEL P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-5588
      Facsimile:  (866) 830-7484
      E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Faces 60 Coal Tar Pitch Cases
-----------------------------------------------
Koppers 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 Koppers Inc.,
along with other defendants, is currently a defendant in lawsuits
filed in two states in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered a
variety of illnesses (including cancer) as a result of exposure to
coal tar pitch sold by the defendants. There are approximately 112
plaintiffs in 60 cases pending as of September 30, 2014 as
compared to 111 plaintiffs in 61 cases pending as of December 31,
2013. As of September 30, 2014, there are a total of 59 cases
pending in state court in Pennsylvania, and one case pending in
state court in Tennessee. Koppers Inc. has been dismissed from
three cases formerly pending in state court in Arkansas.

The plaintiffs in all 60 pending cases seek to recover
compensatory damages, while plaintiffs in 55 cases also seek to
recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 59 cases filed in
Pennsylvania state court seek unspecified damages in excess of the
court's minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiffs in the
Tennessee state court case each seek damages of $15.0 million. The
other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to case and
include companies such as Beazer East, Inc., United States Steel
Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., Vertellus Specialties
Inc., Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon Company, Inc., Exxon Mobil
Corporation, SGL Carbon Corporation and Alcoa, Inc. Discovery is
proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been set in any of
these cases.

The Company has not provided a reserve for these lawsuits because,
at this time, the Company cannot reasonably determine the
probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of these cases
cannot be reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is
vigorously defending these cases, an unfavorable resolution of
these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flows and results of
operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits of Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers 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 discovery on the
merits of a class action lawsuit is stayed until further order of
the court.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are
present record owners of residential real properties located in an
area within a two-mile radius of the former Gainesville wood
treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and
contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused
property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents
and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of
exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second
amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values,
the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and punitive
damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court
dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground
that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013.
In May 2014, the Court entered an amended scheduling order for
class certification, which set a deadline of November 21, 2014 for
completion of class factual discovery with expert witness
discovery to follow. Discovery on the merits is stayed until
further order of the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: KPC Defendant in Class Action in Virgin Islands
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers 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 Koppers
Performance Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is currently a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court of the Virgin Islands.

The plaintiffs claim, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, that KPC's wood preservative products and formulas are
defective, and the complaint alleges the following causes of
action: breach of contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud
and violation of Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices statute. The putative class is defined as all
users (residential or commercial) of wood products treated with
KPC wood preserving products in the United States who purchased
such wood products from January 1, 2004 to the present.
Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be
all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or
other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands
that contain wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint
alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and
compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of
profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and
injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for
class members' structures. The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014,
and KPC has filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not yet
responded to KPC's motion to dismiss. The Company has not provided
a reserve for this matter because, at this time, it cannot
reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of
loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of
resolution of this case cannot be reasonably determined.


LIFELOCK INC: Seeks Dismissal of "Bien" Consolidated Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, 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, along
with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint filed by Dawn B. Bien.

The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, Dawn B. Bien, representing
herself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired
our securities from February 26, 2013 to February 19, 2014,
inclusive, filed a complaint in United States District Court for
the District of Arizona alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, against us, Todd Davis, and Chris Power.  We refer
to this complaint as the Bien Complaint."

"The Bien Complaint sought certification as a class action,
compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 10,
2014, Joseph F. Scesny  also filed a class action complaint in the
same court against the same parties that made substantively
similar allegations and requested substantially similar relief as
the Bien Complaint.  We refer to this complaint as the Scesny
Complaint.  On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the Scesny
Complaint and the Bien Complaint into a single action captioned In
re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also appointed
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint against us, Mr. Davis, Mr. Power,
and Hilary Schneider, or the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our
securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive, or
the  Class Period.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges
that we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making
materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose
material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and
compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our
services, our data security program, and our and Mr. Davis'
compliance with the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for
Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief, entered into in
March 2010 with the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC Order,
wherein we settled the allegations of the Federal Trade
Commission, or the FTC, challenging certain of our advertising and
marketing practices.   The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges
that, as a result, certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider
and Messrs. Davis and Power during the Class Period, and certain
of our financial statements issued during the Class Period, were
false and misleading.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

"On September 15, 2014, we, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs.
Davis and Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint.   Pursuant to the court's order of September
17, 2014, a hearing on our motion to dismiss will be held on
December 1, 2014.  On October 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
Memorandum In Opposition to our motion to dismiss."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LIFELOCK INC: Status Conference in Richardson Case in July 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, 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 status
conference is scheduled in the case filed by Denise Richardson for
July 17, 2015.

The Company said, "On September 25, 2012, Denise Richardson filed
a complaint against our company and Todd Davis in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Ms.
Richardson claims that she was improperly classified as an
independent contractor instead of an employee and that we breached
the terms of an alleged employment agreement. Ms. Richardson
claims she is entitled to equitable relief, compensatory damages,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees."

"On March 31, 2014, our motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part with the court dismissing nine of the ten counts
that were subject to the motion to dismiss, including the single
count against Mr. Davis.  On April 23, 2014, Ms. Richardson filed
an amended complaint against our company and Mr. Davis again
claiming that she was improperly classified as an independent
contractor instead of an employee and that we breached the terms
of an alleged employment agreement. Ms. Richardson claims she is
entitled to equitable relief, compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

"On April 29, 2014, Mr. Davis and we filed a motion to dismiss all
but one of the counts in such amended complaint.  On June 11,
2014, Ms. Richardson filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by
which she voluntarily dismissed her ERISA claims against us, as
well as her only claim against Mr. Davis.

"As to the remaining claims, the court denied our motion to
dismiss on Sept. 23, 2014 and we answered the amended complaint on
October 14, 2014. In addition, the court has entered a scheduling
order setting forth certain applicable deadlines for the case
including the completion of all discovery by June 19, 2015 and the
filing of dispositive motions by July 31, 2015.  A status
conference is scheduled in the case for July 17, 2015."

LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection
services for consumers and consumer risk management services for
enterprises.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Falsely Marketed Flooring Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Gold, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1
through 200, inclusive, Case No. 4:14-cv-05373 (N.D. Cal.,
December 8, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's misrepresentation
of its Morning Star Bamboo Flooring as durable and warrants that
the Product has a 30 year warranty, when in fact it is subject to
premature cracking, splitting, warping and shrinking, all well
before the warranted useful life.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is an American retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Susan Brown, Esq.
      Matt Malone, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com
              mram@rocklawcal.com
              sbrown@rocklawcal.com
              mjm@rocklawcal.com

         - and -

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


MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Minor League Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Miranda, Jeffrey Dominguez, Jorge Padilla, and Cirilo Cruz,
Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v.
Office of The Commissioner of Baseball, an unincorporated
association d/b/a Major League Baseball, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
05349 (N.D. Cal., December 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
monopolizes minor leaguers, restrains and depresses minor league
players' salaries and inserts a provision into players contracts
that allows teams to retain for 7 years the contractual rights to
players and restrict their ability to negotiate with other teams
for their baseball services.

Office of The Commissioner of Baseball is an unincorporated
association comprised of the thirty Defendant Major League
baseball clubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
      155 Jackson Street, Suite 1807
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 981-6281
      Facsimile: (415) 981-7616
      E-mail: skornhauser@earthlink.net

         - and -

      Brian David, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID
      33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200
      Chicago, IL 60610
      Telephone: (847) 778-7528
      Facsimile: (312) 346-8469



MAKER'S MARK: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Misleading Product Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safora Nowrouzi and Travis Williams, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc.,
d/b/a Maker's Mark, Case No. 3:14-cv-02885 (S.D. Cal., December 8,
2014), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading
promotion of its whisky as being Handmade, when in fact it is
manufactured using mechanized and automated processes, which
involves little to no human supervision, assistance or
involvement.

Maker's Mark Distillery, Inc. owns and operates a distillery in
Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued in Fla. Over Violation of the TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corie Blumstein, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-81520 (S.D.
Fla., December 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

McDonald's Corporation is the world's largest chain of hamburger
fast food restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: mgreenwald@mgjdlaw.com
              jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com
              aradbil@mgjdlaw.com



MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces Two Class action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
Millennial Media, 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 faces
the lawsuits Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Millennial Media, Inc. et al. and Travis Ostroviak v. Millennial
Media, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against a group of defendants including us,
certain of our current and former executive officers, directors,
and large shareholders, and the underwriters associated with our
initial public offering and secondary offering. Plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that certain defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common
stock by making false and misleading statements to investors."

"On October 17, 2014, plaintiff Travis Ostroviak also filed a
purported class action complaint in in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff makes
certain of the same allegations made in the action brought by
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi.  The complaint
names us and certain of our current and former executive officers
and directors as defendants.  We are currently evaluating the
claims asserted in these two matters."

Millennial Media is engaged in the business of providing mobile
advertising solutions to advertisers and developers.


MIMEDX GROUP: Motion for Reconsideration Currently Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Mimedx 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 Company's
Motion for Reconsideration is currently pending.

Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA
regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the
trading price of the Company's stock dropped sharply and several
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related
to the Company's belief that FDA approval was not required to
market its products, including its micronized products. These
cases have now all been removed to, and consolidated in, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
By order dated December 9, 2013, the Court approved the
appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel.

A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, containing
substantially the same causes of action and claims for relief as
the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014. On February
26, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on various
grounds. The Court subsequently denied the Company's Motion to
Dismiss.

On September 8, 2014, the Company filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which is currently pending. The Company currently
believes that the outcome of this litigation will not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN: Faces "Kalan" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Kalan, M.D., The Harvey Kalan, M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare
Benefit Plan, Pamela K. Erdman, M.D., The Dr. Pamela K. Erdman,
M.D., Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Gretchen Castellano,
Drs. Martin & Elissa Zenni, and The M&E Zenni Inc., Welfare
Benefit Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhodes, LLP, Case No.
2:14-cv-06985 (E.D. Pa., December 9, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhodes, LLP is a multidisciplinary
law firm located at 123 South Broad Street, Avenue of the Arts,
Philadelphia, PA 19109.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ira B. Silverstein, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO, PA
      228 Park Ave S #84164
      New York, NY 10003-1502
      Telephone: (212) 991-8431
      Facsimile: (212) 991-8439
      E-mail: Isilverstein@ffmlawgroup.com


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Meningitis Victims to Get $135 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
victims of a meningitis outbreak from tainted drugs would get at
least $135 million in the proposed bankruptcy plan for the now
defunct pharmaceutical company that made the steroid drugs.

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc.'s tainted steroids are
blamed for at least 64 deaths and 751 infections from fungal
meningitis outbreaks starting in 2012.

On Dec. 3, the trustee and official unsecured creditors' committee
filed a joint proposed plan to start wrapping up the nearly two-
year-old bankruptcy.  Parties that have settled and contributed to
the fund include insurance companies, clinics that administered
the drugs, vendors that provided services to the company and
former owners of the company.

Chapter 11 Trustee Paul Moore, a Boston bankruptcy partner at
Philadelphia-based Duane Morris, said victims could ultimately get
more compensation.

"It's entirely possible that by the time the plan is confirmed
that number would be $200 million," Mr. Moore said.

But Thomas Sobol, lead counsel for the plaintiffs' steering
committee and a Boston partner at Seattle-based Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, said no amount of money can compensate for the
horrific injuries and death caused by the families that ran New
England Compounding.

"While we are pleased that victims may soon be receiving some
small portion of recompense, we remain frustrated that public
health can be so horribly manipulated by a small group of people
for their own greedy individual desires," Mr. Sobol said.

The newly filed plan includes the owners' and insurers' $100
million settlement agreement, announced last December and
finalized this summer.

Some of the pain clinics that administered the tainted drug and
New England Compounding's vendors, which contributed to the plan,
are defendants in a District of Massachusetts multidistrict
litigation.

"Instead of letting this case devolve into free fall litigation,
you had parties from both sides of the 'v' with various differing
interests really come together and work very hard," said David
Molton -- dmolton@brownrudnick.com -- a New York partner at
Boston-based Brown Rudnick who represents the creditors'
committee.

"We've invited other parties that are claimed to be liable along
with the company and insiders to participate and contribute to the
plan fund and get the benefits," Mr. Molton said.  He said that
those parties will get released from liability for their
participation.

The bankruptcy deal comes on the heels of a Boston federal judge's
recent rulings denying dismissal of some claims against clinics
and doctors in a multidistrict litigation, In re New England
Compounding Pharmacy Products Liability Litigation.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Rya W. Zobel denied dismissal of
some claims against Dallas Back Pain Management/Momentum Pain
Management and Dr. Abbeselom Ghermay.

In late August, Judge Zobel denied dismissal of some claims
against New Jersey and Tennessee clinics that administered tainted
injections.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Deal in 2010 Shareholder Suit Takes Effect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, 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
Stipulation of Settlement in the 2010 Shareholder Litigation
became effective on August 27, 2014.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class Action (Case
No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT). On March 4, 2014, the Company reached
an agreement in principle to settle this matter by entering into a
Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs, which will resolve
all claims asserted against the Company and the individual
defendants in this case. Under the terms of the Stipulation of
Settlement, which was subject to approval by the court, the
Company agreed to a cash payment of $13.5 million, a portion of
which will come from remaining insurance proceeds, as well as the
issuance of 0.8 million shares of its common stock. The Company
agreed to provide a floor value of $13.5 million on the equity
portion of the settlement; however, at the time of final court
approval of the Stipulation of Settlement the equity value of the
settlement consideration exceeded this amount and, as a result,
the number of shares to be issued as settlement consideration was
fixed at 0.8 million. Cash payments of $6.1 million from the
Company, and the remaining $7.4 million from insurance proceeds,
were deposited into escrow in April 2014.

The Stipulation of Settlement was approved by the court on June
26, 2014 and became effective on August 27, 2014. Pursuant to the
court's approval order, one-third of the 0.8 million settlement
shares and one-third of the cash settlement consideration were
awarded to co-lead plaintiffs' counsel as attorneys' fees (in
addition to reimbursement of certain court-approved expenses from
the cash portion of the settlement escrow). The remaining two-
thirds of the 0.8 million settlement shares were deposited into
escrow on August 22, 2014. To accrue for the pending settlement,
the Company recorded an expense of $4.6 million in the three
months ended June 30, 2014, consisting of $3.6 million related to
the increase in market value of the 0.8 million shares and $1.0
million of additional related legal expenses and defense costs.
Due to a decrease in the Company's stock price at the time the
settlement shares were issued, the Company recorded an adjustment
of $3.7 million to reduce the accrued liability.

Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. is among the largest
companies in the United States dedicated to providing
comprehensive, full-cycle environmental solutions to customers
focused on the development and ongoing production of oil and
natural gas from shale formations.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Dismissal of 2013 Shareholder Case Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, 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
Defendants' motion to dismiss the 2013 Shareholder Litigation is
fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision.

In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative
class action lawsuits were commenced in Federal court against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors alleging that the Company and the individual defendants
made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to
the Company's operations and financial condition which caused the
price of its shares to fall. By order dated October 29, 2013, the
two putative class actions were consolidated and a consolidated
complaint has been filed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
these claims in May 2014. The motion is fully briefed and awaiting
the Court's decision. While the Company continues to assess these
claims, the Company believes they are without merit. The Company
will continue to vigorously defend itself and the individual
defendants in this action.

Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. is among the largest
companies in the United States dedicated to providing
comprehensive, full-cycle environmental solutions to customers
focused on the development and ongoing production of oil and
natural gas from shale formations.


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold to Koch Too Cheaply, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a class action challenges electronics manufacturer Oplink
Communications' proposed merger with Koch Industries as a breach
of fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The merger's estimated value is $445 million. If it goes through,
Oplink will be managed by Molex, a Koch subsidiary.

Lead plaintiff Lori Brewerton claims that the merger is being done
"by means of an unfair process, for an unfair price, and pursuant
to a materially misleading Recommendation Statement."  She sued
Oplink; Oplink founder and CEO Joseph Y. Liu; Oplink board members
Chieh Chang, Tim Christoffersen, Jesse W. Jack and Hua Lee; Koch
Industries and its subsidiary Koch Optics, on December 2 in
Superior Court.

No shareholder vote is needed to execute the merger so long as the
buyer has a majority of the shares, and the offer is set to expire
on December 22.

Brewerton claims that the proposed merger is Oplink's effort to
avoid threatened legal action from an activist investor group,
Oplink Shareholders for Change.

The group consists of independent stockholders led by Engaged
Capital LLC and Voce Capital Management LLC.  It owned
approximately 7.5 percent of the company and was formed "for the
purpose of seeking to unlock value at Oplink."

The group has voiced concern over "the company's failing Oplink
Connected business unit and the need for corporation rate
governance changes."

Among the changes the group sought were the institution of an
annual shareholders meeting and the nomination of two new
directors to the board.  Brewerton claims that Oplink proposed the
merger to avoid instituting these changes.  She claims that the
merger contains "deal protection services that preclude other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for the company."

These include a no-solicitation provision, a provision allowing
Koch four business days to match competing offers and a provision
requiring Oplink to pay Koch a $15.5 million termination fee in
order to accept a superior bid.

She also claims that 7.1 percent of Oplink's outstanding shares
are locked up in the merger and that the recommendation statement
filed with the SEC attempts to persuade Oplink shareholders to
sell via "materially misleading information."

Oplink declined to comment.

Brewerton seeks class certification, declaratory relief, enjoinder
or rescission of the proposed merger and damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER
          2125 Oak Grove Rd., Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: APlutzik@bramsonplutzik.com


PACCAR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           388
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014512
TC ID number:             2014512
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14KWM

On certain vehicles, an undersized wire in the trailer stop lamp
circuit of the instrument panel harness is susceptible to thermal
cycling which may cause damage to the wiring.  This could result
in the trailer lamp fuse failing, which could cause stop lamps to
become inoperative and increase the risk of a crash.  This damaged
wiring could also increase the risk of fire.  These issues could
result in injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will replace the undersized wire in the
harness.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model       Model year(s) affected
   KENWORTH      T800        2015
   KENWORTH      C500        2015
   KENWORTH      T400        2015
   KENWORTH      W900        2015
   KENWORTH      T660        2015


PACCAR: Recalls 389 Model Due to Steering Wheel Fastener Nut
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           15
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014517TC
ID number:                2014517
Manufacturer recall
number:                   1114K

On certain vehicles equipped with the "Pride & Class" option, the
steering wheel fastener nut may have been insufficiently tightened
during vehicle assembly, or an incorrect nut may have been
installed.  This could allow the steering wheel to become loose
and slip in relation to the steering column shaft, increasing the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage.


Correction: Dealers will inspect the nut and replace/re-torque as
necessary.

Affected products: 2015 Peterbilt 389


PARADISE BAKERY: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites,
                          Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9406


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Agreement Reached in Waterford Township Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
People's United 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 an
agreement in principle to settle the Waterford Township class
action lawsuit was reached on October 23, 2014, subject to
completion of appropriate documentation and Court approval.

On February 25, 2010 and March 29, 2010, Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.,
and several of its officers and directors were named in lawsuits
commenced in United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York (Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown
Bancorp, Inc., et al. and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et
al., respectively) on behalf of a putative class of all persons
and entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between March
13, 2008 and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete. As a result of the merger of Smithtown
with and into People's United Financial on November 30, 2010,
People's United Financial has become the successor party to
Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel. The Court
approved the consolidation of these suits, with Waterford Township
named the lead plaintiff. Following extensive preliminary filings
with the Court by both parties, an agreement in principle to
settle this matter was reached on October 23, 2014, subject to
completion of appropriate documentation and Court approval. The
amount of the agreed-upon settlement has been adequately reserved.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Transfer of Appeal to Conn. Supreme Court Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People's United 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
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Connecticut Appellate Court and, on September 25, 2014, filed
a motion to transfer the Notice of Appeal to the Connecticut
Supreme Court.

The People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a
lawsuit (Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. People's United Bank) arising from its assessment and
collection of overdraft fees on its checking account customers.
The Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011 and alleges that
the Bank engaged in certain unfair practices in the posting of
electronic debit card transactions from highest to lowest dollar
amount. The Complaint also alleges that such practices were
inadequately disclosed to customers and were unfairly used by the
Bank for the purpose of generating revenue by maximizing the
number of overdrafts a customer is assessed. The Complaint seeks
certification of a class of checking account holders residing in
Connecticut and who have incurred at least one overdraft fee,
injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and treble damages,
disgorgement and restitution of overdraft fees paid, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 16, 2011, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
Court. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on May 15, 2012, the Bank filed a Motion to Strike
the Amended Complaint. On April 10, 2013, the Bank renewed its
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Court denied
the Bank's Motion to Strike and its renewed Motion to Dismiss. On
September 23, 2013, the Bank filed its Revised Answer, Special
Defenses and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint.

A Court hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Strike certain of the
Bank's Defenses and a Counterclaim was held on January 30, 2014.
The Court postponed consideration of that Motion and, on April 28,
2014, held a hearing to consider whether it has jurisdiction to
hear the case. On July 28, 2014, the Court dismissed the case in
its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because all
of the claims are preempted by federal law. On August 15, 2014,
the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Connecticut
Appellate Court and, on September 25, 2014, filed a motion to
transfer the Notice of Appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Fracasse and Brown Case Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------------
People's United 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 all
executed settlement agreements and payments were distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement
and Release, thus concluding the lawsuit Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee
Brown, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
People's United Bank.

People's United Bank was named as a defendant in a lawsuit (Tracy
Fracasse and K. Lee Brown, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. People's United Bank) based on allegations
that the Bank failed to pay overtime compensation required by (i)
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and (ii) the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs alleged that they were employed
as "underwriters" and were misclassified as exempt employees. The
plaintiffs further alleged that they worked in excess of 40 hours
per week and were erroneously denied overtime compensation as
required by federal and state wage and hour laws. The Complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut on May 3,
2012. Since the Complaint was brought under both federal and state
law, the Complaint sought certification of two different but
overlapping classes. The plaintiffs sought damages in the amount
of their respective unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

On June 29, 2012, the Bank filed its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses. On June 17, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification for the plaintiff's state law claims.

On April 25, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter. On June 20, 2014, the plaintiff's counsel
filed a Withdrawal of the Constructive Discharge Complaint as to
the state law claims. A hearing to consider the settlement was
held and, on July 15, 2014, the Court approved the settlement, the
amount of which had been adequately reserved.

On August 1, 2014, all executed settlement agreements and payments
were distributed in accordance with the terms of the Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release, thus concluding this
matter.


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Held" Suit Over Unsafe Lacrosse Helmet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Held, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Performance Sports Group Ltd. and Performance Lacrosse
Group, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01842 (D. Conn., December 9, 2014),
arises out of the Defendants false and misleading representation
of its Cascade R lacrosse helmet that it meets the National
Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard,
when in fact it didn't meet the minimum applicable guidelines and
safety standards.

The Defendants are developers and manufacturers of high
performance sports equipment and related apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
      DENLEA & CARTON LLP
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 920-7400
      Facsimile: (914) 761-1900
      E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Hemberger" Suit Over Lacrosse Helmet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hemberger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Performance Sports Group, Ltd. and Cascade Lacrosse,
Case No. 2:14-cv-06981 (E.D. Pa., December 9, 2014), arises out of
the Defendants false and misleading representation of its Cascade
R lacrosse helmet that it meets the National Operating Committee
on Standards for Athletic Equipment standard, when in fact it
didn't meet the minimum applicable guidelines and safety
standards.

The Defendants are developers and manufacturers of high
performance sports equipment and related apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alison Gabe Gushue, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      E-mail: agg@chimicles.com


PETRO SERVICES: "Byers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Byers and other similarly situated individuals v. Petro
Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-62794
(S.D. Fla., December 9, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Petro Services, Inc. is an international oil and gas service
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kaltman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Petroleo Brasileiro SA - Petrobras, Case No. 1:14-cv-
09662 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
made materially false and misleading statements, specifically by
misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose a multi-year, multi-
billion dollar money-laundering and bribery scheme.

Petroleo Brasileiro SA - Petrobras is an integrated oil and gas
company that is the largest corporation in Brazil, in terms of
revenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester L. Levy, Esq.
      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212)759-4600
      Facsimile: (212)486-2093
      E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Brightview XCT Imaging System
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2014
Posting date:             November 21, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42247

Recalled products: Brightview XCT Imaging System - Tilt System

Philips has become aware that while performing a clinical Spect/CY
study on a Brightview XCT Spect/CT System, the CT portion of the
scan may be interrupted (stopping the CT exposure at the time of
interruption) and may not complete successfully.  An incomplete
study may result in the operator having to retry the interrupted
segment acquisition to complete the patient exam.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland)Inc.
                    595 Miner Road
                    Cleveland
                    44143
                    Ohio
                    United States


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls CT TAVI Planning Application
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 9, 2014
Posting date:             November 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42581

CT Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (CT TAVI) planning
application, supplied as an option to Intellispace Portal Software
Version 6, may display incorrect measurements of cardiac and
aortic anatomy.  Clinicians use this information to plan TAVI
procedures and to select and size the Transcatheter Heart Valve
(THV) to be used in the procedures.  Reliance on incorrect
information could contribute to an unsuccessful THV implantation
procedure.

Affected products: CT TAVI Planning Application in Intellispace
Portal V.6

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V
                    Veenpluis 4-6
                    Best
                    5684PC
                    Netherlands


PIZZA PLUS: Faces "Chimbay" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Chimbay and Fernando Penaloza, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Pizza Plus at Staten Island Ferry
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07169 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Pizza Plus at Staten Island Ferry Inc. owns and operates a
restaurant located at 359 7th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11215.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


PRINCESS AUTO: Recalls Emergency Automotive Hammer
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Posting date:             November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Specialized Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42103

Affected products: Princess Auto Ltd. Emergency Automotive Hammer

The recall involves the Princess Auto Ltd. Emergency Automotive
Hammer.  This item consists of a hammer and a mounting bracket and
can be identified by item number 8184343.  The hammer is yellow in
colour with black in the handle and is 26 centimetres long.

This hammer has the possibility of malfunctioning and may not
perform for its intended use of slicing a seatbelt or shattering a
window in an emergency.

Princess Auto Ltd. has received two reports of consumer incidents
related to the use of these emergency automotive hammers.  No
injuries were reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these emergency
automotive hammers.

Approximately 21,911 units of the recalled hammers were sold at
Princess Auto Ltd retail locations across Canada.

The recalled hammers were manufactured in China and sold from
October 2007 to October 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Princess Auto Ltd.
                   Winnipeg
                   Manitoba
                   Canada

Consumers should return the product to a Princess Auto store,
where they will receive a superior quality replacement hammer at
no extra charge.


PURITY FACTORIES: Recalls Spearmint Lumps and Bull's Eyes
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Purity Factories Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9419

The food recall warning issued on Nov. 1, 2014 has been updated to
nclude additional product information.  The additional information
was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Purity Factories Ltd. is recalling Purity brand Spearmint Lumps
and Bull's Eyes from the marketplace because they contain wheat
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
wheat or sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled
products described.

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

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

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

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

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


RUDOLPH'S BAKERIES: Recalls Breads Due to Undeclared Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Rudolph's Bakeries Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9438


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Edminson on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation and
Schlumberger Limited (Schlumberger N.V.), Case No. 4:14-cv-03508
(S.D. Tex., December 8, 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 oil and gas drilling sites in
North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B, Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Clinitek Urine Chemistry Analyzer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 10, 2014
Posting date:             November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42215

Recalled Products:

   -- Clinitek Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer (with rack
      handler); and
   -- Clinitek Novus Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer (without
      rack handler)

Siemens healthcare diagnostics has identified a potential pinch
hazard in the interior of Clinitek Novus analyzer.  The potential
pinch hazard is in the area of the syringe pump and is only
present when the instrument is operating with the front cover
open.  The instrument can operate with the front cover open during
the "systems sequence test" mode for troubleshooting and/or
maintenance.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Manufacturing
                      Ltd.
                    Northern Road,
                    Sudbury, Suffolk, United Kingdom
                    CO10 2XQ

   Manufacturer     Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Manufacturing
                      Ltd.
                    Northern Road
                    Sudbury, Suffolk, United Kingdom
                    CO10 2XQ


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls Various Vista Flex Reagent Cartridges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Posting date:             November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42187

Recalled Products:

   -- Dimension Vista Flex Theophylline (THEO) reagent cartridges
      (232661);
   -- Dimension Flex Theophylline (THEO) reagent cartridges
      (400028);
   -- Dimension Flex Theophylline (THEO) reagent cartridges
      (544682); and
   -- Dimension Flex Theophylline (THEO) reagent cartridges
      (544814)

Siemens has confirmed customer complaints of abnormal reaction
flags with the affected lots of Dimension Vista Flex Theophylline
(THEO) Reagent Cartridges.

Companies:

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


SKINFX INC: Recalls SunFX WhiteOut Instant Spray-On Tan
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 10, 2014
Posting date:             November 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Cosmetics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Labelling and Packaging, Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42059

Affected products: SunFX WhiteOut Instant Spray-On Tan

The recall involves SunFX WhiteOut Instant Spray-On Tan
manufactured by SunFX Group.

The product is packaged in a blue and white pressurized metal
container with a spray nozzle and with UPC 9334898000004.  Some
products may have been sold with blue and white exterior cardboard
packaging.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
this recalled product does not meet explosive labeling
requirements for products in pressurized containers under Canadian
law.  The lack of appropriate warnings symbols and warning
statements for pressurized products could result in the misuse of
the product, and lead to serious injury.

Neither Health Canada nor SunFX (the manufacturer) or SkinFX Inc,
(the Canadian distributor) has received any reports of incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of the affected
products.

Approximately 234 units of the recalled cosmetic products were
sold to Canadians.

The recalled tanning products were manufactured in Australia and
sold from October 2012 to October 2014 at various spa's and
tanning salons across Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     SunFX Group
                    Australia

   Distributor      SkinFX Inc.
                    Edmonton
                    Alberta
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cosmetic.


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Two of Three Counts in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solera 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 Court issued
an order dismissing two of the three counts in a class action
lawsuit with prejudice and, of the remaining count, dismissing one
claim with prejudice and one claim without prejudice.

On February 28, 2014, Solera, Explore Information Services, LLC
("Explore"), and Audatex North America, Inc. were each served with
a civil complaint filed against them and another defendant by an
insurance company third party claimant  in Minnesota state court.
The complaint seeks state-wide class action status for similarly
situated claimants, claiming that the defendant's methodology for
determining the value of total loss vehicles violates Minnesota
law.

The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss on April 18, 2014.
The complaint was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota and an amended complaint was filed
on July 16, 2014. We and our co-defendant moved to dismiss the
amended complaint and on October 31, 2014, the Court issued an
order dismissing two of the three counts with prejudice and, of
the remaining count, dismissing one claim with prejudice and one
claim without prejudice."

Solera Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries is a global provider of
software and services to the automobile insurance claims
processing and decision support industries.


SUPERSTAT CORPORATION: Recalls Superstat Collagen Hemostat
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Posting date:             November 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42577

Recalled Products: Superstat Modified Collagen Hemostat

No documentation was available verifying that quarterly dose
sterility audits were performed.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Superstat Corporation
                    2015 University Drive
                    Rancho Dominguez
                    90220
                    California
                    United States


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into Settlement in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synergy Pharmaceuticals 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 October
20, 2014, the Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of
compromise, settlement and release, or the Settlement, with the
plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuits in Delaware and
New York brought by certain former Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
or Callisto, stockholders challenging the Company's merger with
Callisto that closed in January 2013.  The Settlement is subject
to certain conditions, including, but not limited to, final
approval by the court and dismissal with prejudice of both
complaints.


SYNGENTA SEEDS: Sued in Ind. Over Illegal Sale of Viptera Corn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple E Farms of Indiana, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Syngenta Seeds Inc., Syngenta Corporation,
and Syngenta Corp Protection, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02014 (S.D.
Ind., December 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
      Irwin Levin, Esq.
      Richard Sheitz, Esq.
      Vess Miller, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
              ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


TELEFLEX MEDICAL: Recalls Hudson RCI Sheridan/CF Tracheal Tube
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 12, 2014
Posting date:             November 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42695

Recalled Products: Hudson RCI Sheridan/CF Cuffed Tracheal Tube

Teleflex Medical is recalling the Hudson RCI Sheridan/CF Cuffed
Tracheal Tube due to a labelling inconsistency.  Teleflex Medical
has received complaints that the labelling of units from the
affected lot indicates that it contains a size 8 mm tracheal tube
but may contain a size 7.5 mm tracheal tube.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Teleflex Medical
                    2917 Wreck Drive
                    Research Triangle Park
                    27709
                    North Carolina
                    United States


TONSELL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Krakus Red Borscht Soup
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Tonsell International Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9424

Tonsell International Inc., is recalling Krakus brand Red Borscht
Soup from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

Affected products:

   -- 1.5 L Krakus Red Borscht Soup with all codes where milk is
not declared on the label


TOYOTA: Recalls Camry and Camry HV models Due to Suspension Arm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           163
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014505TC
ID number:                2014505
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SSC257

On certain vehicles, the left side front lower suspension arm may
contain a defect that could result in the lower ball joint
separating from the arm in the event of a severe impact, such as a
pothole or other road imperfection.  This could cause a loss of
steering control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the left suspension arm.

Affected products:

   -- 2014 Toyota Camry; and
   -- 2014 Toyota Camry HV


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Second Circuit Granted Stay of Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Transocean 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 the Second Circuit
granted the motion of plaintiff in a federal securities class
action to stay an appeal pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac
MBS Inc., in which certiorari was granted at 134 S. Ct. 1515
(2014)."

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a federal securities
proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, naming us and former chief
executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired
companies as defendants.  In the action, a former shareholder of
the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement
related to our shareholder meeting in connection with our merger
with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself and the proposed
class members.  In connection with that action, we were obligated
to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants,
which may be covered by our directors' and officers' liability
insurance, subject to a deductible.  On October 4, 2012, the court
denied our motion to dismiss the action.  On June 27, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second
Circuit") ruled in the unrelated action on an issue that could be
relevant to the disposition of this case in a manner that
supported our position that the plaintiff's existing claims
alleged in the action are time-barred.  On August 30, 2013, we
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims are time-
barred, citing the ruling of the Second Circuit.  On September 20,
2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss and
on September 24, 2013, we filed a reply to that opposition."

"On March 11, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion and
dismissed the claims as time-barred.  On March 13, 2014, judgment
was entered and the case was closed.  On March 19, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit.  On
April 23, 2014, the Second Circuit granted plaintiff's motion to
stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS Inc., in which
certiorari was granted at 134 S. Ct. 1515 (2014)."


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Dismissed in All Non-California Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC 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 beginning
in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was filed
against numerous companies in the petroleum industry, including
the Company's predecessor and its subsidiaries, in U.S. district
courts in over 20 states.  Major petroleum refiners and retailers
were named as defendants in one or more of these lawsuits.  The
plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally alleged that they were retail
purchasers who purchased motor fuel at temperatures greater than
60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.

The Company said, "One theory alleged that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory alleged that
fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60 degree
gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from suppliers
and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the tax by
the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to consumers.
These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell
a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax,
and therefore reap unjust benefit because the customers pay more
tax than the retailer pays.  A third theory alleged that all
purchasers of fuel at any temperature are harmed because the
defendants do not use equipment that adjusts for temperature or
disclose the temperature of fuel being sold, and thereby deprive
customers of information they allegedly require to make an
informed purchasing decision.  All of these cases were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
pursuant to multi-district litigation procedures."

"On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect to two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of fuel
temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel).  On January 19, 2012, the Court
amended its prior ruling, and certified a class with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for damages as well.  A TA entity was named in
one of those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA.  TA
was thereafter dismissed from the Kansas case.  Several defendants
in the Kansas cases, including major petroleum refiners, entered
into multi-state settlements.

"Following a September 2012 trial against the remaining defendants
in the Kansas cases, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of those Kansas defendants, and the judge likewise ruled in
the Kansas defendants' favor on the sole non-jury claim.

"In early 2013, the Court announced its intention to remand three
cases originally filed in federal district courts in California
back to their original courts.  On April 9, 2013, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in connection
with the California claims in the California cases.  On August 14,
2013, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendants with
respect to all California claims in the California cases, and in
February 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California entered judgment in favor of the defendants with
respect to those claims.  The plaintiffs in the California cases
have all dismissed their non-California claims against TA, except
for one individual plaintiff, who continues to assert claims based
on purchases of fuel in states other than California.

"In January 2014, TA was dismissed with prejudice in all the non-
California cases in all states in which it remained a defendant at
that time.  Therefore, the only case in which TA remains a
defendant is the case in which one remaining plaintiff is pursuing
non-California claims.

"We believe there are substantial factual and legal defenses to
the allegations made in this remaining case.  While we do not
expect that we will incur a material loss in this case, we cannot
estimate our ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit."

The Company operates and franchises travel centers under the
"TravelCenters of America," "TA" and related brand names, or the
TA brand, and the "Petro Stopping Centers" and "Petro" brand
names, or the Petro brand, primarily along the U.S. interstate
highway system.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Made Cash Payment in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America LLC 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 made a cash payment in March 2014 related to a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop
owners, who were plaintiffs in a purported class action suit
against Comdata Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to
amend their complaint to add us as a defendant, which was allowed
on March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards."

"On February 28, 2014, we entered into a Definitive Master Class
Settlement Agreement with the plaintiffs, or the settlement
agreement.  The Court approved the settlement agreement on July
14, 2014.  The settlement agreement provides for the payment by
the co-defendants, of an aggregate of $130,000,000, including
$10,000,000 from us, to a settlement fund for class members and
the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and the
unconditional release of all claims that class members brought, or
could have brought, against us and the other settling co-
defendants with respect to the litigation and related actions.  We
recognized a $10,000,000 loss in connection with this matter in
December 2013 and made the cash payment in March 2014."

The Company operates and franchises travel centers under the
"TravelCenters of America," "TA" and related brand names, or the
TA brand, and the "Petro Stopping Centers" and "Petro" brand
names, or the Petro brand, primarily along the U.S. interstate
highway system.


TUV RHEINLAND: Warns of Unauthorized Mark on TreadDesk Treadmills
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2014
Posting date:             November 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Electrical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42127

Affected products: TreadDesk Treadmill

The recall involves TreadDesk treadmills identified by model
LQ6060 and manufactured after March 15, 2013.

The treadmills bear an unauthorized cTUVus certification mark and
have not been evaluated by TUV Rheinland of North America.  It is
unknown if the treadmills are in compliance with the applicable
safety standard.

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

The number of units sold is unknown.

The time period sold is unknown.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Eastern Eagle International Ltd.
                    Kaohsiung
                    Taiwan, Province of China

Consumers should immediately stop using the treadmills.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Accused of Charging Bogus Airport Fee in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jamie Ross reports that a
class action claims Uber fraudulently charged a $4 "Airport Fee
Toll" in San Francisco, before there was any such toll from the
airport.

Lead plaintiff Vamsi Tadepalli sued Uber Technologies in December
3 in Superior Court, alleging fraud, conversion, breach of
contract and other charges.

"Uber vehicles transporting passengers to and from San Francisco
International Airport ('SFO') charge a fare, plus an additional $4
fee for a so-called 'SFO Airport Fee Toll,'" the complaint states.

But Tadepalli claims that neither the airport nor the California
Public Utilities Commission charged Uber any fee or toll for
airport pick-ups or drop-offs until Nov. 25.

On Nov. 25, the San Francisco airport announced it would charge
ride-share services $3.85 for each passenger, confirming "that SFO
has not been charging Uber the so-called SFO Airport Fee Toll,"
according to the complaint.

Tadepalli claims he used Uber to get a ride to the airport on July
23, and paid $27.57 for the trip, including the $4 toll.

"Uber has imposed the fictitious 'SFO Airport Fee Toll' upon tens
of thousands of passengers, and continues to do so," Tadepalli
says in the lawsuit.  "Although SFO announced that in the future
it will charge Uber $3.85 to pick up and drop off passengers,
Uber's $4 SFO Airport Fee Toll will still be excessive and result
in customers paying more than they should pay under the
circumstances."

Uber and has been sued repeatedly around the country by cabdrivers
who claim it undercuts prices by ducking the costs of licensing
and regulation.  It has been fined, banned and barred from several
European and U.S. cities.  It made unwanted headlines in November
when a senior vice president suggested the company could spend $1
million to dig up "opposition research" on journalists who wrote
critical stories about the company.

Tadepalli seeks class certification, an accounting, restitution
and compensatory and statutory damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com


VENMAR VENTILATION: Expands Recall of Air Exchangers
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 13, 2014
Posting date:             November 13, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42133

Affected products: Air Exchangers sold under different brands

The recall involves air exchangers with and without heat recovery
sold under different brands that are used to circulate air in and
out of the home.  The metal air exchangers are painted blue or
grey.

Air exchangers included in this recall were manufactured from
January 2002 through July 2009 and have brand and model
information printed on the unit's rating plate or imprinted on the
side of the unit.

These brand names and model numbers are included in the recall:

   Brand                                          Model Number
The "X" can be either a letter or a number.

Venmar, Venmar AVS, Venmar
Klima, Flair, Guardian by Broan,
NuTone, Conformax                                30XXX, 4XXXX,
                                      C32042, AE 60, CH 30110,
                                    EA-109, EA-20XXX, PRO XXX,
                                  ER-40XXX, ERVX00HC, HRVX00H,
                           IVL XXX, NUTR 130, VA-80, VA-30000,
                          RC-120, VE-25, 160XXX, 300, 350, 400
Carrier, Bryant,
Day & Night, Payne

VA3AAXXXX, VB5AAXXXX, VC5AAXXXX, VL3AAA0XX,
HRVBBLHAXXXX, HRVBBLHUXXXX, HRVBBLVUXXXX,
HRVBBSVUXXXX, HRVCCLHAXXXX, HRVCCLHUXXXX,
HRVCCLVUXXXX, HRVCCSVUXXXX, ERVBBLHAXXXX,
ERVBBLHUXXXX, ERVCCLHAXXXX, ERVCCLHUXXXX,

Heil                                               HRV XX5 XRC
Rheem, Rudd, Protech,
Weatherking                                          84-XRVX00
Sears OPTIMUM
York                                               5263554X000
v„nEE, Husch                      160XXXX, 43XXX, 45XXX, 48405
Maytag, Frigidaire, Tappan,
Westinghouse, Partners Choice                           91871X

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

Venmar Ventilation has received 4 reports in relation to this
recall expansion (1 in the U.S. and 3 in Canada).  In the previous
recalls, Venmar Ventilation reported 26 incidents, for a total of
30.  Out of these 30 incidents, 5 took place in the U.S. and 25
took place in Canada.  All incidents resulted in fires and in a
total of more than $1.1 million in property damages.  No injuries
have been reported.

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

Approximately 207,000 units were sold in Canada and are targeted
by this expansion of the recall.  Approximately 108,000 units were
sold in the United States.

The units were manufactured in Canada and sold from January 2002
through December 2009 by heating, plumbing and building supply
distributors nationwide.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Venmar Ventilation Inc.
                    Drummondville
                    J2C 7W9
                    Canada

Venmar is asking owners of units covered by this Safety Upgrade
Program to immediately turn their unit off, and contact Venmar
Ventilation Inc. as soon as possible by telephone at 1-866-441-
4645, by visiting Venmar's website, or by mail at SUP-2006 rogram,
550 Lemire Boulevard, Drummondville, Quebec, Canada, J2C 7W9.


VIVINT SOLAR: Faces "Lima" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lima, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al.,  No. 1:14-cv-09709
(S.D.N.Y., December 9, 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.

Vivint Solar, Inc.is a residential solar energy unit installer
that leases solar energy systems to residential homeowners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces "Parham" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Parham Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Wendy's Company, Wendy's Restaurants,
LLC, and Wendy's International, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-14367 (D.
Mass., December 9, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants own and operate a Wendy's restaurant chain in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607-3260
      E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com


WINGSPAN PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Illegal Termination of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quianna Bowman and Keosha Price, Individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. Wingspan Portfolio Advisors LLC,
and John Does 1-100, and ABC Inc. 1-100, Case No. 3:14-cv-03396
(W.D. La., December 8, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide former employees at least 60 days of advance
written termination in violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

Wingspan Portfolio Advisors LLC is a privately held mortgage
services company organized under the laws of the State of Texas,
doing business in this District at 1500 N. 19th Street, Monroe, LA
71201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON+JACKSON
      201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Telephone: (504) 599-5953
      Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
      E-mail:  jjackson@jackson-law.net
               mjackson@jackson-law.net

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone:  (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *