CAR_Public/141218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 18, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 251


                             Headlines

ABC HEALTH: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AIR FRANCE: Deutsche Bahn Plans to Expand Air Cargo Cartel Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Over Nevada Facility Wage Theft Pending
APCO OIL: Faces Class Action in Oklahoma Over Pluspetrol Sale
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

BCI COCA-COLA: Removes "Rodriguez" Class Suit to C.D. California
BEYOND TOMORROW: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
BFC MANAGEMENT: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BLOOMBERG LP: Ex-Payroll Analyst Seeks to Collect Wages & Damages
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Removes "Wenger" Suit to District of New Jersey

CALIFORNIA: Jenkins Claims Severed From Webb's Claims vs. CDCR
CALIFORNIA: Medina Claims Severed from Webb's Claims vs. CDCR
CBE GROUP: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CC-PALO ALTO: Judge Dismisses Vi Residents' Class Action
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: "Queen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

COLUMBIA: Maintenance Workers File Grievance Over External Hire
CONNECTICUT: Settles Autism Treatment Class Action
CORIGIN HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CVI.CHE 105: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
DAIMLER AG: "Barinova" Suit Removed to District of New Jersey

DANVILLE, IL: Corrections Dept Wins Favorable Ruling in Appeal
ELI LILLY: 7th Cir. Upholds Judgments Entered in "Welch" Case
EMPIRE STATE: Provides Updates on Original Class Actions
EMPIRE STATE: Plaintiffs in 2nd Class Actions Appeal Dismissal
EMPIRE STATE: 12 Opt-Out Investors Seek Arbitration

ESTES EXPRESS: Removes "Poleon" Suit to Florida District Court
FANDUEL INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Florida
FLUVANNA, VA: Correction Center Settles Female Inmates' Suit
FRESNO BEE: Trial Scheduled for Newspaper Carriers' Class Action
GC SERVICES: Judge Uses Foti Decision in FDCPA Ruling

GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Sued Over Winter Price Increases
ICC/MARIE CALLENDER: Order to Show Cause in Musgrave Case Vacated
ILLINOIS: ISHAA Faces Concussion Class Action
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settlement Warrants Distributed in October
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Posts $9.1MM Legal Costs for 9 Months

HARBORTOUCH: February 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOME DEPOT: "Riveron" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
HSBC BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Madoffs Fraud
HURONIA REGIONAL: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Passes
KCG HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Awaits Court Ruling

KCG HOLDINGS: NY Plaintiff Files Stipulation of Discontinuance
KCG HOLDINGS: Removed as Defendant in Amended Complaint
KENTUCKY: Jan. 27 Settlement Conference Set in Deaf Inmates' Suit
LGLC ENTERPRISES: "Meyo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LIGHT UP: Faces "Baldares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

LIN MEDIA: Continues to Face Sciabacucchi Class Action
MAJESTIC SEALS: "Fields" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Infuse
MELOHN PROPERTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Hanis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MMI VENTURES: "Sustaita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MOBILEREV LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid and Withheld Overtime
MOL GLOBAL: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over IPO
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Accused of Illegally Confiscating Firearms
NEW HORIZONS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
OFFICE CARE: "Amaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OVASCIENCE INC: Answer to Amended Complaint Due
PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Action by Thomas Welch

PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class action by Ralph Berliner
PENTHOUSE EXECUTIVE: Judge Approves $1.125MM Settlement
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports
POLAR CARGO: Jan. 30 Hearing to Approve C$425,000 Settlement
QR ENERGY: Tentative Deal Reached to Settle Merger Class Action

RAYONIER INC: "Brown" Suit Transferred From New York to Florida
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Securities Class Action Filed in New York
REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SAN FRANCISCO: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Kirola" Class Suit
SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims

SWEDBANK ROBUR: 2,000+ People to Join Closet Indexing Class Action
SWISHER HYGIENE: North Carolina Court Approves Settlement
SWISHER HYGIENE: Fresh Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario Suit
SWISHER HYGIENE: Stockholder Suit Filed in Ontario Superior Court
TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports

TEXTURA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Emerson" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
TRULAND GROUP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss WARN Class Action
TURTLE BEACH: Seeks Review of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
TURTLE BEACH: "Vasek" Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice

TWITTER INC: "Nunes" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
UBS AG: Accused of Participating in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme
UNIVERSAL ALLOY: Court Enters Judgment in "Gonzalez" Class Action
USA TRUCK: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Law Firms Mull Shareholder Litigation
WASHINGTON: Two Cities Sued Over Indigent Misdemeanor Treatment
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arace" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WELLS FARGO: Sued in New York by Investors in Two RMBS Trusts
WRIGHT NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over FEMA Program Scheme

ZOETIS INC: Nine Actions Over Roxarsone Dismissed
ZOETIS INC: Received 240 Claims in Europe and NZ Over PregSure

* Judges Grant Most Class Action Payouts
* Shareholder Class Suit Fears Deter Boards From Profit Guidance


                            *********


ABC HEALTH: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Reinhart, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. ABC Health Care, Inc., 1605 Holland Road,
Suite A1 Maumee, Ohio 43537, Case No. 3:14-cv-02703 (N.D. Ohio,
December 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

ABC Health Care, Inc. is a local, family owned, full service home
care agency located at 1605 Holland Road, Suite A1, Maumee, Ohio
43537.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy L. Zawacki, Esq.
      Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
      WIDMAN & FRANKLIN
      Ste. 1550, 405 Madison Avenue
      Toledo, OH 43604
      Telephone: (419) 243-9005
      Facsimile: (419) 243-9404
      E-mail: amy@wflawfirm.com
              kera@wflawfirm.com


AIR FRANCE: Deutsche Bahn Plans to Expand Air Cargo Cartel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Michaels, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the cargo unit of German state railway Deutsche Bahn AG is
claiming damages of potentially more than $3 billion from 13
airlines, including Air France-KLM SA, British Airways, Deutsche
Lufthansa AG and Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. , for colluding
to inflate airfreight fees, senior Deutsche Bahn executives said.

Deutsche Bahn planned on Dec. 1 to update and expand a lawsuit
filed in Germany last year, claiming more than $1.5 billion in
damages, the executives said in an interview.  The company also
for the first time put a figure of $370 million on damages it is
seeking in a parallel case filed in New York in August.

The 13 carriers, along with almost 20 others, have pleaded guilty
to conspiring on surcharges for fuel and security fees from about
2000 to 2006.  Antitrust regulators in the U.S., the European
Union, Australia, South Korea and other countries fined them more
than $3 billion between 2007 and 2013. All 13 airlines struck plea
deals, and nine airline executives in seven countries served jail
sentences, paid fines, or both.

Deutsche Bahn's German and U.S. lawsuits are likely to be among
the final litigations stemming from the cartel.  The airlines have
already agreed to pay more than $1 billion in damage settlements
in class-action and private lawsuits filed on behalf of shippers.

"It's been established they wronged us," said Deutsche Bahn
management board member Gerd Becht in an interview.  "It's just a
question of coming to terms with us."

The airlines declined to comment on the litigation or settlements.

Mr. Becht said Deutsche Bahn had tried unsuccessfully to negotiate
settlements with the airlines.

Many of the carriers have set aside financial provisions and
acknowledged potential liability.  British Airways, now part of
International Consolidated Airlines Group SA, in 2007 provisioned
œ350 million ($547.7 million) for the litigation of the cargo
cartel.  Lufthansa said in its 2013 annual report that it and
other cargo airlines "were involved in a cargo cartel in the
period between December 1999 and February 2006" and the airline
was "at risk of civil claims for damages by customers" relating to
the cartel.

Deutsche Bahn in August filed a claim in U.S. Federal Court
against six airlines, but didn't previously state how much it
sought in damages.  The claim will be roughly $370 million if the
case advances next year, said Christopher Rother, Deutsche Bahn's
head of antitrust and competition law, in an interview.

The U.S. filing presented details of an industrywide effort to
make a significant portion of cargo airlines' costs not subject to
traditional discounting negotiations with customers.  The airlines
also coordinated efforts to lift surcharges for fuel and security
fees faster than the costs actually rose.

If Deutsche Bahn prevails in the case, under U.S. law it could be
awarded three times its claim, or roughly $1.1 billion. The claim
relates only to shipments to, from or within the U.S.

The German shipping company last December filed a separate
preliminary claim in a Cologne court against Lufthansa and Qantas
for unspecified damages related to shipments outside the U.S.

Deutsche Bahn planned on Dec. 1 to submit a more complete case,
adding at least eight airlines to last December's German suit and
claiming $1.5 billion in damages, said Mr. Rother.

Interest on the claim could add $690 million, based on Deutsche
Bahn calculations, a company spokesman said.

Deutsche Bahn's case in Germany could be strengthened by the
European Union Competition Commission's publication this October
of its 2010 ruling on the air-cargo cartel.  The EU's executive
body fined 15 airlines, now part of 11 airline companies, EUR799
million ($994.9 million) for "operating a world-wide cartel" from
late 1999 to early 2006, the commission said.

The publication of the commission's ruling, which was delayed by
appeals by airlines to protect commercially sensitive information,
makes the airlines' culpability a matter of official public record
and a reference for the German court.

Mr. Rother, Deutsche Bahn's attorney, said the cartel was
unusually international and disciplined.  "It was one of the very
few cartels I know of that really worked," he said.


AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Over Nevada Facility Wage Theft Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
T.L. Stanley, writing for Mashable, reports that Amazon, which
recently fell behind Alibaba to become the world's second-largest
e-commerce company, is in the throes of its annual temporary
seasonal worker program that includes a few thousand graying
retirees in its giant warehouse facilities around the U.S.

The employees live full-time in recreational vehicles, following
mostly low-paying, strenuous jobs around the country instead of
enjoying those golden years on the golf course.

Amazon reported earlier this fall that it planned to hire 80,000
temp workers for its fulfillment centers in Kentucky, Tennessee,
Nevada and Kansas, up from 70,000 last season.  The older
employees make up a fraction of the total, though Amazon won't
confirm the exact numbers.

There's a symbiotic relationship between the often just-scraping-
by retirees and companies like Amazon that employ them, said
Jessica Bruder, who's writing a book on the subject based on her
well-read Harper's magazine story from this summer.

"This is plug-and-play labor.  They show up, they're self-
contained, and then they leave.  It's frictionless," Ms. Bruder
said. "And this is the Greatest Generation. They have an amazing
work ethic, they're willing to grit their teeth and bear it, and
they're reliable."

Despite not having done physical labor in their professional lives
before, they don't complain about the abundance of lifting,
bending, squatting and walking on concrete slab floors for 10- to
12-hour shifts at Amazon's warehouses.

They're too busy being grateful for the work, Ms. Bruder said.

A class-action lawsuit accusing Amazon of wage theft at the Nevada
facility is now before the Supreme Court.  Justices recently heard
arguments over whether those workers must be paid for time spent
going through security screenings that can take as long as 25
minutes at the end of their shifts.

Criticism of the seasonal work can be expected when many of the
employees live a hand-to-mouth existence doing rote assembly line-
style jobs. Even Amazon calls its training, "work hardening,"
which Bruder thinks is "a bizarrely blunt way to describe what's
happening."

Temp employees have said the company is generous with free Advil,
for all the aches and pains, and sometimes doles out swag and
gratis meals.

Unless and until these jobs are automated, Ms. Bruder expects
Amazon to continue hiring seasonal temps, many in their 50s, 60s
and 70s.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 12% of those 70-plus
continue working today versus 6.7% in 1985, and the Center for
Retirement Research found that 49% of those 50-59 years old aren't
covered by a pension.

Fifty-three percent of households are at risk of not being able to
maintain their living standards in retirement, the center found,
and the risk is greater when health care costs are factored in.

Older Americans expect less financial security than their parents
had, according to the AARP, and 80% of Baby Boomers expect to work
in retirement, citing "need the money" as their primary reason.

The market conditions created "a bit of a perfect storm," said
David Allen Larson, professor of labor and employment law at
Minnesota's Hamline University.  "Companies reduced costs during
the recession, which meant getting rid of the higher salaried
people, most of them older Companies reduced costs during the
recession, which meant getting rid of the higher salaried people,
most of them older," he said.  "It's statistically harder to get
re-employed at that age."

Older people who continue working list a number of hardships that
landed them in their current situation, among them declining home
values, exhausted savings and loss of health insurance, according
to AARP research.

Not to say that there aren't some comfortable retirees combining
seasonal jobs with sightseeing, but many of the migrant elderly
folks that Ms. Bruder encountered during her reporting "seemed one
injury or broken axle away from true homelessness," she wrote in
Harper's.

They have no union protection, and Larson likens them to immigrant
workers who may be willing to put up with less-than-idea
conditions, including injuries.

"They probably feel like they need to keep their mouths shut and
take what they can get," Mr. Larson said, "because if they leave
they'll be worse off."


APCO OIL: Faces Class Action in Oklahoma Over Pluspetrol Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit claims Apco Oil
and Gas Inc. breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value during a proposed sale to co-defendant
Pluspetrol Resources Corporation.

Also listed as defendants in the lawsuit, filed on behalf of
George P. Assad in United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma on Nov. 24, are Apco Oil and Gas board of
directors Richard Muncrief, Bryan Guderian, J. Kevin Vann, Keith
Bailey, Piero Ruffinengo and Robert LaFortune.

The suit states that the board of directors agreed to a merger
agreement on Oct. 2, in which Pluspetrol would acquire all
outstanding shares of Apco stock for $14.50 per share in cash, a
transaction valued at $427 million.  The process allegedly
deprived Apco public stockholders of participating in the
company's long-term prospects because the agreement substantially
favors Pluspetrol.

Apco also allegedly failed to adequately disclose details of the
proposed transaction during a proxy statement filing with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 31.

The law firms of Federman & Sherwood, Ridgrodsky & Long P.C. and
Ryan & Maniskas LLP are representing the plaintiffs.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
case number 14-cv-707.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Lynn Mullins, Voula Markos and Susan Schoenberg, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance,
LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and Encore Capital
Group, Inc., a foreign corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-03073-SCB-AEP
(M.D. Fla., December 10, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BCI COCA-COLA: Removes "Rodriguez" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Rodriguez v. BCI Coca-Cola
Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Case No. BC555485, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-09479 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to collect unpaid wages.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lena Kae Sims, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: lsims@littler.com


BEYOND TOMORROW: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juanita Fuller, Ariana Waldo, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Denise Burke, in her individual and
professional Capacities and Beyond Tomorrow Daycare Incorporated,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07184 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a child day care center located at
98-30 57th Avenue, 6D, Corona, New York 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Brian Kaviar, Esq.
      712 Third Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11232
      Telephone: (718) 965-6146
      Facsimile: (718) 768-5077
      E-mail: ericbkaviar@aol.com


BFC MANAGEMENT: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Does 1-19 v. Masoud Hanna Sesi, Case No. 2:14-cv-14698 (E.D.
Mich., December 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Masoud Hanna Sesi owns and operates BFC Management Company, an
adult entertainment bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah L. Gordon, Esq.
      Sarah S. Prescott, Esq.
      Nicholas M. Saleh, Esq.
      DEBORAH GORDON LAW
      33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 258-2500
      E-mail: dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
              sprescott@deborahgordonlaw.com
              nsaleh@deborahgordonlaw.com


BLOOMBERG LP: Ex-Payroll Analyst Seeks to Collect Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Hill v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-09809 (S.D.N.Y.,
December 11, 2014) is a civil rights action for declaratory
relief, equitable relief, and monetary relief including back pay,
front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and
other relief to redress discrimination in the terms and conditions
of employment, based on the Plaintiff's age, race and gender.

Mr. Hill is a male black employee of Bloomberg from November 1998
until he was terminated on June 4, 2013.  He has worked as a
Payroll Analyst and a Global Mobility Analysis in Bloomberg's
Human Resources Department.

Bloomberg L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in
New York City.  Bloomberg describes itself as business "quickly
and accurately delivering data, news and analytics through
innovative technology."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. Richardson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH W. RICHARDSON
          305 Broadway, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 962-4277
          Facsimile: (212) 619-1358


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Removes "Wenger" Suit to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Wenger, et al. v. Bob's Discount
Furniture, LLC, Case No. MID-L-6629-14, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-07707-FLW-LHG
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged contract dispute.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Oorbeck, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean C. Sheely, Esq.
          Duvol M. Thompson, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 513-3200
          Facsimile: (212) 385-9010
          E-mail: sean.sheely@hklaw.com
                  duvol.thompson@hklaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Jenkins Claims Severed From Webb's Claims vs. CDCR
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng issued an order in DONNELL WEBB,
Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILTATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01528-MJS (PC), (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Donnell Webb is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a
civil rights action filed on September 29, 2014 pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. The Complaint, which was dismissed for
failure to state a claim, purported to proceed on behalf of class-
action plaintiffs including Marvin Jenkins.  On October 31, 2014,
Marvin Jenkins filed in this action a letter of joinder asserting
his claims.

On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
raising only his individual claims. Plaintiff's first amended
complaint has not yet been screened, and will be addressed in a
separate order.

The Court, in its order dismissing the Complaint, determined that
the allegations did not provide a basis for a class action, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,
664-65 (9th Cir. 2008), and that this action would proceed as an
individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff Donnell Webb in his
sole behalf.

Accordingly, Judge Seng held that Mr. Webb will proceed as the
sole plaintiff in case number 1:14-cv-01528-MJS-PC.  The claims of
Marvin Jenkins are severed from the claims of Mr. Webb.

The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to:

a. Open a separate Section 1983 civil rights action for Marvin
Jenkins, AS-9654, North Kern State Prison, Bldg. #C-1-B, Bunk 150
L, P.O. Box 5004, Delano, CA 93216;

b. Assign the new action to the Magistrate Judge to whom the
instant case is assigned and make appropriate adjustment in the
assignment of civil cases to compensate for such assignment;

c. File and docket a copy of this Order in the new action opened
for Marvin Jenkins;

d. Place a copy of the letter regarding joinder, which was filed
in the instant action, in the new action opened for Marvin
Jenkins;

e. Send Marvin Jenkins an endorsed copy of the letter regarding
joinder, bearing the case number assigned to his own individual
action;

f. Send Marvin Jenkins a Section 1983 civil rights complaint form;
and

g. Send Marvin Jenkins an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.

Within 30 days from the date of service of this Order, Marvin
Jenkins must file an original complaint bearing his own case
number and signed under penalty of perjury.

Within 45 days from the date of service of this Order, Marvin
Jenkins must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
or payment of the $400.00 filing fee, in his own case.

The failure to comply with this Order will result in a
recommendation that the action of Marvin Jenkins be dismissed.

A copy of the Court's November 16, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ud8hsNfrom Leagle.com.

Marvin Jenkins, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CALIFORNIA: Medina Claims Severed from Webb's Claims vs. CDCR
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng issued an order in DONNELL WEBB,
Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILTATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01528-MJS (PC), (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Donnell Webb is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on September
29, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Complaint, which
was dismissed for failure to state a claim, purports to proceed on
behalf of class-action plaintiffs including Pablo Medina.

On October 24, 2014, Pablo Medina filed in this action a letter of
joinder asserting his claims. On November 3, 2014, Mr. Medina
filed a letter requesting the status of his joinder.

The Court, in its order dismissing the Complaint, determined that
the allegations did not provide a basis for a class action, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,
664-65 (9th Cir. 2008), and that this action would proceed as an
individual civil suit brought by Plaintiff Donnell Webb in his
sole behalf.

Accordingly, Judge Seng held that Mr. Webb will proceed as the
sole plaintiff in case number 1:14-cv-01528-MJS-PC.  The claims of
Pablo Medina are severed from the claims of Plaintiff Webb.

The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to:

a. Open a separate Section 1983 civil rights action for Pablo
Medina, AT4819, North Kern State Prison, Bldg. # C-1-B, Bunk 163,
P.O. Box 5004 Delano, CA 93216;

b. Assign the new action to the Magistrate Judge to whom the
instant case is assigned and make appropriate adjustment in the
assignment of civil cases to compensate for such assignment;

c. File and docket a copy of this Order in the new action opened
for Pablo Medina;

d. Place a copy of the letters regarding joinder, which were filed
in the instant action, in the new action opened for Pablo Medina;

e. Send Pablo Medina an endorsed copy of the letters regarding
joinder, bearing the case number assigned to his own individual
action;

f. Send Pablo Medina a Section 1983 civil rights complaint form;
and

g. Send Pablo Medina an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Within 30 days from the date of service of this Order, Pablo
Medina must file an original complaint bearing his own case number
and signed under penalty of perjury.

Within 45 days from the date of service of this Order, Pablo
Medina must submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or
payment of the $400.00 filing fee, in his own case.

Plaintiff's request for status is addressed by the foregoing.

The failure to comply with this Order will result in a
recommendation that the action of Pablo Medina be dismissed.

A copy of the Court's November 14, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/1bwEIW from Leagle.com.

Donnell Webb, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CBE GROUP: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Wegh, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. The CBE Geoup, Inc. f/k/a Nelson, Watson &
Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-07188 (E.D.N.Y., December 10,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CC-PALO ALTO: Judge Dismisses Vi Residents' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sue Dremann, writing for Palo Alto Weekly, reports that residents
of the Palo Alto senior community Vi saw their class-action
lawsuit against its company dismissed by a federal judge on
Tuesday, Nov. 25.

Six residents of the posh senior-living center filed a class-
action lawsuit against the company, CC-Palo Alto, on Feb. 19,
after discovering that more than $190 million in refundable
entrance fees were transferred to its corporate parent, CC-
Development, in Chicago.  The lawsuit claimed the transfer
jeopardized the financial security of the residents.

The complaint also alleged that CC-Palo Alto overcharged the
residents by improperly allocating tax assets, earthquake
insurance and marketing costs to Vi as operating expenses and
representing the charges as inflated monthly fees.

The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of 500 residents, is
believed to be the first of its kind in the Bay Area challenging a
continuing-care retirement community's financial practices.

But Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed the entire case. The
plaintiffs could not show injury, which is necessary to have
"standing," the court ruled.

On Sept. 9, CC-Palo Alto's attorneys asked the court to dismiss
the class-action suit on grounds that the case was "not ripe" for
judicial hearing.  The seniors have not been harmed by the
transfer of millions of dollars in entrance fees to the Chicago
headquarters, attorney James McManis told the court. The contract
residents signed also does not actually specify that the money
should be retained at the Palo Alto community or how it should be
used, he added.

To live at Vi, residents enter into a Continuing Care Residency
contract, which entails an entrance fee ranging from $745,500 to
$4,620,800, and monthly fees ranging from $4,320 to $9,320,
depending on the type of apartment.

The entrance fees are "loans" to CC-Palo Alto, with a portion
repaid to occupants' heirs or estate upon death or if occupants
chose to leave upon sale of their apartment.

The first occupants of the 388-unit independent-living facility
are supposed to receive as much as 90 percent, with subsequent
occupants receiving a lesser amount on a sliding scale, according
to court documents.

Since Vi opened in 2005, CC-Palo Alto has collected more than $450
million in entrance fees.  Entrance-fee refunds come from
subsequent occupants' fees, according to the documents.

The seniors alleged that CC-Palo Alto transferred more than $190
million of entrance fees to the Chicago parent without their
knowledge and without obtaining security or any repayment promise.
Consequently, CC-Palo Alto does not have enough money to refund
the entrance fees when they become due.

Continuing-care communities are required by California law to
maintain reserves as security for the entrance fees. But CC-Palo
Alto now allegedly has a deficit of more than $300 million,
according to the attorneys.

Sending the money to Chicago created a concrete detriment to the
seniors' security interest in the entrance fees.  A security
interest is an interest in personal property or fixtures that
secures payment or performance of an obligation, according to
state law.

California case law has recognized that lenders, such as the
seniors, have a security interest in the property subject to the
loan (the entrance fees) and that impairment of that security
interest is a harm, the seniors' attorneys said.

CC-Palo Alto lawyers, however, claimed the entrance fees are
"unsecured loans," though the contract and promissory notes simply
state they are "loans."  CC-Palo Alto has always been able to
return the money to residents or their families, so no harm has
yet occurred, company attorneys said.

In his ruling, Judge Davila found that the residents' argument
that the contract's omission of the word "unsecured" indicates the
loan is secured and creates a security interest was unpersuasive.
The plaintiffs did not argue that collateral was provided in
exchange for the loan or that other documents taken together with
the contract established a security interest.

The residents also failed to argue whether the residency contract
was a type covered under state law requiring reserves -- a so-
called "refundable" contract -- but rather they only argued that
the state law was violated, Judge Davila said.

"Even assuming that Plaintiff's entrance fee constitutes a
security interest, in order to have standing, Plaintiff's security
interest must have been harmed," Judge Davila wrote.

The court would assume in this case that the plaintiffs have a
legally protected security interest established by the entrance
fee, he said, but there is no indication that any plaintiff has
terminated their residency contract and been denied repayment, so
there was no actual injury.

The state's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that in some
cases imminent harm or the threat of imminent harm could be
considered an injury.  But Judge Davila did not find that to be
the case at Vi.

"There is no indication that any Plaintiff has yet to resell their
apartment or is in such critical health that termination is
imminent.  Accordingly, there is no indication that Defendants
will further deprive Plaintiffs of a repayment," he wrote.

Vi residents also claimed the company artificially inflated their
monthly fees dues through three improper charges.  The Santa Clara
County Tax Assessor increased assessment of CC-Palo Alto's
property taxes based on its "entrepreneurial profit," after the
company transferred $174 million to Chicago during its first three
years of operations.  The company has stated it will pass on $12
million in back taxes to residents through higher monthly fees.
Prior to the assessment, the company returned operating surplus to
the residents, but since then, there have been no surplus
payments, attorneys said.

CC-Palo Alto also passed on earthquake insurance premiums to
residents, even though residents should not incur insurance
charges for anything other than furniture, fixtures or equipment
under terms of the residency contract, their attorneys said.

The company also allegedly charged residents for marketing costs,
ostensibly to promote Vi, but instead the money funded the parent
company's national marketing campaign, according to the complaint.

The company's attorneys argued that residents "only speculate"
they will be harmed by the increased taxes, not that they have
already been harmed.  The residency contract provides that real
estate taxes are an operating expense of the community to be paid
from monthly fees.  The court agreed.  Judge Davila said the
contact's language was clear and unambiguous.

The court found there is no harm resulting from the suspension of
credits because any credit disbursals are at the company's
discretion.  Insurance-policy payments are also clearly defined as
part of the operating costs under the contract, the Davila noted.

The contract states that an operating cost paid from monthly fees
includes "any marketing costs" and is not specific to spending the
money only on marketing Vi, the judge added.

Judge Davila did leave room for the residents to file an amended
complaint within 15 days.  Neither side could be immediately
reached for comment.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: "Queen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin P. Queen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cogent Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01668
(E.D. Va., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cogent Communications, Inc. is an Internet and network service
provider offering Internet access, data transport, and colocation
services through their Internet data centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
      836 Bonifant St.
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


COLUMBIA: Maintenance Workers File Grievance Over External Hire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yasemin Akcaguner, writing for Daily Columbia Spectator, reports
that three Columbia University maintenance workers are raising
concerns about a recent decision by Facilities management to fill
an open engineering position with an external candidate.

In a written grievance that Transport Workers Union Local 241
submitted to Labor Relations Manager Hazel Theresa Todman on
Nov. 6, three complainants alleged that Columbia violated its
collective bargaining agreement -- which states that union members
should be considered before the University looks outside to fill
the position -- by hiring an external candidate to fill an open
assistant watch engineer position.  The grievance demands that
Columbia give the position to a Local 241 member through a new
selection process.

"They just interviewed from the outside first, then interviewed
us," Louis Rodriguez, a licensed refrigeration engineer and one of
the complainants, said.  "But they weren't planning to pick
us. . . . They were just going to the outside, but they needed to
go through the process."

Mr. Rodriguez and the two other complainants, Chris Hannigan and
Kamran Sagheer, also refrigeration engineers, said they were all
eligible candidates for the new position.

According to Mr. Hannigan, Facilities management informed the
grievants that the external candidate was most qualified to fill
the position.

The external candidate chosen by facilities had a high-pressure
steam license, which the job posting listed as "preferred,"
according to Mr. Hannigan and Pete Morrissey, a licensed
refrigeration engineer at Columbia who did not apply for this
particular position.  The other three candidates did not have this
license.

After Facilities hired the external candidate, Local 241 filed a
class action grievance last month.

Messrs. Rodriguez, Hannigan, and Sagheer's first grievance, filed
on Oct. 24 to Physical Plant Director Michael Cabanlit, was
denied.  The three received word that their Nov. 6 grievance was
denied as well, and are now moving to the third step -- presenting
the written grievance to Columbia's vice president for personnel
management.

Local 241 declined to comment.  Sebastian Dipalma, the union's
recording secretary, said in an email that addressing the matter
would be "a violation of the Union's oath of office as well as a
violation of our International Constitution to divulge and/or make
known any private proceedings of this Union."

Columbia Facilities also declined to comment.

"While we are not able to comment on the details raised in a
specific grievance, the dispute resolution process, as agreed to
by the parties (Columbia University and TWU Local 241), is being
followed," a Facilities spokesperson said in an email.

Rodriguez, however, said he is not optimistic about receiving a
response to the Nov. 6 grievance from Mr. Todman.  Mr. Rodriguez
said he expects that he, Mr. Hannigan, and Mr. Sagheer will
ultimately take the third step in the process -- presenting the
written grievance to Columbia's vice president for personnel
management.

Both Messrs. Hannigan and Morrissey were skeptical of the
facilities management's claim that its aim was to hire the most
qualified person for the job.  Mr. Morrissey said that the six-
week training period and four-month probationary period customary
for the position would have ensured that inside hires would be
prepared for their new job.

"You have four months to see if this person can do the job. If he
can't, he goes back to his old job title with no loss of seniority
and then you go try to find somebody else," Mr. Morrissey said.
"So what is the harm of giving somebody an opportunity?"

Mr. Hannigan said he had passed the written and practical tests
for the high-pressure steam license after paying out of pocket to
take a Consolidated Education class, but said that he ultimately
didn't have the hands-on boiler experience needed to receive it.

"They [Facilities] weren't educating us, they weren't giving us
the opportunity," Mr. Hannigan said.  "We educated ourselves, we
took the initiative and they're still giving us grief on this."

Both Messrs. Hannigan and Morrissey are concerned about the long-
term implications of the outside hire, worrying that it sets a
precedent for further hires outside of union personnel.

"When you've got a policy of 'We're not going to promote from
within,' you're telling people, 'Why should you even bother having
pride in your work if you're not going to be rewarded for it?'"
Mr. Morrissey said.

"Now you're going to keep doing it and then those jobs that
Columbia is so proud to create for the community don't exist
anymore," Mr. Hannigan said.


CONNECTICUT: Settles Autism Treatment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Noel K. Gallagher, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that
for Cathy Dion, the recent class-action lawsuit settlement with
state health officials means her autistic son, Ben, will finally
come off a waiting list for day treatment.

"He's been on it since September 2012," said Ms. Dion.  Ben, now
20 years old, had received services through the public school
system until June, but since then the Dions have been paying out
of pocket for care.

"In the last six months we've spent the equivalent of about two
years' college tuition," said Ms. Dion, the director of programs
and administration at the Autism Society of Maine.

The Dions are among the hundreds of Maine families who will
directly benefit from the settlement -- completed on Dec. 1 in
Kennebec County Superior Court -- which requires the state to
provide MaineCare home-based services vouchers and day treatment
or job support funding to about 1,000 people with autism and
significant developmental disabilities.

Although MaineCare juvenile services are available until a person
is 20 years old, families can sign up for the adult services as
soon as their child turns 18, Dion said.

Knowing there was a backlog, she signed Ben up at 18, but they
still fell into the gap after he graduated at 20 because of the
waiting list.  Not only did they have to pay out of pocket for
care, but for the first two months they could only find services
for three days a week.  That meant Ben, who is nonverbal and needs
close attention, went to work with Dion for two days each week.

"I did what any parent would do," she said, noting that she was
lucky she works at a place that would allow a worker to bring in a
disabled child.

Families say the settlement, though limited, is critical for
families who worry about what happens when they get to what's
called the services "cliff" -- when a young person in need "ages
out" of the public school system at age 20.  At the other end of
the spectrum are aging parents who took care of their disabled
children at home for decades, but are getting too old to do it
themselves, or need a plan in place for when they themselves die.

The range of services offered under the two programs in question
-- known as a "comprehensive waiver" and a "support waiver" -- is
broad.

The home-based services benefit, or Section 21, is intended to
help people stay out of institutionalized housing and remain in
their family homes.  It can include paying for ramps in a home, or
speech therapy, or transportation and work support.  The day
habilitation benefit, or Section 29, is to support people during
the day, mostly with independent living and help with employment.
It can include payments for communication devices, job training,
counseling, physical therapy or a wheelchair lift on a van.

The settlement covers all people already on waiting lists or who
sign up by June 30, 2015, said Gerald Petruccelli, the Portland
attorney for the plaintiffs.

"I think (the settlement) is very exciting news for folks who have
been waiting a long time," said Cullen Ryan of Buxton, who has an
autistic son and is executive director of Community Housing of
Maine, which provides housing for people with special needs.

As of late November, there were about 1,200 people on Maine
Department of Health and Human Services waiting lists for Section
21 and Section 29 vouchers, and about 50 people have pending
offers from the state.

When the lawsuit was filed in early 2013, many people had been on
waiting lists for years, some since 2008.  The DHHS said in
response to the lawsuit that there was not enough money in the
budget to cover those services, so they ended up being deferred.

The state's share of the cost of providing services to the people
affected by the settlement is expected to be about $7 million a
year.

MaineCare is the state's name for Medicaid, which provides medical
services for low-income residents. Funding for the program is a
blend of federal and state dollars.

Suellen Doggett, 67, of Waterboro said her 37-year-old son,
Michael, has been on the home-based services waiting list for
about five years. She and her husband have cared for him at home,
and hope to continue, but they are getting older and are looking
for assurances that there is a safety net in place for their son.
He has gone to state-funded day habilitation services since he was
21, but the hours have been cut to half-days in recent years.

Michael Doggett has a developmental disability caused by Williams
disease, a genetic condition.  He is very social and has done work
but needs assistance, and operates at around the 12-year-old
level, his mother said.  He has worked through vocational
rehabilitation programs and enjoyed that, but his work hours were
cut.  He now does unpaid volunteer work.

"All these cuts.  It's very discouraging," said Suellen Doggett.

When asked what she would do when the state offered a voucher, she
said she was unsure.

"I'm going to have to see what they say," Ms. Doggett said.  "I'm
not just going to turn my son over to the state after all these
years."

Similarly, the Dions know their son would qualify for home-based
services, but they are hoping to have him live at their home for
as long as possible.

"We like having him here, but as he gets older I know he's going
to want something more.  I'm just not ready for that yet,"
Ms. Dion said.  "As families, we try to take care of everything
within our own family.  But with autism, you have to reach out to
extended family, and you just need support and that's what I want
to make sure is always there."

Many families she works with through the Autism Society have
already been caring for their children for decades and realize
they will need additional help at some point.  They don't want
assistance before they need it, but they can't wait until there is
a crisis, only to find out there's a years-long waiting list.

"These are things families should think about now," Ms. Dion said.
"They need to know that when they need that state service in the
future that it will be there."

A DHHS spokesman said in a statement that the department had been
continually working to reduce the waiting list.

"Governor LePage has allocated millions of dollars in additional
financial support over the last three years to move more than 800
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities off of
wait lists," David Sorensen said in an email.  "His efforts and
those of the department to improve the services and supports for
these vulnerable Mainers well preceded this lawsuit and will
remain a significant focus."

Ms. Dion said that even if the state waiting list is cleared,
she's worried about finding a service provider nearby,
particularly if the state approves hundreds of vouchers in a short
period.

"It could bog down the system," she said, noting that she has
already been researching service options near their home in
Greene.  "I don't want to ship my son to some program in Portland.
That's not his community.

"So we're still stuck," she said. "It's very difficult."


CORIGIN HOLDINGS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Vitale, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Corigin Holdings, LLC, Family First Operations, LLC,
Ryan Freedman, Angelina Freedman, and Galina Anissimova, Case No.
1:14-cv-09713 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a home health care facility located
at 219 East 67th Street, FL 5, New York, New York 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan Edward Richards, Esq.
      Marshall Benjamin Bellovin, Esq.
      Vano I. Haroutunian, Esq.
      BALLON, STOLL, BADER AND NADLER
      729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 575-7900
      Facsimile: (212) 764-5060
      E-mail: evanrichardsesq@gmail.com
              mbellovin@ballonstoll.com
              vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com


CVI.CHE 105: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Prieto, and other similarly situated individuals v. CVI.CHE
105, Inc., Hoyos & Associates Investments, LLC, Juan Chipoco, and
Luis Hoyos, Case No. 1:14-cv-24685 (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and dages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant on Miami Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com


DAIMLER AG: "Barinova" Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, removed the class action lawsuit
titled Barinova v. Daimler AG, et al., Case No. BER-L-09841-14,
from the Superior Court of Bergen County to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-07684-SRC-CLW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry R. Eichen, Esq.
          EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & MCELROY, LLP
          40 Ethel Road
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Telephone: (732) 777-0100
          E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is represented by:

          Austin A. Evans, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4665
          E-mail: aevans@kslaw.com

The other Defendants are represented by:

          George C. Jones, Esq.
          James J. O'Hara, Esq.
          GRAHAM CURTIN, PA
          4 Headquarters Plaza
          PO BOX 1991
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: (973) 292-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 292-1767
          E-mail: gjones@GrahamCurtin.com
                  johara@grahamcurtin.com


DANVILLE, IL: Corrections Dept Wins Favorable Ruling in Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District affirmed a trial
court ruling entered in WILLIAM EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
S.A. GODINEZ, KEITH ANGLIN, and LAMAR COLEMAN, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 4-13-0686. 2014 IL App (4th) 130686.

In December 2012, William Evans, then an inmate at the Danville
Correctional Center, pro se filed a second amended complaint under
section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Civil Rights Act)
(42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (1996)) and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (Religious Land Use Act) (42
U.S.C. Sections 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2000)) against defendants,
S.A. Godinez (Director of the Department of Corrections) (DOC)
Keith Anglin (former Danville Correctional Center warden), and
Lamar Coleman (Danville Correctional Center chaplain). The
underlying issue concerned Evans' request for prison space and
time to conduct separate Nation of Islam study groups and prayer
sessions on a weekly basis. Evans' suit alleged that by denying
his request, defendants, acting under the color of state law,
violated his (1) first-amendment rights to the free exercise of
religion and to peaceably assemble and (2) fourteenth-amendment
rights to equal protection and due process. Evans sought
injunctive relief as well as monetary and punitive damages.

In March 2013, defendants filed a second motion for summary
judgment under section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Civil Procedure Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2012)), arguing
that (1) an inmate's constitutional rights may be limited due to
legitimate prison interests and (2) the doctrines of sovereign and
qualified immunity shielded them from liability. Following an
April 2013 hearing, the trial court later entered an order
granting summary judgment in defendants' favor.

Evans appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by granting
summary judgment in defendants' favor.

In its December 1, 2014 Opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/EJm2FBfrom Leagle.com, the Illinois Appellate Court
disagreed with Evans and affirmed the Trial Court ruling.

William Evans, of Chicago Heights, appellant pro se.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro,
Solicitor General, and Mary C. LaBrec, Assistant Attorney General,
of counsel), for appellees.


ELI LILLY: 7th Cir. Upholds Judgments Entered in "Welch" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed
judgments entered in CASSANDRA WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELI
LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, NOS. 13-3455 & 13-3457.

Over ten years ago, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company
fired Cassandra Welch, an African-American information
technologist, after she doctored old e-mails relating to an
internal investigation of her conduct. Welch insisted that racial
discrimination was the real reason for her discharge, and she has
been litigating that contention ever since. In 2006 she and three
other employees sued Eli Lilly on behalf of themselves and a
putative class, principally alleging that the company had
discriminated against African-American employees in awarding pay
increases and promotions. That lawsuit, brought under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e-2, relied on theories of both disparate
impact and disparate treatment.

On Eli Lilly's motion, the district court concluded that the
plaintiffs could not proceed on their disparate-impact theory,
which prompted them to abandon their attempt to certify a class.
The four plaintiffs then proceeded against Eli Lilly in separate
lawsuits claiming disparate treatment. Welch also filed a second
lawsuit claiming that the company had retaliated for her first
lawsuit by, among other actions, falsely maligning her when
prospective employers inquired about her qualifications. Both
lawsuits were resolved against Welch, and she filed separate
appeals, which were consolidated for briefing and decision.

According to the Seventh Circuit, Welch says nothing in her
appellate brief about the retaliation suit, so the Court summarily
affirms the judgment in that action. Neither does Welch say
anything in her brief about the disparate-treatment theory on
which her first lawsuit proceeded. Rather, on appeal she contends
only that the district court erred in preventing her from pursuing
the disparate-impact theory presented in the class-action
complaint. The Seventh Circuit rejects that contention.

Accordingly, in both appeals, the judgments are affirmed, ruled
the Seventh Circuit.

A copy of the Court's December 1, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/aI8QCj from Leagle.com.


EMPIRE STATE: Provides Updates on Original Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., 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, provided
updates on the so-called Original Class Actions.

The Company said, "In March 2012, five putative class actions, or
the "Original Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme
Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing
entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled
entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7,
2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The
plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor's management
companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona
M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that
the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was
structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair
to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation
provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our
subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a
fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints
sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the
consolidation."

"The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme
Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying
premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions
among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the
consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would
cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60
East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates
L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs") immediately to incur substantial tax
liabilities.

"The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The
Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was
approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing
entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for
the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of
the named class representatives intends to support the
consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further
states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the
claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures,
appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be
consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors
in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they
have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation
on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff
class.

"The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.
The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and
maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or
freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed,
after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million
settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock
and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of
specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities
pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for
plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would
be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during
the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage
of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by
defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total
gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering,
defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further
approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to
make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation
with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which
are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not
be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The
payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made
by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin
Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's
affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in
the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and
certain investors, in the existing entities who agree to
contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.

"The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and
other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of
the members of the class against the defendants and related
persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors.
The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including
but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any
supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is
declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in
writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed,
so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to
review such supplement. There was no such supplement that
plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was
subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court
approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal.
Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.

"On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to
preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original
Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on
behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such
objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such
objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the
Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely
to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-
consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of
"fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability
Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion
that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.

"Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability
Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that
such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and
that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New
York Limited Liability Company Law.

"On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of
which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.
On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court
rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement
in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are
investors in all of the existing entities included in the
consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out
will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can
pursue separate claims for monetary damages. The settlement will
not become final until resolution of any appeal.

"Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on
attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0
million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced
to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are
included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

"The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice
of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before
the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the
settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On
May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was
denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in
opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the
appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013,
these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on
their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to
perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC
filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the
appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue
it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not
entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company
Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have
such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or
consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in
those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building
Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company,
the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin
Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of
the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that
settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated
bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin
Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to
pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class
action settlement.

"On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on
the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19,
2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to
dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion
to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the
appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to
the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court
heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order
dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court's ruling.

"In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one
additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the
Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the
trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices
of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013
granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action
settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the
order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order
to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the
consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the
motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf
of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the
order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show
cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out
of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment
and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17,
2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the
order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss
these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely
perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6,
2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are
perfected by March 17, 2014.

"On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout
provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the
alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the
New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on
April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22,
2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for
leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was
filed on July 11, 2014 and the court dismissed the motion by order
dated September 18, 2014. On October 20, 2014, the investors moved
to re-argue that dismissal.

"On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class
Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court's May 17,
2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original
Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. By stipulation of all counsel to the appeal dated
September 12, 2014, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No
other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the
appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order.


EMPIRE STATE: Plaintiffs in 2nd Class Actions Appeal Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
plaintiffs in the Second Class Actions filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal.

The Company said, "Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative
class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New
York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings
LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr.
on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates
L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly
enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our
operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions
were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was
appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our
operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages."

On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was
granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.

EMPIRE STATE: 12 Opt-Out Investors Seek Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, 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
or about October 14, 2014, the 12 investors (out of approximately
4,500 investors covered by the Original Class Action) who opted
out of the Original Class Action filed an arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association against Peter L. Malkin, Anthony
E. Malkin, Thomas N. Keltner, Jr., and Malkin Holdings LLC,
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and related claims in connection
with the consolidation. The statement of claim in that arbitration
seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief. The arbitration is
in its very early stages, and, as with the prior claims
challenging the consolidation and related matters, the defendants
believe these allegations are entirely without merit and they
intend to defend vigorously.


ESTES EXPRESS: Removes "Poleon" Suit to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Poleon v. Estes Express Lines, et
al., Case No. 2014-CA11566-O, was removed from the Orange County
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Orlando).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:14-cv-02034-PGB-TBS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cathy J. Beveridge, Esq.
          Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, PC/Fowler White Boggs
          501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 228-7411
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8313
          E-mail: cbeveridge@fowlerwhite.com


FANDUEL INC: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan
Turco LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on November 20,
2014, a class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
FanDuel, Inc. alleging false advertising.  The claim concerns
FanDuel's advertised "free" "dollar for dollar" fantasy sports
bonus promotion.  The advertised bonus promises that FanDuel will
match up to $200 "dollar for dollar" for any deposit left by a
consumer.  However, according to the complaint, FanDuel's
advertising is deceptively inaccurate.

Allegations of False Advertising by FanDuel

To set up a FanDuel account, consumers are required to deposit
money which can be used for entry fees into FanDuel's various
daily fantasy sports games.  According to the complaint, FanDuel
advertises (via radio, television and the Internet) that it will
"double your deposit" and "match up to 200 bucks, dollar for
dollar."  However, the named plaintiff alleges that consumers can
only realize the $200 in matching funds by investing "over 2500%
[of] the initial deposit."

According to the complaint, the plaintiff opened his FanDuel
account with a $25 deposit.  When the plaintiff spent the entirety
of the deposit, FanDuel only released $1.00 of the allegedly
advertised bonus.  The complaint alleges that for the plaintiff to
receive FanDuel's advertised "dollar for dollar" fantasy sports
match bonus, he would have had to spend a total of $625.00.

Florida False Advertising Law and the Fantasy Sports Bonus
Promotion

The class action complaint filed against FanDuel alleges
violations of Florida statutory and common law.  Specifically, the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA")
prohibits any person or business from advertising free goods or
services that actually require payment to receive the subject
goods or services.  According to the complaint, FanDuel's services
are "free" under the FDUTPA because FanDuel "offer[s] to match
initial deposits, 'dollar for dollar.'"  The plaintiff alleges
that FanDuel's advertisement violates the FDUTPA and that its
associated matching practices also constitute a breach of
contract.  The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll
Florida Citizens who purchased FanDuel, using a Promotion Code."

Next Steps

It is likely that FanDuel will move to dismiss the complaint by
arguing that its services are not "free" under the FDUTPA.  Should
FanDuel be unable to dismiss the complaint, it will be subject to
discovery, class-action certification, and ultimately a trial on
the merits.  In addition, although not raised in the complaint,
FanDuel's alleged deceptive advertising may run afoul of the
federal Truth in Advertising Act.


FLUVANNA, VA: Correction Center Settles Female Inmates' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Kass, writing for The Daily Progress, reports that less than
a week before trial was set to begin, the Fluvanna Correction
Center for Women settled a lawsuit that claimed it doesn't provide
adequate medical care for inmates.

The inmates alleged that their Eighth Amendment right protecting
them against cruel and unusual punishment was violated, according
to court documents.

Five inmates filed the lawsuit in July 2012, detailing being
regularly given the wrong doses of medication; having to stand in
a "pill line" for more than an hour in rain, snow and excessive
heat and cold at 3 to 4 a.m. to get medication; and not having
requests for medical attention taken seriously, among other
complaints, according to court documents.

Attorneys submitted the notice of settlement on Nov. 25 to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.  The
two-week bench trial was scheduled to begin on Dec. 1.

"The Department of Corrections, as with most defendants, does not
concede that they were at fault," said Mary Bauer, executive
director of the Legal Aid Justice Center, who is representing the
inmates.  "However, you can read into the settlement that
significant changes need to be made."

Among those the lawsuit was filed against were Harold W. Clarke,
director of the state Department of Corrections; A. David
Robinson, chief of corrections operations at the department;
Frederick Schilling, director of health services at the
department; Phyllis A. Baskerville, the prison's warden; and Armor
Correctional Health Services, a for-profit company contracted to
provide all medical, dental and mental health services at the
prison.

On Nov. 20, U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon certified the case
as a class-action lawsuit, listing all 1,200 inmates who currently
reside in the prison and all women who may reside there in the
future, who have or will seek medical care, as plaintiffs.
The prison holds 40 percent of the state's female inmates,
according to the lawsuit.

"The case concerns allegations of a common course of conduct by
Defendants reflecting deliberate indifference to the prisoners'
serious medical needs," Judge Moon wrote in a memorandum opinion.
"As a result, the principal factual and legal questions are common
to the entire class, and the injuries that the named Plaintiffs
claim to have suffered are typical of those suffered by the other
women in the class."

Then on Nov. 25 -- before the settlement was announced -- Judge
Moon granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment -
- where the judge decides part of the case without a trial --
finding the prison had the constitutional duty to provide adequate
medical care to inmates and that the inmates' complaints are
"serious medical conditions" where the prison showed "deliberate
indifference."

Judge Moon then denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

"The examples of alleged sub-standard care set forth in
Plaintiffs' pleadings -- which are now supported by sworn
declarations, deposition testimony and other competent record
evidence -- are offered as corroboration for Plaintiffs' assertion
that the VDOC has engaged in an ongoing and practice of wrongful,
unconstitutional acts and omissions reflecting deliberate
indifference to the serious medical needs of the prisoners
residing at FCCW," he wrote in the nearly 50-page opinion.

Assistant Attorney General J. Michael Parsons, who is representing
the prison, did not respond to requests for comment on Nov. 28.
Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of
Corrections, said the department doesn't comment on pending
litigation.

The prison will now have to bring in a court-appointed monitor,
possibly for several years, to report to both parties how better
medical care is being implemented and inform the court if there
are problems, Ms. Bauer said.

The attorneys representing the inmates and the prison have signed
an agreement to each choose an expert who will meet, go over the
prison's practices and determine what, if any, changes need to be
made, Ms. Bauer said.

The Legal Aid Justice Center appointed Bob B. Greifinger as its
expert.  Mr. Greifinger is an adjunct professor of health and
criminal justice and distinguished research fellow at John Jay
College of Criminal Justice in New York City who has published
extensively on correctional health care.

The Office of the Attorney General couldn't be reached to see if
it has chosen anyone yet.  Ms. Bauer said she didn't know who
their choice will be.

The framework of the settlement is in place, Ms. Bauer said, but
they still have to file a full settlement with the court and have
a fairness hearing.  Because it's a class-action lawsuit, the
terms of the settlement will be public, she said.

The women did not request any money in the lawsuit.

"It was never about money for any of the women involved,"
Ms. Bauer said.  "They were all concerned about their health and
the health of all the women who are there now and will be there in
the future."

Ms. Bauer said they were ready for trial, but she's happy action
will be taken soon.

"The problem with any trial or court process is it takes a long
time," she said.  "We were happy about settlement because it means
reforms we were pushing for can go into effect a lot more quickly.
Among the complaints in the lawsuit was a woman who after having
difficulty breathing and losing more than 40 pounds, was told she
had early stages of menopause by Armor's doctor.  Almost a year
after her initial complaints, she was brought to a hospital, where
oncologists determined she had sarcoidosis -- a collection of
nodules within the chest that can cause respiratory failure and
death -- according to the lawsuit.

The same woman then experienced swelling in her legs.  The
prison's medical director told her and Armor's doctor that the
swelling was from arthritis or birth control pills.  It was later
revealed to be a blood clot. After both incidents, she was not
given the prescribed amount of medication by prison medical staff.

Ms. Bauer said the five women who filed the lawsuit played a part
in the decision to forego the trial and settle the case.

"They are deeply concerned about their health care and the other
women there, so for them it was really important to get change as
comprehensively and as quickly as possible," she said.


FRESNO BEE: Trial Scheduled for Newspaper Carriers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fresno Bee reports that a trial was expected to begin on
Dec. 1 in a class-action lawsuit by newspaper carriers against The
Fresno Bee alleging that they were wrongfully classified as
independent contractors rather than Bee employees.  The suit,
originally filed in 2008, is the latest in a string of lawsuits
brought by a Santa Ana law firm, Callahan & Blaine, on behalf of
carriers against newspapers throughout California, including The
Bee's sister publication, The Sacramento Bee.

While the complaint lists six carriers as plaintiffs in the case,
their attorney Kathleen Dunham said that approximately 3,800
carriers are counted in the class represented in the lawsuit.  The
case covers carriers who delivered The Fresno Bee under contracts
from December 2004 through mid-2009, Dunham said.

There will be two distinct phases of the case: Fresno County
Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver-Kapetan is being asked to first
determine whether the contracts carriers signed with The Bee to
deliver the newspaper and other publications to homes and
businesses on their routes are legally sufficient for them to be
considered independent contractors instead of employees.  If she
rules in favor of the carriers and finds that they should be
considered employees -- and thus entitled to benefits including
automobile mileage reimbursements -- a second trial phase would
determine the amount of mileage and expenses not included by the
contracts.

"The major issue is whether these carriers are employees or not,"
Dunham said.  "If they are contractors, then they would receive
none of the damages we claim they are entitled to.  That's the
principal hurdle we have to get over."

An amended version of the lawsuit filed in 2010 alleged state
Labor Code violations including failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from wages
and failure to pay for training, as well as unfair business
practices under the state's Business & Professions Code.  All of
those except the Business & Professions Code claims have since
been dismissed, according to court documents filed by Sacramento
attorney John Poulos, who represents The Bee.

Mr. Poulos said in court documents that the independent-contractor
agreements between the newspaper and the carriers "were drafted in
accordance with regulations specifically enacted . . . to govern
the working relationship between newspaper carriers and
newspapers." The Bee, he added, "relied upon these regulations not
only in contracting with the carriers but also in structuring its
practices and business dealings with them."

The contracts, Mr. Poulos wrote, provide "an absolute safe harbor
defense" against the carriers' legal claims.

The Bee contends in court documents that its agreements with
carriers represented a "contractual promise to allow the carriers
to determine the manner and means of completing the work they
contracted to perform: to provide a dry, undamaged paper to each
of their subscribers on time each day."

But attorneys for the carriers assert in their pretrial brief that
the "classification of the carriers as independent contractors was
simply a subterfuge" because of the level of "pervasive control"
and supervision that they say The Bee exercised over their work.

Under prior case law, the carriers' attorneys stated, "they are
employees, and should have received the protections provided by
California law."

Attorneys for The Bee, in their pretrial brief, counter that under
the independent contractor agreements, the carriers "had the legal
right to control the manner and means of their delivery business,
including deciding how best to deliver their own routes to
maximize profits," as well as to use helpers or substitutes
without The Bee's approval; and to deliver other products
including competing newspapers while delivering for The Bee.

"The Bee contracted with, and interacted with, each plaintiff in
strict accordance with California's Code of Regulations, which
specifically make lawful the Bee's conduct," Mr. Poulos wrote,
adding, that at all times, "The Bee relied upon the rules codified
in the California Code of Regulations in structuring its
relationship with its independent newspaper carriers."

The contracts obligated carriers to assemble and deliver
newspapers to readers by a certain time and in good condition, in
exchange for compensation for each paper delivered.  Bee attorneys
added that contrary to the allegations in the lawsuit, "the
contracts were negotiable and some carriers, in fact, negotiated
the piece rate, the bond provision, the complaint charge provision
and the delivery time."

Through negotiation of piece rates or route allowances between The
Bee and its contracted carriers, the company's attorneys wrote,
carriers had the opportunity to receive "significant consideration
for anticipated expenses, including the fuel costs anticipated to
be incurred for the many and different routes."  In court records,
The Bee's attorneys said the company provide route allowances
amounting to about $7 million to carriers.

The law firm representing the newspaper carriers has already had a
string of successes in similar complaints against other publishers
in California.  A lawsuit against the Orange County Register ended
in 2008 with a $38 million settlement for compensation and
attorney fees.  A 2009 suit filed against the owners of the San
Diego Union Tribune resulted in a judgment last year for a
combined $10 million in damages and attorney fees, but that case
is pending an appeal.  And in September, a Sacramento County
Superior Court judge granted employee status to about 5,000
Sacramento Bee carriers in a class-action lawsuit; a future stage
will determine the amount of compensation and attorney fees due to
the carriers.

Earlier this year, in a 2008 lawsuit against Antelope Valley
Newspapers, the California Supreme Court ruled that carriers could
indeed be certified as a class for the purposes of a class-action
lawsuit, reversing a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's
decision.


GC SERVICES: Judge Uses Foti Decision in FDCPA Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for InsideARM.com, reports that after a
string of debt industry victories claiming violations of the FDCPA
in voice messages, a collection agency in South Carolina, was
handed a defeat by a federal judge for failing to properly
identify itself in a voicemail.  The judge used the Foti decision
in her opinion on the case.

In Chatman v. GC Services, the consumer plaintiff alleged that the
debt collection agency violated sections 1692d(6) and 1692e(11) of
the FDCPA by not disclosing that two communications were from a
debt collector and for the purposes of debt collection. The
plaintiff is also trying to get class action certification for the
suit.

In May 2013, Chatman received two voicemails on her cell phone
from debt collectors working for GC Services.  The two messages,
while from different collectors, were remarkably similar in
content:

"This message is intended for Kim Chatman. My name is Olivia [last
name inaudible].  It is important for you to return my call.  My
number is 866-862-2789."

Chatman's main complaint is that she did not know who the messages
were from, therefore she was not compelled to return the calls.

GC Services argued that the voicemails were not communications
under the FDCPA since they did not convey any information about
the debt.  Furthermore, the company said that the calls were for
location purposes.

The ARM firm offered as one precedent Zortman v. J.C. Christensen
& Associates, a case that was successfully defended that saw
similar language used in a voicemail.  But District Judge Cameron
Currie noted that the Zortman case was one of third party
disclosure, since the consumers' children heard the voicemail in
question.

Instead, Currie relied more on Foti, writing, "This court declines
to follow the minority line of cases relied on by GC and, instead,
adopts the majority view, which construes the FDCPA's definition
of 'communication' to encompass voicemail messages left for the
consumer-debtor, even if nothing in those messages refers to a
debt."  Most pointedly, Currie cited a Foti-dependent Circuit
Court opinion when discussing the potential for a Catch-22 in
leaving voicemails for debtors.

The Circuit panel in Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions wrote
plainly that the FDCPA "does not guarantee a debt collector the
right to leave answering machine messages."

Judge Currie granted Chatman's motion for summary judgment and
remanded the case for further proceedings, including the
possibility of the case being certified as a class action. Briefs
on that matter are due in early 2015.

The Chatman decision came only a couple of weeks after a very
different ruling in a very similar case.

In Hagler v. Credit World Services, a district judge in Kansas
ruled that a nearly identical voicemail left on a consumer's phone
did not violate the FDCPA.  Importantly, that case involved only
one message, where Chatman involved at least two.  Still, the
language used in the messages were extremely similar and the judge
in the Hagler case specifically ruled that the message was not a
communication under the FDCPA.


GENIE ENERGY: IDT Energy Sued Over Winter Price Increases
---------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy 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 IDT Energy has
been sued in separate putative class action suits in New York, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, partially related to the price increases
during the winter of 2014.

IDT Energy does not believe that it was at fault or acted in any
way improperly with respect to the events of winter 2014.

"However, we cannot predict the outcome of the regulatory or
putative class action litigation or the impact on us of these or
other actions, or whether there will be other impacts from the
conditions that existed in winter 2014. Further, although we have
taken action to insulate us and our customers from future similar
events, we cannot assure that those actions will be effective,"
Genie Energy said.

Genie owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy International
Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie Retail Energy and
92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. ("GOGAS"). Genie Retail Energy owns
100% of IDT Energy.


ICC/MARIE CALLENDER: Order to Show Cause in Musgrave Case Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 1, 2014, vacated an order
to show cause why the complaint captioned EDWARD MUSGRAVE,
Plaintiff, v. ICC/MARIE CALLENDER'S GOURMET PRODUCTS DIVISION,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02006-JST, (N.D. Cal.) should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On November 3, 2014, the Court issued the Order to Show Cause.
The Court noted that notwithstanding Plaintiff's invocation of 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1332, he does not bring any federal cause
of action or allege either that the parties are diverse in
citizenship or that the amount in controversy requirement is
satisfied.  Mindful of the federal courts' "continuing independent
obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction
exists," this Court issued the Order to Show Cause and required
Plaintiff Musgrave to file a response within fourteen days.

Mr. Musgrave filed his response on November 17, 2014. In this
response, Mr. Musgrave no longer asserts that the Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. He further
acknowledges that he initially pled diversity jurisdiction based
on the fact that he is a citizen of California and ConAgra Foods
RDM, Inc. is a citizen of Nebraska, and that ConAgra has since
been dismissed from the case. Nevertheless, he asserts that the
Court has jurisdiction in this case under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), because (1) the
aggregate amount of all class members' claims exceeds $5,000,000;
(2) the national class of persons who purchased Defendant's
products comprises more than 100 members; and (3) there is minimal
diversity because, although Marie Callender's is based in
California, the complaint proposes both a California and a
national class.

"[I]t appears that Musgrave has established that this Court has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the CAFA," ruled Judge
Tigar.

Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause is vacated. Defendant may re-
notice the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion to
Strike for hearing. The Court will decide the Motion on the
currently filed papers, Judge Tigar wrote in his ruling, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/7GCHxnfrom Leagle.com.

Edward Musgrave, Plaintiff, represented by Molly Ann DeSario,
Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Matthew R. Bainer, Scott Cole &
Associates, APC & Matthew Roland Bainer, Scott Cole & Associates,
APC.

ICC/Marie Callender's Gourmet Products Division, Defendant,
represented by Richard Martin Williams --
rwilliams@grayduffylaw.com -- Gray Duffy, LLP & Nathan Blackthorne
Lee -- nlee@grayduffylaw.com -- Gray & Duffy, LLP.


ILLINOIS: ISHAA Faces Concussion Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Dennis Dodd, writing for CBSSpotrs.com reports that what is being
described as a first-ever, football-specific class-action
concussion lawsuit on the high-school level has been filed against
the Illinois State High Athletics Association.

The suit was filed on Nov. 29 by Chicago attorney Joe Siprut, one
of the lead attorneys in the class-action suit that successfully
challenged NCAA concussion protocols.  Like the so-called Adrian
Arrington lawsuit led by Mr. Siprut, the high school complaint
seeks changes in additions to return-to-play guidelines and a
medical monitoring fund.

The suit was intentionally filed in state court on Nov. 29, the
same day as the Illinois high school state championship games.

The class sought by the lawsuit includes every high school player
in the Illinois state association from 2002 to the present.  The
only lead plaintiff in the class at the moment is Daniel Bukal,
29, who played at Notre Dame Prep in Niles, Ill. from 1999-2003.

The lawsuit states Mr. Bukal suffered concussions in high school
but there were no existing return-to-play guidelines or concussion
protocols from the ISHAA.

"The criteria for returning Mr. Bukal to the playing field was not
consistent," the suit states.

Mr. Siprut intends to file similar suits on a state-by-state
basis.  The National Federation of State High School Associations
is not a logical target, he said, because it does not have the
same overarching power as the NCAA.

The Arrington lawsuit resulted in a proposed settlement that was
reached with the NCAA in late July.  The association agreed to set
aside $70 million for a medical monitoring fund.  The money would
cover only diagnosis, not treatment.

The structure of the settlement is still in the courts.

"It's very similar [to Arrington]," Mr. Siprut said of the ISHAA
suit. "I would characterize it as a high school equivalent.  I say
that it is essentially seeking the same thing that the Arrington
suit and is now getting through the settlement.

"I actually think that the high school issue is more important,"
Mr. Siprut said.  "On some level, the issue is even more alarming
at the high school level.  Medically, it's established now that
concussive impact to an adolescent brain is even more harmful at a
young age."

The suit only deals with football players.  No financial terms are
set forth in the complaint.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Settlement Warrants Distributed in October
-------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial 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 final approval
of the settlement to the class action designated Fuller v.
Imperial Holdings et al. was granted on December 16, 2013, by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The terms of the class action settlement included a cash payment
of $12.0 million, with $11.0 million contributed by the Company's
primary and excess director and officer liability insurance
carriers, with such amounts paid during the nine months ended
September 30, 2014. The terms of the settlement also include the
issuance of warrants to purchase two million shares of the
Company's stock. The warrants, which were issued into an escrow
account in April 2014 and distributed in October 2014 have a five-
year term from the date of their distribution and have an exercise
price of $10.75.

Founded in December 2006 as a Florida limited liability company,
Imperial Holdings, LLC, converted into Imperial Holdings, Inc.
(with its subsidiaries, the "Company" or "Imperial") on February
3, 2011, in connection with the Company's initial public offering.

Incorporated in Florida, Imperial owns a portfolio of 595 life
insurance policies, also referred to as life settlements, with a
fair value of $350.4 million and an aggregate death benefit of
approximately $2.9 billion at September 30, 2014. The Company
primarily earns income on these policies from changes in their
fair value and through death benefits. 452 of these policies, with
an aggregate death benefit of approximately $2.3 billion, are
pledged under a 15-year revolving credit agreement (the "Revolving
Credit Facility") entered into by the Company's indirect
subsidiary, White Eagle Asset Portfolio, LP ("White Eagle").


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Posts $9.1MM Legal Costs for 9 Months
--------------------------------------------------------
Imperial 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 legal expenses
for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 were $9.1 million
compared to $11.3 million for 2013. Of the legal expense,
approximately $3.2 million is mainly associated with the USAO
Investigation for 2014, compared to $4.6 million for the nine
months ended September 30, 2013. Legal expense also includes
approximately $2.5 million associated with the warrants for the
class action litigation for the nine months ended September 30,
2013.

Founded in December 2006 as a Florida limited liability company,
Imperial Holdings, LLC, converted into Imperial Holdings, Inc.
(with its subsidiaries, the "Company" or "Imperial") on February
3, 2011, in connection with the Company's initial public offering.

Incorporated in Florida, Imperial owns a portfolio of 595 life
insurance policies, also referred to as life settlements, with a
fair value of $350.4 million and an aggregate death benefit of
approximately $2.9 billion at September 30, 2014. The Company
primarily earns income on these policies from changes in their
fair value and through death benefits. 452 of these policies, with
an aggregate death benefit of approximately $2.3 billion, are
pledged under a 15-year revolving credit agreement (the "Revolving
Credit Facility") entered into by the Company's indirect
subsidiary, White Eagle Asset Portfolio, LP ("White Eagle").


HARBORTOUCH: February 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE TO MERCHANTS WITH HARBORTOUCH CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
SERVICE

If you are a merchant that signed up for Harbortouch credit card
processing services between Feb. 2009 and Oct. 2012, you may be
entitled to a credit or payment from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about
fees Harbortouch charged merchants that signed up during this
time.  The New Jersey Superior Court authorized this notice and
will hold a hearing on Feb. 20, 2015 to decide whether to approve
the settlement.

WHO IS INCLUDED?
You are a class member and could get benefits if you are a
merchant that signed up between Feb. 1, 2009 and Oct. 31, 2012 and
paid Harbortouch an Annual Fee (but did not get a free terminal),
UBC Gateway Fee, IMS Reporting Fee, IRS Processing Validation Fee,
or PCI Annual Fee on your monthly statement.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?
The lawsuit claims Harbortouch charged fees that its contracts
with merchants did not authorize.  Harbortouch says its contracts
with merchants permitted it charge these fees and denies it did
anything wrong.  The Court did not decide which side is right, but
both sides agreed to resolve the case and get benefits to
merchants.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Current Harbortouch merchants that are class members and send in
valid claim forms can get $200 credits, on average, for fees paid
Nov. 2011 or later (or $120 credits, on average, for fees paid
between Feb. 2009 and Oct. 2011) toward the purchase of 12
Harbortouch products and services including: new terminals that
comply with EMV (Europay, Mastercard, and Visa) security standards
for secure payments coming in Oct. 2015, read cards with embedded
chips, and accept mobile payments; gift cards; printers; pinpads;
scales; cash drawers and tills; and electronic cash registers.

Former Harbortouch merchants that are class members and send in
valid claim forms can also get $200 or $120 credits, on average,
toward purchase of the 12 products and services to use with their
current credit card processors or checks for $60 (if they paid one
of the fees in Nov. 2011 or later) or $40(if they paid the fees
only from Feb. 2009 to Oct. 2011), on average, instead.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?
If the Court approves the settlement, a claim form will be sent to
all class members with addresses in Harbortouch's records two or
three months after Feb. 20, 2015 (or later if there is an appeal).
It will contain everything you need.  If Harbortouch has your
address, you should have received a detailed notice about the
settlement in the U.S. mail, by e-mail, or both by the end of
November 2014.  If you didn't get that notice, call the settlement
administrator at 1-877-317-4198, as for it, and ask to be put on
the mailing list for the claim form.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?
If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude by yourself by Jan. 23, 2015 or you won't be able to sue,
or continue to sue, Harbortouch about the legal claims in this
case.  If you exclude yourself, you can't get benefits from this
settlement.  If you stay in the settlement you will give up your
rights to sue Harbortouch and First National Bank of Omaha for all
claims you may have about dues, assessments, discounts, fees, or
charges of any kind paid in Feb. 2009 or later.  If you stay in
the settlement, you may object to it by Jan. 23, 2015.  The
detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, Roma Pizzeria v.
Harbortouch, Case No. HNT-L-637-12, on Feb. 20, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.
in Courtroom 2 of the Somerset County Courthouse, 20 N. Bridge
St., Somerville, NJ 08876 to consider whether to approve the
settlement and a request by the layers representing all class
members (LiteDePalma Greenberg, LLC of Newark, NJ and Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP of Haverford, PA) for $940,000 in attorneys' fees and
costs for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and
negotiating the settlement, and $2,000 for Plaintiff Roma Pizzeria
for pursuing the case.  The fees and costs won't reduce class
members' benefits.

You may ask to appear at the hearing but you don't have to.

HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?

Call toll free 1-877-317-4198 or write to
Merchant Settlement c/o Angeion Group,
1801 Market Street, Suite 660
Philadelphia, PA 19103


HOME DEPOT: "Riveron" Suit Consolidated in Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Riveron, et al. v. Home Depot USA,
Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-81175, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03943-TWT to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT.

The litigation arose from the security breach in Home Depot's data
network in late April or early May 2014.  The data network
contained the personal financial information of hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of consumers.  The data breach was
first reported on September 2, 2014, by a computer security
blogger.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alfred J. Saikali, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          E-mail: asaikali@shb.com


HSBC BANK: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Madoffs Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen and Leyla Hill and Paul Shapiro v. HSBC Bank, PLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09745 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants knowingly participated in Madoffs and/or Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("BLMIS") fraud, serving as the
sponsor and outward custodian, manager, and administrator of the
Feeder Funds, thereby providing the funds with an appearance of
legitimacy, increasing their level of investment as a result of
marketing with the HSBC brand, and providing the infrastructure
for more than a billion dollars in investments into BLMIS, agreed
to serve as a mere facade for the Feeder Funds, and agreed to and
implemented irregular procedures that were tailored to accommodate
Madoffs suspicious methods.

HSBC Bank, PLC is a banking institution incorporated under the
laws of England and Wales with a principal place of business at
8Canada Square, London El4 SHQ, United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      Telephone: (212) 856-7227
      Facsimile: (917)210-3980
      E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510)725-3000
      Facsimile: (510)725-3001
      E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com


HURONIA REGIONAL: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
former residents of three Ontario institutions for the
developmentally disabled had until Nov. 30 to file claims for
compensation under the settlements reached last year in two
separate class-action suits.

The residents, many of whom are now elderly, alleged they were
abused and neglected while living at the Huronia Regional Centre
in Orillia, the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls and the
Southwestern Regional Centre near Chatham.

All three institutions shut down between 2008 and 2009.

A $35-million settlement in the Huronia case was reached in
September 2013 and approved by the court in December of that year;
a $32.7-million settlement in the Rideau and Southwestern suit was
reached that same month and approved in February.  The Huronia
settlement led Premier Kathleen Wynne to apologize in the Ontario
legislature for the suffering residents experienced there.  The
agreements have also forced the province to release more than
65,000 documents about operations at all three institutions.

"These cases concern abuse that happened decades ago when many of
the former residents were children and young adults," said
Kirk Baert, who represents the plaintiffs.

"I am happy that we are approaching a final resolution of these
cases and that the former residents will be able to receive what
is long overdue compensation."

Former residents have been able to request records of their stay
as they prepared to apply for compensation.  While the records
aren't required to file a claim, the agreement said more money
would be awarded to those who provided more detailed accounts of
what they endured.  So far, more than one million pages of
resident records have been released, lawyers said.

The claim deadline for Huronia was initially set for August, but
was pushed back after some residents said they were facing delays
in obtaining their files. Lawyers said earlier this month that the
backlog had been dealt with.  They couldn't say how many claims
had been filed because many were expected to come in over the
weekend.

The lawsuits alleged many suffered physical and sexual abuse at
the overcrowded and understaffed prisonlike institutions.


KCG HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Awaits Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KCG 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 defendants'
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint related to the
August 1, 2012 Technology Issue is before the court for decision.

On October 26, 2012, Knight, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay, were
named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v. Knight
Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Case No. 2:12-cv-06760. Generally, this putative class
action complaint alleged that the defendants made material
misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the
events of August 1, 2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities
laws, claiming that he and a purported class of Knight's
stockholders who purchased Knight's Class A Common Stock between
January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price.

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it
and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased
Knight's securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012
paid an inflated price. On May 13, 2013, Knight filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of
August 2013. Before the court rendered a decision on the motion to
dismiss, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on
December 20, 2013, alleging generally that the defendants made
material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related
to the events of August 1, 2012.

More specifically, the plaintiff referred to KCA's October 2013
settlement with the SEC and alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements concerning Knight's risk management
procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity, Value at
Risk and internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiff
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the
federal securities laws, claiming that it and a purported class of
Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's securities between
May 10, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on February 18, 2014. The motion was fully briefed as of June 5,
2014, and is before the court for decision.


KCG HOLDINGS: NY Plaintiff Files Stipulation of Discontinuance
--------------------------------------------------------------
KCG 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 plaintiff in the
New York shareholder action filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance
with Prejudice, and the plaintiffs in the New Jersey shareholder
actions filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in
the New Jersey Court.

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8163-VCP. The complaint names as defendants Knight,
the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting an
inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, and agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight. The complaint also alleges
that Knight, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought
includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers (to the
extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs. On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder
class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 8159-VCP. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO,
LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting
an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed
by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number
of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less
likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers
for Knight. The complaint also alleges that Knight and GETCO aided
and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Mergers, rescission of the Mergers
(to the extent the Mergers have already been consummated), and
attorneys' fees and costs. On January 31, 2013, the Court of
Chancery consolidated for all purposes the McMillan and Dominique
actions into a single action captioned In re Knight Capital Group,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 8159-VCP. On March 5, 2013,
the co-lead plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action filed
an amended complaint and motions for expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction. In addition to the allegations in the
initial complaints, the Delaware amended complaint contains
allegations that the Knight Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties by providing stockholders with allegedly
deficient disclosures about the proposed transaction in the
Company's Preliminary Form S-4, filed with the SEC on February 13,
2013 (the "Preliminary Proxy").

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company,
Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment
Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel
Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding
Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the
Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission
of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as
defendants Knight, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies & Company,
Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family Investment
Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel
Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding
Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
accepting an inadequate merger price, agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight and approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, including that
they were appointed by an investor group that included GETCO. The
complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except for
Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the
Mergers. The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC
aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Mergers, rescission
of the Mergers (to the extent the Mergers have already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs. On February 20, 2013,
Knight moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the New
Jersey actions in deference to the first-filed Delaware actions.
The New Jersey court granted the motion on March 28, 2013, and
ordered that the New Jersey actions be stayed for all purposes in
deference to the first-filed Delaware actions.

On January 15, 2013, Knight, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, GA-
GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named as defendants in an
action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M. Joyce, et al., Case
No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
(New York County). The plaintiff, Joel Rosenfeld, is one of the
stockholders mentioned above who previously sent Knight a
derivative demand letter. Generally, this complaint asserts both
derivative and class action claims. First, it purports to assert
derivative claims, which allege, among other things, that the
seven Knight directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012
breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by
failing to erect and oversee effective safeguards to prevent
against technology issues, such as the one that occurred on August
1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a realized pre-tax loss of
approximately $457.6 million. Second, it asserts putative class
action claims resulting from the proposed Mergers for (1) breach
of fiduciary duty against the Individual Defendants; and (2)
aiding and abetting the purported breach of fiduciary duty against
GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General Atlantic. The complaint generally
alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the Mergers at an inadequate price, agreeing
to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting
agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders
would make successful competing offers for Knight, and that
certain of Knight's directors have conflicts of interest in
connection with the transaction, including that certain directors
sought to enter into the transaction to avoid potential liability
relating to the derivative claims asserted in the complaint. With
respect to the merger claims, the plaintiff seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the proposed Mergers, rescission of the proposed
Mergers (to the extent they have already been consummated) and
attorneys' fees. With respect to the derivative claims, the
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the Knight
directors who were serving as of August 1, 2012 to pay restitution
and/or compensatory damages in favor of Knight and/or the proposed
class of Knight stockholders. On March 14, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which, in addition to the allegations
in the initial complaint, contains allegations that the Knight
Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties by providing
stockholders with allegedly deficient disclosures about the
proposed transaction in the Preliminary Proxy. On March 21, 2013,
the plaintiff moved by order to show cause for expedited discovery
in support of his claims. The New York court issued an order on
March 25, 2013, setting a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for
April 4, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the parties in the New York
action reached an agreement with respect to the matters raised in
the plaintiff's motion and other aspects of the action, and as a
result, on March 29, 2013, the plaintiff withdrew his motion for
expedited discovery. On April 9, 2013, the New York court granted
permission for the plaintiff to withdraw his motion.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder
actions and New York shareholder action regarding the settlement
of those actions. In connection with the settlement, Knight and
GETCO agreed to make supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 28, 2013 (the
"Proxy Statement"). In addition, Knight and GETCO agreed to make
certain revisions to Knight's risk committee charter, as well as
to KCG's risk committee charter.

The memorandum of understanding contemplated that the parties
would enter into a stipulation of settlement, which would be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Knight's former stockholders. It also
contemplated that in the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing would be scheduled at which
the Delaware Court of Chancery would consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it would resolve and release all
claims that were brought or could have been brought in the
Delaware, New York, and New Jersey shareholder actions, including
claims challenging any aspect of the Mergers, the Merger
Agreement, or any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Knight's former
stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In
addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplated that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by KCG.

On June 5, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release (the
"Stipulation"). As contemplated in the memorandum of
understanding, the Stipulation provides, among other things, that
in exchange for the supplemental disclosures and changes to
Knight's and KCG's risk committee charters discussed above, and
upon final approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery, the
Delaware and New York stockholder plaintiffs, and a class of
former Knight stockholders that includes such plaintiffs, will
finally and fully resolve and release all claims that were brought
or could have been brought in the Delaware, New York, and New
Jersey shareholder actions, including claims challenging any
aspect of the Mergers, the Merger Agreement, or any disclosure
made in connection therewith. The Stipulation further provides
that counsel for the Delaware and New York shareholder plaintiffs
will seek, and the defendants will not oppose, court approval of
an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an amount not to exceed
$490,000. The Stipulation and the settlement it contemplates, is
not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by any of the defendants. Nonetheless, the defendants
entered into the settlement to avoid the risk of the stockholder
actions delaying or adversely affecting the Mergers, to minimize
the substantial expense, burden, distraction and inconvenience of
continued litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the claims
in the stockholder actions.

On June 9, 2014, the parties to the Stipulation filed the
Stipulation and associated exhibits with the Delaware Court of
Chancery, seeking among other things, preliminary approval of the
settlement, conditional certification of a non-opt-out class of
former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only, and the
scheduling of a final settlement hearing.

On June 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation, conditionally certifying a non-opt-out class of
former Knight stockholders for settlement purposes only pursuant
to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), and
scheduling a final settlement hearing to be held on September 26,
2014. The Court's preliminary order provided that at the final
settlement hearing, the Court would, among other things, determine
whether to finally certify the non-opt-out class of former Knight
stockholders, determine whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class and should be approved by
the Court, determine whether to enter a final order and judgment
dismissing the action with prejudice, consider the application for
attorneys' fees and costs by counsel for the Delaware and New York
shareholder plaintiffs, and rule on such other matters as the
Court may deem appropriate. The Court's preliminary order further
provided that members of the conditionally-certified class would
receive notice of the settlement hearing at least 45 days prior to
the hearing, which notice would describe, among other things, the
material terms of the settlement and the procedures for class
members to follow if they wished to object to the settlement
and/or be heard at the final hearing.

On September 26, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery held a
settlement hearing to determine, among other things, whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
class. Following the hearing, the Delaware Court issued a final
order and judgment that, among other things, (a) determined that
the defendants had complied with the notice requirements under
Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23; (b) certified a non-opt-out
class action pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(1) and (b)(2); (c) found the proposed settlement to be
fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the
class, and approved it pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rule
23(e); (d) released the defendants from any claims that were
brought, or could have been brought, by the plaintiffs in the
Delaware or New York shareholder actions as well as from claims
that could have been brought by the shareholders who sent demand
letters to the Company described in the previous section; and (e)
granted an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to
attorneys for plaintiffs in the Delaware and New York shareholder
actions in the amount of $425,000. Pursuant to the order and final
judgment, the Delaware shareholder action was dismissed with
prejudice.

As contemplated by the settlement, on October 9, 2014, the
plaintiff in the New York shareholder action filed a Stipulation
of Discontinuance with Prejudice. In addition, on September 2,
2014, the plaintiffs in the New Jersey shareholder actions filed a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in the New Jersey
Court.


KCG HOLDINGS: Removed as Defendant in Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
KCG 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 KCG and 40 other
market participants were named on April 18, 2014, as defendants in
a purported class action complaint entitled City of Providence v.
BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-2811, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of public
stockholders who purchased and/or sold stock in the United States
during the period from on and after April 18, 2009 on a U.S.-based
public stock exchange or alternative trading venue. Generally, the
complaint alleges that defendants engaged in manipulative, self-
dealing and deceptive conduct in connection with the trading of
securities. The claims against KCG are made pursuant to Sections
10b and 20A and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks, among other things, equitable and injunctive
relief, as well as unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
and disgorgement.

Between May 2, 2014 and June 13, 2014, three other groups of
plaintiffs filed similar complaints in the same court under the
following captions:  American European Insurance Co. v. BATS
Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-3133; Harel Insurance Co., Ltd.
v. BATS Global Markets, Inc. et al., 14-cv-3608; and Flynn et al.
v. Bank of America Corp. et al., 14-cv-4321.  On July 2, 2014, the
court consolidated the four actions and appointed the original
plaintiffs - primarily institutional investors - lead plaintiffs
and their chosen counsel as lead counsel. On September 2, 2014,
lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which did
not name the Company as a defendant, thus removing the Company
from the action.


KENTUCKY: Jan. 27 Settlement Conference Set in Deaf Inmates' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a settlement conference has been
scheduled in a lawsuit brought by a pair of deaf and hearing-
impaired inmates in Kentucky who are seeking to force the
Department of Corrections to provide interpreter services for
medical visits, video phones that allow deaf callers to see sign
language and other hearing devices.

The conference is scheduled for Jan. 27 at the Kentucky State
Reformatory in LaGrange.

Inmates Oscar Adams and Michael Knights are seeking class-action
status to represent all hearing-impaired inmates in the state
system.

There are no solid statistics on how many inmates in Kentucky are
hearing impaired or deaf.  About one percent of the general
population is estimated to have a significant hearing loss, but no
one tracks nationally the number of people in prison who have the
issue.


LGLC ENTERPRISES: "Meyo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Meyo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Jennifer Kang, Lawrence Badstein, L.G.L.C. Enterprises, Inc.,
d/b/a Heather Mac Clean Cleaners, and John Does #1-10, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-09806 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours premiums,
and statutory penalties for notice-and recordkeeping violations of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dry-cleaning company located at
129 West 72nd Street, New York, New York 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq.
      EISNER & MIRER, P.C.
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile:  (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com


LIGHT UP: Faces "Baldares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Balderas, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Light Up Your Holidays, Inc., and Kelly
Fitzsimmons, Case No. 1:14-cv-09906 (N.D. Ill., December 10,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Light Up Your Holidays, Inc. provides the highest quality
professional holiday lighting services to Chicago, IL and the
surrounding areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIN MEDIA: Continues to Face Sciabacucchi Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
LIN Media 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
continues to face the Sciabacucchi class action complaint.

The Company said, "Following the announcement on March 21, 2014 of
the execution of the Merger Agreement, three complaints were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the proposed
acquisition of LIN LLC: Sciabacucchi v. Lin Media LLC, et al.
(C.A. No. 9530) (the "Sciabacucchi Action"), International Union
of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et
al. (C.A. No.9538) (the "Pension Fund Action"), and Pryor v. Lin
Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9577) (the "Pryor Action"). The
litigations are putative class actions filed on behalf of the
public stockholders of LIN LLC and name as defendants LIN LLC, our
directors, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub
2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and several of its alleged
affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3
Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.;
Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4EQ
Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse Family
Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim Investors, L.P. (together with
HM Capital Partners LLC and individual director defendant John R.
Muse, which we collectively refer to as "HMC"))."

"On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in the Pension Fund Action
voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on April
21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal.

"On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi Action filed
an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and
Pryor Actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the
plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to
enjoin the Merger, requesting, among other things, that the Court
set a permanent injunction hearing for September 2014. On April
30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor Actions
filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which was
approved by the Court on May 1, 2014.

"The operative complaint generally alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
their consideration and approval of the Merger, that the entity
defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that individual
director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached their
fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN LLC by causing
LIN LLC to enter into the Merger, which plaintiffs allege will
provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaint seeks, among
other things, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the
Merger.

"On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a
letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite.
The outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain and cannot be predicted
with any certainty. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could
have a material adverse effect on our operations and liquidity. An
adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger."


MAJESTIC SEALS: "Fields" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Fields and Ron Scott v. Majestic Seals & Stripes, Inc., Linda
D. Davis and Dan Davis, Case No. 8:14-cv-03071 (M.D. Fla.,
December 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company provides parking lot
striping, seal coating, asphalt overlay, curb installation, and
concrete repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
      TODD W. SHULBY, PA
      2800 Weston Rd, Ste 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Infuse
---------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
Allen, a Medtronic Infuse bone graft victim, is reading with great
interest a Medtronic class-action lawsuit filed by its investors,
claiming that Medtronic intentionally misled them and charging the
CEO in a cover-up.

Medtronic Meddling Leads to Class-Action Lawsuit

The outcome of this lawsuit may be good news for Allen and
thousands of other Medtronic claimants.  If a jury decides that
Medtronic officials were fraudulent about Infuse's problems, more
people suffering from Medtronic injuries could sue the company.
However, shareholders who sued Medtronic over Infuse in 2008
received an $85 million settlement in 2012, but Medtronic admitted
no wrongdoing.  According to the Star Tribune (October 12, 2014),
if Medtronic settles this current class action without admitting
wrongdoing, experts say the chances of injured Infuse patients
proving fraud diminish.

Allen, age 46, underwent two surgeries, one five years ago and the
other three years ago, involving a Medtronic Infuse bone graft,
for the same problem.  Now he has bone growing outside of the
graft in his neck.

"I feel worse now than I did before this Medtronic fusion," says
Allen.  "The surgeon cut through the front of my neck and I can't
see the new bone growth but inside it constantly hurts.  It's like
I have a constant spasm in my neck and sometimes when I try to
swallow, my throat forgets how to swallow.  If I drink or eat, it
is stuck in my throat and finally I get it down, but that is
really scary because I can't breathe.  I am scared to have this
Medtronic device taken out because it might be even more
dangerous."

Allen hasn't told his surgeon about the swallowing issue because
he is afraid that his surgeon will advise yet another fusion.
Meanwhile, Allen's Medtronic attorney is getting all of his
medical records from the surgeon.  "My attorney said that I might
have to wait up to six weeks to determine whether my claim will go
forward, so this latest lawsuit against Medtronic might have some
bearing . . ."

Allen had no idea that Medtronic had been sued by thousands of
people like him until he saw a commercial on television.  "The
commercial said time may be running out to make a claim so I
called an attorney, and then I read online about people's
complaints that sound just like me," he says.  "I have been in and
out of hospital with staph infections from these surgeries and
that pretty much messed up my life.  If this Medtronic claim is
all I have left, then I won't let it pass me by.  I also want to
add that my neck surgeon is a great doctor.  I read that these
complaints are not against the doctor, they are against
Medtronic."

A federal judge in Minneapolis will let lawyers for Medtronic
investors investigate the purported cover-up of Infuse's dangerous
side effects by Medtronic officials and doctors the company paid
to do research, reported the Star Tribune.  As for the former
Medtronic CEO William Hawkins, he has been accused of manipulating
scientific research to cover up Infuse problems.  Further, he
allegedly made misstatements to stock analysts to hide the fact
that the FDA had refused to approve the next iteration of Infuse,
a product called Amplify.

The shareholders' class-action suit claims that Medtronic
intentionally misled investors by shaping Infuse research done by
doctors to whom the company paid $210 million from 1996 to 2010.
And in some instances, Medtronic edited results of studies to
overstate the usefulness of Infuse in patients recovering from
spinal surgery while downplaying harmful side effects, including
abnormal bone growth into nerves, male impotence and risks of
cancer.


MELOHN PROPERTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sefket Redzepagic, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Robert Hammer, Melohn Properties Inc., The Melohn
Group LLC, L 4750, LLC, A 4750, LLC, 4750 Bedford L.L.C, Leon
Melohn, and John Does #1-10, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-
cv-09808 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and statutory penalties for notice-and-
recordkeeping violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate dozens of residential and
commercial buildings in the New York metropolitan area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin N. Dictor
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212)473-8700
      Facsimile: (212)473-8705
      E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Hanis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
John Hanis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:14-cv-
01107 (W.D. Mo., December 11, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a national insurance
company with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Lee Dameron,Esq.
      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
              dirks@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

      Christie Jess, Esq.
      John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
      Mark A. Jess, Esq.
      EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. JESS, LLC
      1600 Genessee, Suite 842
      Kansas City, MO 64102
      Telephone: (816) 474-4600
      E-mail: christie.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com
              john.z@employeerightslawfirm.com
              mark.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Hodgson, Esq.
      THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
      6 NW Main St
      Lee's Summit, MO 64063
      Telephone: (913) 890-3529
      E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


MMI VENTURES: "Sustaita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandie Sustaita and Elio Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and a
class of those similarly situated v. MMI Ventures, LLC d/b/a Maria
Mia Mexican Bistro, Edelmiro Rodriguez, Jr., Mario Rodriguez, and
Iddie De Leon, Case No. 5:14-cv-01084 (W.D. Tex., December 11,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in San Antonio, Bexar
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Esq.
      TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID, Inc.
      300 South Texas Blvd.
      Weslaco, TX 78596
      Telephone: (956) 447-4850
      Facsimile: (956) 968-8823
      E-mail: lramakrishnan@trla.org


MOBILEREV LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid and Withheld Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Edgardo Argueta Herrera v. MobileRev LLC, Paul Zsebedics,
Sam Bahreini and Amir Bahreini, Case No. 8:14-cv-03857-MAB (D.
Md., December 11, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid, illegally
withheld, overtime compensation and commissions earned, liquidated
damages and interest, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs,
for the Defendants' alleged willful failure to pay the Plaintiff
adequate wages, including overtime, for all hours he worked.

MobileRev LLC is a limited liability company that owns and
operates approximately 11 Sprint cellular telephone stores,
including six in Maryland, four in Virginia and one in the
District of Columbia.  The Company sells and repairs Sprint mobile
phones, equipment and plans.  Paul Zsebedics is an owner and the
Resident Agent of MobileRev.  Sam Bahreini and Amir Bahreini are
actual or de facto managers at MobileRev.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar Vincent Melehy, Esq.
          Robert Porter, Esq.
          MELEHY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          8403 Colesville Road, Suite 610
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-6364
          Facsimile: (301) 587-6308
          E-mail: ovmelehy@melehylaw.com
                  rporter@melehylaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Espo, Esq.
          Brooke E. Lierman, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
          120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
          E-mail: jbe@browngold.com
                  blierman@browngold.com


MOL GLOBAL: Law Firms Mull Class Actions Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------
IFR Asia reports that the fate of Malaysia's first US listing went
from bad to worse as MOL Global was hit with a trading halt and
potential lawsuits after losing more than half its market value in
a single day.

Already well below their offer price, MOL shares tumbled 54% on
November 21 after the company said its CFO had resigned and
delayed publication of its third-quarter results.

In a rare move, Nasdaq sought a trading halt in the online payment
company on November 24 while it requested "additional
information".

Law firms are moving fast to launch lawsuits against MOL, which
made its trading debut on the US second board as recently as
October 9.  At least seven law firms have announced investigations
into whether or not MOL misled investors in its IPO, and investors
that suffered losses have been invited to join class action suits.

Timed to take advantage of investors' enthusiasm for the Asian
internet sector, following Alibaba's record IPO, MOL's listing has
instead rekindled concerns over corporate governance and
transparency in Asian equity offerings.

MOL priced the US$168.75 million IPO at the bottom of its
US$12.50-$14.50 target range after slashing the number of shares
on offer by 30%, only for the stock to fall 35% to US$8.14 on its
debut.  Its opening-day performance was the worst on any US IPO
over US$50 million since the 1980s.

The IPO had valued MOL at a 2015 price-to-earnings multiple of
34.7 -- far above the 25 at Alibaba's IPO price.  Doubts quickly
set in, however, about the sustainability of the company's growth
and if the high valuation was justified.

Resignation

Those concerns intensified when MOL announced on November 20 that
the company's CFO Allan Wong, who had joined the company as
recently as August, resigned citing personal reasons.  On the same
day, the company also said it would postpone the release of its
third-quarter earnings results to December 1 from November 21.

On the news, the shares of MOL plummeted 54% to US$4.09 on
November 21.

MOL was not the only one under fire. Deutsche Bank, a joint
bookrunner on MOL's IPO, has drawn flak for advising "caution" on
the stock on November 21, a day after having initiated coverage
with a buy call and a US$12 price target.

The bank further suspended its rating and estimates on MOL until
the company provided further clarity over the delayed third-
quarter earnings and the CFO's resignation, Reuters reported.

Malaysian businessman Vincent Tan owns 69.3% of MOL Global, while
the Sultan of Johor owns 14.7%.

In the six months to June 30, the company's revenue came to M$105
million (US$31 million) and net profit stood at M$15.5 million,
according to the IPO prospectus.

Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and UBS were joint bookrunners on the
IPO. CIMB Securities was co-manager.

Credit Suisse was earlier attached to the transaction, but dropped
out before bookbuilding began.

The firm's primary product is MOLPoints, which consumers use to
pay for digital products, including Facebook games.  MOLPoints are
sold through channels including 7-Eleven convenience stores.


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Accused of Illegally Confiscating Firearms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc W. Weinstein v. Thomas C. Krumpter, Acting Police
Commissioner, Nassau County, New York; Steven E. Skrynecki, Chief
of Department, Nassau County Police Department; Daniel P.
Flanagan, Commanding Officer, First Precinct, Nassau County Police
Department; James B. Malone, Police Officer, First Precinct,
Nassau County Police Department; John Does I-IV, Police Officers,
First Precinct, Nassau Police Department; Paul Cappy, Police
Officer and Investigator, Nassau County Police Department, Pistol
License Section; and Nassau County Police Department, Case No.
1:14-cv-07210 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2014) accuses the Defendants
of depriving the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons'
constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, illegal
search, seizure, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, intentional conversion of property and the depravation
of his rights to keep and bear arms.

The claims include the alleged illegal confiscation of the
Plaintiff's firearms by members of the Nassau County Police
Department and a conspiracy on the part of those persons to
prevent the return of said legally owned firearms to the
Plaintiff.

Nassau County Police Department is a law enforcement entity,
existing under and pursuant to the laws of the state of New York,
and the rules, regulations, statutes and ordinances of the county
of Nassau.  The state of New York created and operated the Police
Department for the public benefit and protection of its citizens.

The Individual Defendants are police officers of the Police
Department.  The identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Bean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT T. BEAN
          3033 Brighton 3rd Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 616-1414
          E-mail: RBeanlaw@aol.com


NEW HORIZONS: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Rosales v. New Horizons of The Palm Beaches, Inc., Case No.
9:14-cv-81531 (S.D. Fla., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

New Horizons of The Palm Beaches, Inc. owns and operates a
landscaping business and maintains a corporate office in
Greenacres, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq,
      CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
      2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 921-9994
      Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
Camella Pinkney-Price v. The City of New York, The Office of the
Bronx Borough President, Ruben Diaz, Jr., Individually and as
Bronx Borough President, Paul Delduca, Individually and as Chief
of Staff of the Office of the Bronx Borough President, and Raymond
Sanchez, Individually and as General Counsel of the Office of the
Bronx Borough President, Case No. 1:14-cv-09738-SAS (S.D.N.Y.,
December 10, 2014) seeks to remedy alleged violations of the
rights of the Plaintiff, to recover monetary and affirmative
relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of
1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.

The Plaintiff is a female resident of the County of Bronx, New
York.  She is a dark skinned African-American woman, born on March
9, 1962.  She accuses the Defendants of discrimination and
retaliation.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York.  The Office of
the Bronx Borough President is a subdivision of the City of New
York, with a principal place of business in Bronx.  The Individual
Defendants are officers or employees of the Bronx Borough.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. McCarthy, Esq.
          MCMAHON & MCCARTHY
          25 East 233rd Street
          Bronx, NY 10470
          Telephone: (718)324-8900
          Facsimile: (718) 324-2614
          E-mail: atyktm@optonline.net


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sluvie Spielman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
07246 (E.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014) accuses the Company of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OFFICE CARE: "Amaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos F. Amaya, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Office Care, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-03854 (D. Md.,
December 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Office Care, Inc. owns and operates a cleaning service company
located in Laurel, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq.
      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Ste 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (410) 864-8895
      E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com
              rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


OVASCIENCE INC: Answer to Amended Complaint Due
-----------------------------------------------
Ovascience, 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
answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint was due by December
16, 2014.

The Company said, "On September 16, 2013, a purported shareholder
class action, styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers as
defendants. The lawsuit alleges that we made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the qualification of the AUGMENT treatment as a 361 HCT/P in our
public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013
through September 10, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 2, 2014, we and certain
of our officers, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the
District Court. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner
voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice."

"On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder class action was re-
filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers
as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations as were
included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2014. As amended, the
complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of our
stock during the period February 25, 2013 through September 10,
2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees. Our answer to the plaintiff's amended
complaint is due by December 16, 2014. We believe that this action
is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. At this time,
no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit
or whether the outcome will be material to us."

OvaScience is a global life sciences company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of new fertility
treatments.


PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class Action by Thomas Welch
-------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust 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 Thomas Welch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
on July 1, 2014, a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust,
PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain
executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
litigation contemplated by the complaints. Nevertheless, the Trust
may incur expenses in connection with the litigation. The Trust
will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out
of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can
be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in
making any such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust
may ultimately be materially different than any such estimates.
The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the putative class actions described above, and
has not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The
Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to
cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary at any time.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory
trust formed in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust
Act pursuant to a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy
Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust,
National Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware
Trustee"). The Trust Agreement was amended and restated by PCEC,
the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee on May 8, 2012. References in
this report to the "Trust Agreement" are to the amended and
restated trust agreement.

The Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty
interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in
California (the "Conveyed Interests") for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders pursuant to an agreement among PCEC, the Trustee and
the Delaware Trustee. The Conveyed Interests represent undivided
interests in underlying properties consisting of PCEC's interests
in its oil and natural gas properties located onshore in
California (the "Underlying Properties"). The Conveyed Interests
were conveyed by PCEC to the Trust concurrent with the initial
public offering ("IPO") of the Trust's common units in May 2012.


PACIFIC COAST: Faces Class action by Ralph Berliner
---------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust 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 Ralph
Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed on October 16, 2014, a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
litigation contemplated by the complaints. Nevertheless, the Trust
may incur expenses in connection with the litigation. The Trust
will estimate and provide for potential losses that may arise out
of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can
be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in
making any such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust
may ultimately be materially different than any such estimates.
The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the putative class actions described above, and
has not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The
Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to
cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary at any time.

Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory
trust formed in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust
Act pursuant to a Trust Agreement among Pacific Coast Energy
Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust,
National Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware
Trustee"). The Trust Agreement was amended and restated by PCEC,
the Trustee and the Delaware Trustee on May 8, 2012. References in
this report to the "Trust Agreement" are to the amended and
restated trust agreement.

The Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty
interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in
California (the "Conveyed Interests") for the benefit of the Trust
unitholders pursuant to an agreement among PCEC, the Trustee and
the Delaware Trustee. The Conveyed Interests represent undivided
interests in underlying properties consisting of PCEC's interests
in its oil and natural gas properties located onshore in
California (the "Underlying Properties"). The Conveyed Interests
were conveyed by PCEC to the Trust concurrent with the initial
public offering ("IPO") of the Trust's common units in May 2012.


PENTHOUSE EXECUTIVE: Judge Approves $1.125MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
fourteen dancers at the Penthouse Executive Club snatched a $1.125
million payday -- after wisely bailing on an earlier settlement
because they knew they could get more cash.

The sum approved by Manhattan Federal Court Judge Kimba Wood
stands as a savvy legal victory for the former strippers, who
withdrew from the earlier class action case that handed just $8
million to 1,230 eligible entertainers.  It's unclear how much
each stripper scores -- the final amount is determined by their
work history -- but attorneys in the new case said there's no
question their clients raked in more cash.

"(They) got a big multiple of what they would have gotten if
they'd stayed in (the class action)," said attorney Bill Cafaro,
who represented dancer Marsha Chalmers, who got the biggest
payout: $125,000.

The remaining $1 million will be divvied among the 13 others,
documents show.  The class-action settlement, on the other hand,
typically yielded payments in the range of $1,250 to $5,000 to
dancers.

Frank Schirripa, attorney for the 13 big winners -- many of whom
were longtime employees -- said his clients recognized they could
get much more money by opting out, and had the paperwork to prove
it.

"They had (more) losses and sufficient documentation," said
Mr. Schirripa, who also handled the class-action suit.

The plaintiffs argued they were improperly classified as
independent contractors, even though the club made them buy their
own outfits and micromanaged their behavior and interactions with
customers.

The entertainers claimed the club took a 20% "service charge" from
their earnings and also stiffed them on overtime -- a violation of
federal labor laws.

"Everyone is entitled to the same labor rights as everyone else,
even those engaged in occupations frowned upon by some segments of
society," Mr. Cafaro said.

No plaintiffs would comment, but court documents told their
stories.  Leslie Liwanag, who worked at the club from 2005 to
2009, said in court papers that she was "subject to strict uniform
policies" that would "require her to purchase new pieces at her
own expense" when the club was "unsatisfied with Ms. Liwanag's
choice of clothing."

The Penthouse lawsuit is reminiscent of one brought against
another jiggle joint, Rick's Cabaret.  That Midtown mammary mecca
settled a $10.8 million class-action suit last month involving as
many as 1,900 entertainers, according to documents.

A lawyer for the Penthouse Executive Club did not respond to a
request for comment.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ngo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras, Case No. 1:14-
cv-09760 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 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:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


POLAR CARGO: Jan. 30 Hearing to Approve C$425,000 Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the Canadian air cargo pricing-
fixing class actions with Polar Air Cargo LLC, which required the
Company to pay C$425,000 and cooperate in the ongoing litigation.
The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability or wrongdoing by Polar Air.

The settlement requires court approval in Ontario and Quebec.  A
joint approval hearing is set for Jan. 30, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.

Settlement class member may express their views about the proposed
settlement to the Court before Jan. 20, 2015.  More information
regarding the settlement is available at http://is.gd/FpMG7Nor by
emailing at aircargo@siskinds.com


QR ENERGY: Tentative Deal Reached to Settle Merger Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
QR Energy, LP said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that QR Energy, LP,
("QRE" or the "Partnership"), QRE GP, LLC ("QRE GP"), Breitburn
Energy Partners L.P. ("Breitburn"), Breitburn GP, LLC ("Breitburn
GP") and Boom Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub") reached on November
10, 2014, 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 is 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 definitive 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.


RAYONIER INC: "Brown" Suit Transferred From New York to Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Brown v. Rayonier, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08986, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville).  The
Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01474-TJC-
JRK to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Will Brown accuses the Defendants of violating
securities laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: kchan@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles M. Trippe, Jr., Esq.
          Joni Alexis Poitier, Esq.
          MOSELEY, PRICHARD, PARRISH, KNIGHT & JONES
          501 W Bay St., Suite 200
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-1306
          Facsimile: (904) 354-0194
          E-mail: cmtrippe@mppkj.com
                  JAPoitier@mppkj.com

               - and -

          Samidh Jalem Guha, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP (NYC)
          One Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 872-1015
          Facsimile: (212) 872-1002


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Securities Class Action Filed in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. 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 May 30,
2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and shareholders. The complaint
alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities in the
September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. The
Company expects that lead plaintiffs will file an amended
complaint later this year, after which the Company has two months
to respond. The Company believes that the claims against it are
without merit and intends to defend against the litigation
vigorously.

The Company was incorporated and began operations in 1987. The
Company is engaged in the consumer finance business, offering
small installment loans, large installment loans, automobile
purchase loans, retail purchase loans, and related credit
insurance.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Morris, and all similarly situated individuals v. Republic
Services of Florida, LP a Florida Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-
62797 (S.D. Fla., December 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Republic Services of Florida, LP is a waste service company,
providing collection, recycling, and disposal services to
residential, commercial and industrial customers throughout the
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Micah J. Longo, Esq.
      THE LONGO FIRM, P.A.
      12555 Orange Drive, Suite 233
      Davie, FL 33330
      Telephone: (954) 862-3608
      Facsimile: (954) 944-1916
      E-mail: micahlongo@gmail.com


SAN FRANCISCO: Obtains Favorable Judgment in "Kirola" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivana Kirola, a mobility-impaired individual, brings a disability
access class action on behalf of herself and similarly-situated
individuals against Defendants City and County of San Francisco,
the Mayor of San Francisco, and members of the Board of
Supervisors (collectively "the City"). She alleges that the City
discriminates against mobility-impaired persons by failing to
eliminate all access barriers from or otherwise ensure
accessibility to the City's libraries, swimming pools, parks, and
public rights-of-way (i.e., the City's network of sidewalks, curb
ramps, crosswalks, and other outdoor pedestrian walkways). She
also complains that the City's policies and practices for ensuring
access, removing access barriers, and handling public access
complaints are deficient.

Based on the evidence and testimony presented at trial, the
Court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility, and the legal
arguments presented by counsel, District Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong held that the Court is sensitive to the plight of
mobility-impaired and other disabled individuals. The testimony of
Kirola, class members, and mothers of class members effectively
established the daily challenges confronting disabled individuals.
Both federal and state law afford disabled individuals, including
Kirola and members of the class, the right to meaningfully access
the programs, activities and services provided by a public entity.
At the same time, Article III of the United States Constitution
requires that Kirola prove that she has standing to pursue claims
on behalf of the class -- which she has failed to do.
Nevertheless, even if Kirola had satisfied that threshold burden,
the record does not support her contention that the City has
failed to comply with its obligations under Title II of the ADA
and related federal and state statutes. To the contrary, the trial
record establishes that the City is complying with its obligation
to provide meaningful access, including program access, to its
public right-of-way, libraries, swimming pools, and parks and
recreational facilities.

Accordingly, final judgment will be entered in favor of the City.
The Court directed the Clerk of court to close the file and
terminate any pending matters.

A copy of the court's November 26, 2014 findings of fact and
conclusions of law is available at http://is.gd/EAN0UW from
Leagle.com.

The case is IVANA KIROLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, CASE NO: C 07-3685
SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

Ivana Kirola, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Lee --
alee@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, David M.
Poore -- dpoore@bplegalgroup.com -- Brown Poore LLP, Guy Burton
Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, James C. Sturdevant --
jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com -- The Sturdevant Law Firm, Kiran
Prasad, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Mark T.
Johnson -- mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Monique Olivier --
monique@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP &
Scott A. Brown -- sbrown@bplegalgroup.com -- Kahn Brown & Poore
LLP.

Elizabeth Elftman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Lee,
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, David M. Poore, Brown Poore
LLP, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP,
James C. Sturdevant, The Sturdevant Law Firm, Kiran Prasad,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Mark T. Johnson,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Monique Olivier,
Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP & Scott A. Brown, Kahn Brown
& Poore LLP.

The City & County of San Francisco, Defendant, represented by
James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office, Christine Van Aken,
Office of the City Attorney, Danny Yeh Chou, City Attorney's
Office, Elaine Mary O'Neil, San Francisco City Attorney's Office,
Kristine Ann Poplawski, Office of the City Attorney of San
Francisco, Martin H. Orlick, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
& Owen J. Clements, City Attorney's Office.

Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Mayor, Defendant,
represented by James Moxon Emery, City Attorney's Office.
Aaron Peskin, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Jake McGoldrick, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Michela Alioto-Pier, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery,
City Attorney's Office.

Ed Jew, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Chris Daly, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Sean Elsbernd, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Bevan Dufty, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Tom Ammiano, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Sophie Maxwell, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Ross Mirkarimi, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery, City
Attorney's Office.

Gerardo Sandoval, Defendant, represented by James Moxon Emery,
City Attorney's Office.

Craig Yates, Interested Party, represented by Timothy Squire
Thimesch -- tim@thimeschlaw.com -- Thimesch Law Offices & Gene A.
Farber -- genefarber@hotmail.com -- Law Offices of Gene A. Farber.

Joanna Fraguli, Witness, represented by Geoffrey Gordon-Creed --
geoffgc@gkhs.com -- Gordon-Creed Kelley Holl & Sugerman, LLP &
Jeremy Joseph Sugerman -- sugerman@gkhs.com -- Gordon-Creed Kelley
Holl & Sugerman, LLP.


SPECIALTY GRAPHICS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Specialty Graphics, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01960 (C.D.
Cal., December 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Specialty Graphics, Inc. is an advertising specialty supplier
doing business in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SWEDBANK ROBUR: 2,000+ People to Join Closet Indexing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pearce, writing for Financial News, reports that the
Swedish Shareholders' Association -- the largest network of retail
investors in the world -- has seen more than 2,000 people sign up
to a class action against Swedbank Robur, one of Scandinavia's
largest mutual fund managers for alleged closet indexing.


SWISHER HYGIENE: North Carolina Court Approves Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene 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 Western
District of North Carolina approved the Settlement of securities
class actions, and issued an Order and Final Judgment that, among
other things, dismissed the securities class actions with
prejudice and provided for full and complete releases to
defendants.  The derivative actions are still pending.

On March 30, 2012, a purported Company stockholder commenced a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, the former President and
Chief Executive Officer ("former CEO"), and the former Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer ("former CFO"). The
plaintiff asserted claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in the
Company's public filings.

In April and May 2012, four more putative securities class actions
were filed by purported Company stockholders in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina against the same
set of defendants. The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted
claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on alleged false and misleading disclosures in
the Company's public filings. In each of the putative securities
class actions, the plaintiffs seek damages for losses suffered by
the putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common
stock.

On May 21, 2012, a stockholder derivative action was brought
against the Company's former CEO and former CFO and the Company's
then directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by another
purported Company stockholder in the Southern District of New
York. In this derivative action, the plaintiff seeks to recover
for the Company damages arising out of the then possible
restatement of the Company's financial statements.

On May 30, 2012, the Company, its former CEO and former CFO filed
a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL Panel") to centralize all of the cases in the
Western District of North Carolina by requesting that the actions
filed in the Southern District of New York be transferred to the
Western District of North Carolina.  In light of the motion to
centralize the cases in the Western District of North Carolina,
the Company, its former CEO and former CFO requested from both
courts a stay of all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling.
On June 4, 2012, the Southern District of New York adjourned all
pending dates in the cases in light of the motion to transfer
filed before the MDL Panel. On June 13, 2012, the Western District
of North Carolina issued a stay of proceedings pending a ruling by
the MDL Panel.

On August 13, 2012, the MDL Panel granted the motion to centralize
transferring the actions filed in the Southern District of New
York to the Western District of North Carolina as part of MDL No.
2384, captioned In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and
Derivative Litigation. In response, on August 21, 2012, the
Western District of North Carolina issued an order governing the
practice and procedure in the actions transferred to the Western
District of North Carolina as well as the actions originally filed
there.

On October 18, 2012, the Western District of North Carolina held
an Initial Pretrial Conference at which it appointed lead counsel
and lead plaintiffs for the securities class actions, and set a
schedule for the filing of a consolidated class action complaint
and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the
consolidated class action complaint. The Western District of North
Carolina stayed the derivative action, captioned Arsenault v.
Berrard, et al., 1:12-cv-4028, pending the outcome of the
securities class actions.

On April 24, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint")
asserting similar claims as those previously alleged as well as
additional allegations stemming from the Company's restated
financial statements. The Class Action Complaint also named the
Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer as an
additional defendant who has since been dismissed from the case.
On June 24, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss the Class Action
Complaint.  Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on
August 9, 2013.

On June 11, 2013, an individual action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned
Miller, et al. v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., No. 0:13-CV-
61292-JAL, against the Company, its former CEO and former CFO, and
a former Company director, bringing state and federal claims
founded on the allegations that in deciding to sell their company
to the Company, plaintiffs relied on defendants' statements about
such things as the Company's accounting and internal controls,
which, in light of the Company's restatement of its financial
statements, were false.

On July 17, 2013, the Company notified the MDL Panel of this
action, and requested that it be transferred and centralized in
the Western District of North Carolina with the other actions
pending there. On July 23, 2013, the MDL Panel issued a
Conditional Transfer Order (the "Miller CTO"), conditionally
transferring the case to the Western District of North Carolina.
On July 29, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL Panel that they
would seek to vacate the Miller CTO. In light of the proceedings
in the MDL Panel, defendants requested that the Southern District
of Florida stay all proceedings pending the MDL Panel's ruling. On
August 6, 2013, the Southern District of Florida issued a stay of
all proceedings pending a ruling by the MDL Panel.  On October 2,
2013, following briefing on the issue of whether the Miller CTO
should be vacated, the MDL Panel issued an order transferring the
action to the Western District of North Carolina.

The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint on March 20, 2014.  Briefing on the motions to
dismiss was completed on May 12, 2014.

On June 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Western
District of North Carolina seeking a suggestion for remand from
that Court to the MDL Panel. Briefing on that motion was completed
on June 26, 2014. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss and
motion for suggestion for remand were heard on July 22, 2014.

On August 5, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina denied
plaintiffs' motion for suggestion for remand.  On October 22,
2014, the Company filed a notice of supplemental authority in
support of its motion to dismiss the complaint in this matter.  On
November 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a response to the notice of
supplemental authority.

On July 11, 2013, a purported stockholder filed a derivative
action on behalf of the Company in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division in the State of North Carolina,
Mecklenburg County, captioned Borthwick v. Berrard, et. al., No.
13-CVS-12397. The action asserts claims against the Company as a
nominal defendant, its former CEO and former CFO, and certain
former and current Company directors for breaches of fiduciary
duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste of corporate
assets, and aiding and abetting thereof in connection with the
Company's restatement of its financial statements. Among other
things, the action seeks damages on behalf of the Company and an
order directing the Company to implement corporate governance
reforms.

On August 7, 2013, the Company filed a notice to remove the action
from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in the
State of North Carolina, Mecklenburg County to the Western
District of North Carolina. On August 30, 2013, the Company moved
to consolidate this action with the actions previously
consolidated before the Western District of North Carolina, and to
stay the action. On September 25, 2013, the Western District of
North Carolina granted the Company's motion to consolidate and
stay the action.

On October 23, 2014, following its approval of a settlement of the
securities class actions, the Western District of North Carolina
set a briefing schedule whereby the Company, as nominal defendant,
filed a motion to dismiss the derivative action on November 4,
2014.  Pursuant to the schedule, the remaining defendants do not
need to file any motions to dismiss until after the Court rules on
the Company's motion.  Briefing on the Company's motion will be
completed by December 19, 2014.

Although the Company believed it had meritorious defenses to the
asserted claims in the securities class actions in the United
States, the defendants and plaintiffs agreed to the terms of a
settlement and on February 5, 2014 executed a settlement agreement
that, following approval by the Western District of North
Carolina, would resolve all claims in the securities class actions
pending there (the "Settlement").  The Settlement provided that
the defendants would make a set cash payment totaling $5,500,000,
all from insurance proceeds, to settle all of the securities class
actions, and full and complete releases would be provided to
defendants.

On March 11, 2014, the Western District of North Carolina issued a
preliminary order approving the Settlement, and scheduled a
hearing for August 6, 2014.  That same day, the Western District
of North Carolina also issued an order terminating defendants'
pending motions to dismiss the Class Action Complaint as moot in
light of the Settlement.

On August 6, 2014, following a hearing, the Western District of
North Carolina approved the Settlement, and issued an Order and
Final Judgment that, among other things, dismissed the securities
class actions with prejudice and provided for full and complete
releases to defendants.  The derivative actions are still pending.

Swisher Hygiene currently operates in one business segment,
Hygiene, which encompasses providing essential hygiene and
sanitizing service solutions to customers in a wide range of end-
markets, including foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare
industries.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Fresh Statement of Claim Filed in Ontario Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene 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 purported
stockholder commenced on December 17, 2013, a putative securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Edwards
v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 13-20282 CP, against the
Company, the former CEO and former CFO.  The action alleges claims
under Canadian law for alleged misrepresentations of the Company's
financial position relating to its business acquisitions.  On
February 13, 2014, a Fresh Statement of Claim and Fresh Notice of
Action were filed, adding an additional named plaintiff.

Swisher Hygiene currently operates in one business segment,
Hygiene, which encompasses providing essential hygiene and
sanitizing service solutions to customers in a wide range of end-
markets, including foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare
industries.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Stockholder Suit Filed in Ontario Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene 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 purported
stockholder commenced on March 28, 2014, a putative securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, captioned Phillips
v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 14-00501096-0000, against the
Company, the former CEO, the former CFO and the Company's former
Senior Vice President and Treasurer. The action alleges claims
under Canadian law stemming from the Company's restatement.

Swisher Hygiene currently operates in one business segment,
Hygiene, which encompasses providing essential hygiene and
sanitizing service solutions to customers in a wide range of end-
markets, including foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare
industries.


TESCO PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tesco PLC, Philip
Clarke, Laurie Mcilwee, Sir Richard Broadbent, and Chris Bush,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09757 (S.D.N.Y., December 10, 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.

Tesco PLC is a multinational grocery and general merchandise
retailer headquartered in Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, England, U.K.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Tesco PLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Michael Dains Blatchley, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1493
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
              jerry@blbglaw.com
              michaelb@blbglaw.com


TEXTURA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative class
action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was
filed on October 7, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934 by the Company
and its executive officers for making allegedly materially false
and misleading statements and by failing to disclose allegedly
material facts regarding its business and operations between
August 7, 2013 and September 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the
case vigorously.

Textura Corporation is a provider of on-demand business
collaboration software to the commercial construction industry.


TOYOTA MOTOR: "Emerson" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Annita Emerson v. Toyota Motor
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02842, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Los Angeles).  The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-09493-CAS-AJW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 233-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

Petitioner Juan Carlos Rivera is represented by:

          Jack Samuel Feltscher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK S. FELTSCHER
          243 S. Escondido Boulevard, Suite 512
          Escondido, CA 92025
          Telephone: (760) 580-1877
          Facsimile: (760) 291-1033

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Chorba, Esq.
          Chelsea Victoria Norell, Esq.
          Timothy William Loose, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
                  cnorell@gibsondunn.com
                  tloose@gibsondunn.com


TRULAND GROUP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss WARN Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Sernovitz, writing for Washington Business Journal,
reports that a federal bankruptcy judge in Alexandria won't throw
out a class-action suit by former Truland Group Inc. employees,
setting the stage for a potentially significant ruling that could
benefit the former employees.

At issue is whether Truland's former employees should be
recognized as a class and given priority over unsecured creditors
because the Reston-based electrical contractor did not give its
workers prior notice before shutting down, a requirement of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.  The
shutdown impacted nearly 1,000 full- and part-time employees and
stalled dozens of high-profile projects across the D.C. region.

Truland's trustee, Klinette Kindred, had sought to dismiss the
case brought by two former Truland employees on several grounds,
including that it was filed after Truland was forced to close its
doors and that the case should have been filed in federal District
Court rather than bankruptcy court.  But Judge Brian Kenney found
there was enough reason to allow the case to continue and ruled
Nov. 26 to reject Kindred's motion to have the case dismissed.

Jason Gold -- jgold@wileyrein.com -- an attorney with Wiley Rein
LLP representing the trustee, said he was disappointed in Judge
Kenney's ruling but stressed that it only dismissed Kindred's
motion to have the case thrown out.  The judge has not ruled on
the merits of the case yet or granted the class with secured-
creditor status.

"There's no question that it's an important decision, but it
remains to be seen how significant it is," Mr. Gold said.  "I
think it was a well-reasoned decision, but we disagree with it.
There are many other defenses that can and will be asserted."

Former Truland employees Summer James and Satina Matthews filed
their suit in U.S. Bankruptcy Court July 30, about a week after
Truland abruptly shut down. The suit was filed separately from
Truland's own bankruptcy proceedings.  Ms. Matthews and Ms. James
argued that Truland violated the federal WARN Act by failing to
give 60 days notice before a mass layoff or plant closure.  They
are seeking the wages and other benefits they would have earned
during that period and have asked to be given an administrative-
expense priority claim that would put them ahead of other
unsecured creditors.

Case law in similar bankruptcies has been mixed.  A federal judge
in Manhattan ruled in April that law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf violated
the same federal WARN Act by not giving its employees enough
notice before shutting down.  A big difference is that Dewey filed
for Chapter 11 to restructure its debts while Truland filed to
liquidate under Chapter 7.  Truland also employed more than 700
staffers when it shut down, compared with less than 500 for Dewey.

Judge Kenney concluded it's plausible Truland was liable for
misconduct by violating the WARN Act, making the relief sought by
the former employees plausible.  The WARN Act, Judge Kenney noted,
was established to give employees enough prior notice of a plant
closure or mass layoff and that employees are entitled to back pay
and benefits if a company violates the law.

Kindred had argued that designating the former workers as a class
was unnecessary because federal bankruptcy rules set up the
framework for Truland's ex-employees to recover lost wages.  Judge
Kenney disagreed.  Class-action status "will be the superior
method for the determination of the employees' claims under the
WARN Act," the judge ruled.


TURTLE BEACH: Seeks Review of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company
and VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") are currently seeking review of
the ruling that denied their motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit from the Nevada Supreme Court.

On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric)
announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant
to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership
interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately
20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the
announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in
California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs
in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH
and the Company were named as a defendant in these lawsuits under
the theory that they had aided and abetted Company's Board of
Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking
to enjoin closing of the Merger, which by agreement was heard by
the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
seeks monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and seeks monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. VTBH and
the Company are currently seeking review of that decision from the
Nevada Supreme Court. The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself in the litigation.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company is unable to estimate a
possible loss or range of possible loss in regards to this matter;
therefore, no litigation reserve has been recorded in the
consolidated financial statements.

Turtle Beach Corporation is a premier audio innovation company
with deep expertise and relevant experience in developing,
commercializing and marketing audio technologies across a range of
large addressable markets under the Turtle Beach and HyperSound
brands.


TURTLE BEACH: "Vasek" Class Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the class
action by Shana Vasek was dismissed without prejudice due to
failure of service by the plaintiff.

On November 20, 2013, Shana Vasek, a purported shareholder of the
Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, under the caption Vasek
v. Parametric Sound Corp., Case No.2:13-cv-02148-JAD-GWF, naming
the same defendants, asserting substantially the same allegations
and seeking substantially the same relief as named, asserted and
sought in the consolidated action pending in Nevada state court.
In addition to asserting substantially the same claims for breach
of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting as asserted in the
consolidated action pending in Nevada state court, the plaintiff
in the federal court action asserted a claim for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 14a-9. The federal court action was dismissed without
prejudice on April 29, 2014 due to failure of service by the
plaintiff.

Turtle Beach Corporation is a premier audio innovation company
with deep expertise and relevant experience in developing,
commercializing and marketing audio technologies across a range of
large addressable markets under the Turtle Beach and HyperSound
brands.


TWITTER INC: "Nunes" Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria denied on November 26, 2014, a
motion to dismiss the case captioned BEVERLY NUNES, Plaintiff, v.
TWITTER, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02843-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

Beverly Nunes filed her putative class action against Twitter,
alleging that Twitter has violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an automatic telephone dialing
system to send text messages en masse to cell phones without the
consent of the recipients. Nunes alleges that she and some of her
fellow potential class members possess "recycled numbers" that
previously belonged to people who consented to receive the texts,
and that Twitter knew or should have known that the numbers had
been transferred to people who had not given their consent. She
alleges that other potential class members originally consented to
receive texts and then attempted to withdraw that consent, only to
be ignored by Twitter. Twitter has moved to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that Nunes has failed to state a claim.

Judge Chhabria denied the request, saying Twitter's argument fails
for all the reasons provided by Judge Easterbrook in Soppet v.
Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2012).

A copy of the court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/5tL6nI
from Leagle.com.

Beverly Nunes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Farley Keller --
jfkeller@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP, Bryan G. Kolton --
bgkolton@thejacobslawfirm.com -- The Jacobs Law Firm, Chtd., Carey
Gavin Been -- cbeen@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP, David
Schachman, Law Offices of David Schachman, P.C., John G. Jacobs --
jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com -- Jacobs Kolton, Chtd. & Sarah R.
Holloway -- sholloway@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP.

Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Kramer --
dkramer@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Brian M.
Willen -- bwillen@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini & Tonia Ouellette
Klausner -- tklausner@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati.

                           *     *     *

Emily Field, David Siegal and Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge has nixed Twitter Inc.'s
attempt to escape a $5 million proposed class action alleging the
social media giant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by sending unsolicited text messages, saying that the equipment
Twitter uses to make calls is considered an automatic dialing
system.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said on Nov. 26 that the
Federal Communications Commission has interpreted the TCPA to
cover equipment with the ability to generate and dial numbers
automatically, regardless of whether the called numbers are
randomly generated or come from a database of stored numbers.  The
judge sided with plaintiff Beverly Nunes's argument that barred
automatic dialing systems comprise a wide spectrum of evolving
technology, including technology that can dial from lists or
databases without requiring human intervention.

"Although this language is not crystal clear, it appears to
encompass any equipment that stores telephone numbers in a
database and dials them without human intervention," the judge
said.  "This appears to be the way predictive dialers worked --
the technology at issue in the FCC orders -- and it is the way
Nunes alleges that Twitter's equipment works in this case."

The judge's ruling keeps Ms. Nunes' claims that Twitter violated
the TCPA by sending her texts via accounts linked to the previous
owner of her phone number alive.

Judge Chhabria rejected Twitter's argument that Ms. Nunes wrongly
alleged that its equipment is able to generate numbers randomly
and sequentially, rather than just using numbers from a database.

"Twitter argues that this allegation is wrong and that Twitter's
equipment would need to be dramatically reconfigured to meet the
narrower definition of an automatic telephone dialing system, but
that is not apparent from the allegations in [the complaint], and
it is therefore an evidentiary matter that cannot be resolved at
the pleading stage," the judge said.

The judge also rejected Twitter's argument that it had Ms. Nunes's
consent to text her, since the person who used to have her phone
number gave Twitter permission to text.

Twitter's argument failed for the same reasons given in the
Seventh Circuit's ruling in Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co. LLC,
which held that the TCPA requires consent from current cellphone
owners before they can be robo-called, even if the previous owners
gave permission, the judge said.

Ms. Nunes filed suit in June, alleging that after obtaining a new
phone number, she began receiving text messages from Twitter via
accounts associated with the prior owner of the telephone number.

Ms. Nunes replied in an attempt to stop the communications, but
since she did not use a valid "STOP" command Twitter's system
would recognize, her responses were instead posted online as
tweets from the Twitter account associated with the cellphone
number, according to a motion to dismiss filed by Twitter in
September.

Ms. Nunes accuses the San Francisco-based company of collecting
and storing user data, including user cellphone numbers, for the
purpose of sending automated mass text messages on its and the
users' behalf.


UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Kim Lyons and Mila Sanina, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
report that some Uber drivers have started noticing that various
fees the company tacks on are cutting into their income, says
Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan.  She has filed a
class-action lawsuit against Uber for what she terms unfair labor
practices.  The suit states that drivers have been "misclassified
as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for
their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and
vehicle maintenance."

Uber says the median income for an UberX driver in New York City
is $90,000 a year, and about $74,000 per year in San Francisco.
The company takes 20 percent of each fare.

Liss-Riordan said she has heard from Uber drivers who say even if
they work full time, in some cities, the number of drivers makes
it difficult to make the income they were expecting.

"They can only drive so many customers a day," she said.  "Even if
they work full time, they can't have a customer in their car at
all times."

Uber recently rolled out a new rewards program for drivers called
Momentum.  It includes discounts at car repair chains such as
Jiffy Lube and discounts on phone plans. It also includes a
partnership with health care plan "recommendation engine" Stride
Health to help drivers find health care plans in the health
insurance marketplace.  At a recent dinner with reporters in New
York, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick called the Affordable Care Act
"huge" for companies like Uber.

"The democratization of those types of benefits allow people to
have more flexible ways to make a living," Mr. Kalanick said at
the dinner, according to a report published on BuzzFeed News.
"They don't have to be working for The Man."

Mr. Braidic said he is "less enamored" with Uber than when he
first started driving for the company, and noticed a glut of new
drivers on the system once the company received conditional
approval from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.  "You'll
wait longer for a fare now than you used to," he said.

Still, Mr. Braidic plans to continue driving for Uber, even if he
lands another full-time job.  "I think I would keep doing it
because it's so easy to just turn on the app and make some money,"
he said.  "And, it is fun to be part of a transportation
revolution."


UBS AG: Accused of Participating in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Hill, Leyla Hill and Paul Shapiro v. UBS AG, UBS
(Luxembourg) SA, UBS Fund Services (Luxembourg) SA and UBS Third
Party Management Company SA, Case No. (S.D.N.Y., December 10,
2014) 1:14-cv-09744-JSR is brought on behalf of similarly situated
customers of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC arising
from the Defendants' alleged participation in Mr. Madoff's fraud.

The Plaintiffs allege that the UBS Defendants enabled Mr. Madoff's
Ponzi scheme through numerous international feeder funds,
including Luxalpha SICAV and Groupement
Financier Ltd.  The Plaintiffs contend that the UBS Defendants
made at least $80 million in fees from the Madoff Ponzi scheme,
which the UBS Defendants facilitated in the face of clear
knowledge of Mr. Madoff's fraud.

UBS AG is a public company incorporated in Switzerland and
headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland.  UBS SA, a wholly-
owned subsidiary ofUBS AG, is a societe anonyme (public limited
company), organized under the laws of Luxembourg and has its
registered office in Luxembourg.  UBS AG, together with UBS SA,
sponsored the formation of Luxalpha.

UBSFSL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG, is a societe
anonyme, organized under the laws of Luxembourg.  UBSFSL served as
the administrator for both Luxalpha and Groupement Financier,
charged, among other things, with the calculation of "net asset
value."

UBSTPM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG, is a societe anonyme
organized in Luxembourg.  The Chairman of UBSTPM's board of
directors was a managing director of UBS AG, and the remainder of
its board was comprised of UBS AG and UBSFSL directors.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Arthur V. Nealon, Esq.
          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                  vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  anealon@entwistle-law.com
                  rcappucci@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 856-7227
          Facsimile: (917)210-3980
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510)725-3000
          Facsimile: (510)725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com


UNIVERSAL ALLOY: Court Enters Judgment in "Gonzalez" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the court's November 10, 2014 order granting final
approval of class action settlement and approval of attorney's
fees, costs & class incentive payments in FABIO GONZALEZ, MATIAS
MADERA, ORALIA BANDA, as individuals, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL ALLOY CORPORATION, a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE
NO. SACV 13-00807 JVS (MRWX), (C.D. Cal.), District Judge James V.
Selna ruled that:

1. Plaintiffs Fabio Gonzalez and Oralia Banda will each be paid an
Incentive Payment of $5,000, out of the settlement fund, in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

2. Plaintiff Matias Madera will be paid an Incentive Payment of
$7,500 out of the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

3. The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will be
paid 75% of the PAGA Penalties in a total amount of $7,500 out of
the settlement fund, in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

4. The individual settlement payments will be paid to the
Settlement Class Members out of the settlement fund, in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

5. Class Counsel will be paid $1,187,500 in attorney's fees and
distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

6. Class Counsel's litigation costs of $41,351.71 will be paid out
of the settlement fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement as follows: GrahamHollis APC will be paid
$15,901.70; Baltodano & Baltodono will be paid $4,013.90; Boren,
Osher & Luftman will be paid $21, 436.11.

7. The settlement administrator, CPT Group, Inc., will be paid for
its fees and expenses in connection with the administration of the
Settlement Agreement out of the settlement fund, in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, but in an amount not
to exceed $20,000.

8. Except as to class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion from the Settlement pertaining to the
California statutory claims, this action is dismissed with
prejudice.

9. All parties will bear their own fees and costs except as set
forth, and in prior orders of the court.

A copy of the court's November 30, 2014 judgment is available at
http://is.gd/HdF6PDfrom Leagle.com.

Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- Kristina De La
Rosa -- kdelarosa@grahamhollis.com -- GRAHAMHOLLIS APC, Attorneys
for Plaintiff and Class Members.

Hernaldo J. Baltodano -- hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- BALTODANO &
BALTODANO LLP, Attorneys for Class Representative Fabio Gonzalez.

Paul K. Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com -- BOREN, OSHER, & LUFTMAN
LLP, Attorneys for Class Representative, Fabio Gonzalez and Class
Members.

Scott C. Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS PC,
Attorneys for Defendant, Universal Alloy Corporation.


USA TRUCK: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Martinez and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b) v. USA Truck Parts & Accessories, Inc. and Alejandro
Montesino, Case No. 1:14-cv-24684 (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a company that sells replacement
parts and vehicle accessories for cars, trucks and motorcycles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Law Firms Mull Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Howard Root
had 30 minutes to pitch his Maple Grove company, Vascular
Solutions Inc., at a widely followed New York med-tech conference
earlier in November.  But before he could tout a decade of revenue
growth and a potentially lucrative new contract to develop freeze-
dried plasma for the battlefield, he had to address the matter of
a federal indictment.

"All I can say is, the allegations are false and the truth will
come out," Mr. Root told the Nov. 20 investors forum, using up a
third of his time to rebut felony conspiracy charges lodged a week
earlier against him and his company for allegedly selling
varicose-vein surgery kits for unauthorized use.  "These are
serious charges; you take it seriously. But you need to go forward
and run the company while you fight."

That could be easier said than done.  A trial could be a year
away, and observers expect the distractions and legal pressure
will grow at Vascular Solutions as Mr. Root pursues a rare
business strategy of running a publicly traded firm while under
indictment for alleged crimes stemming directly from his
management.

Already, the indictment has cost the company an $800,000 state
subsidy tied to an expansion of its Maple Grove facilities and
slammed the brakes on its stock price, paring some $80 million off
its market valuation.  At least nine law firms have said they're
pursuing possible class-action shareholder litigation, and one of
the key questions is whether the board is showing enough
independence from its co-founder.

Mr. Root, 53, a former Dorsey & Whitney attorney, has been CEO
since he co-founded Vascular Solutions in 1997.

On Nov. 13, a San Antonio grand jury indicted Mr. Root and
Vascular Solutions corporation on eight misdemeanor charges of
illegally promoting a varicose-vein laser kit and a ninth felony
charge of conspiring to commit, and then cover up, the illegal
conduct.

The 25-page indictment draws heavily on internal company e-mails
and sales presentations that prosecutors allege show that Root and
company officials were aware the Food and Drug Administration
never granted the sweeping approval suggested to doctors in sales
pitches for the Vari-Lase "short kit."  Approved to treat veins
near the skin in June 2007, regulators specifically told the
company it could not sell the device to treat veins deeper in the
body because of safety concerns.  The company did so anyway,
prosecutors say.

Stakes are high for Root and the company.  Each could be barred
from doing business with Medicare if convicted of felony health
care fraud, and the government would have the option of moving for
exclusion with a misdemeanor conviction, the company has told
investors in securities filings.

The criminal case is based on allegations in a 2010 whistleblower
lawsuit filed by a former sales representative.  The company in
July paid $520,000 to resolve that case without admitting
wrongdoing.

Vascular Solutions responded in a prepared statement that it
"vehemently" disagreed with the charges included in the
indictment.  "We did not engage in any illegal off-label
promotion," the statement said.  "Nor did we engage in any false
or misleading conduct."

Further, the company promised to release what it said is
"astonishing" information that would undermine the charges.  And,
most notably, its CEO remained in firm control.

The response is unusual, observers say, raising questions about
whether the Vascular Solutions board of directors is showing
enough independence from Mr. Root, who was been CEO since co-
founding the company.

"It would be more prudent to place him on paid leave," said Lewis
Morris, a health care compliance attorney and former chief counsel
to the inspector general of the U.S. Health and Human Services
Department.  "Their CEO is under indictment.  I don't know how you
could possibly argue that he represents the integrity and the tone
at the top that the company aspires to."

Three health care lawyers interviewed for this story agreed that
the Vascular Solutions board of directors should have commissioned
an independent analysis of the CEO's assertions of innocence --
particularly since the indictment quotes directly from internal
company documents.

"If the board has done its investigation and it is confident that
the CEO managed and oversaw the company properly, I wouldn't be
surprised to see them keep him in place while the company and he
fight the case," said Bret Puls, a litigator with Oppenheimer
Wolff & Donnelly in Minneapolis.  "It all turns on whether the
board has conducted a thorough, independent investigation of the
allegations of criminal activity."

A Vascular Solutions spokesman declined to elaborate on homework
the board may have done before allowing Root to remain at the
helm, deferring to this previous prepared statement:

"I have led the independent members of the board of directors in
providing active direction to and oversight of the company's
response to this investigation," board Chairman John Erb said in
the Nov. 13 statement, minutes after the indictment was announced.
"The board of directors unanimously supports management's handling
of this matter and the company's defense against these unwarranted
charges."

Root is a well-known figure in the Minnesota medical device
industry who has a reputation for being outspoken.  This past
April, he inflamed passions when he accused the University of
Minnesota of not adequately preparing undergrads for the modern
workforce.  "He has a strong voice and strong opinions," said
Ryan Baird, spokesman for Minnesota's medical device trade group
LifeScience Alley. "Not everyone loves that. But in the past we
have asked him to lend his voice to discussions, and he has."

At the Nov. 20 meeting in New York, called the Canaccord Genuity
Medical Technologies and Diagnostics Forum, Mr. Root asserted that
the allegations against him and his company were "baseless"; that
no patients were harmed in testing; and that the product itself,
which uses laser energy to zap away diseased superficial veins,
was discontinued because it was "insignificant" to the company's
bottom line.

Vascular Solutions, primarily known for its surgical catheters and
anti-bleeding products, saw sales top $110 million in 2013, up 12
percent over the previous year. Sales are on pace to rise another
14 percent this year.

Investors took flight the day after the Nov. 13 indictment,
sending Vascular Solutions shares down nearly 25 percent, to
$23.74 per share, despite a $20 million stock buyback plan rolled
out by the company.  Since then, shares have ticked up to around
$26.

"We believe that VASC will weather this tempest in a teapot, and
stock valuation will be unaffected . . . in the long term," Piper
Jaffray stock analyst Thomas Gunderson wrote in a Nov. 13
investors' note, using Vascular Solutions' stock exchange
abbreviation.  He recommended investors continue to buy the stock.

In an interview, Mr. Gunderson said part of his rationale in
judging the stock a "buy" was an independent review of the
allegations conducted by the board of directors.  But in follow-up
comments, Gunderson clarified that the board has not said directly
that it did an independent review of the indictment before
deciding to keep Mr. Root in place.

"I think the board is waiting for vindication from the judge or
the jury," he said.


WASHINGTON: Two Cities Sued Over Indigent Misdemeanor Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Emshwiller and Gary Fields, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that in Washington state, the American Civil
Liberties Union and others sued the cities of Mount Vernon and
Burlington in 2011 for their treatment of indigent misdemeanor
defendants. Like many municipalities, the cities contract with
private lawyers. The federal judge handling the case said evidence
showed individual lawyer caseloads in those towns ran as high as
1,000 annually -- more than twice the maximum recommended by the
American Bar Association and others.

In a declaration filed in the case, Angela Montague, an
Afghanistan war veteran and one of the named plaintiffs, said the
lawyers she was provided, Richard Sybrandy and Morgan Witt, didn't
respond to her efforts to discuss the various misdemeanor charges
against her, including driving under the influence. "It wasn't
until I became a plaintiff in this class-action lawsuit that Mr.
Witt finally contacted me," Ms. Montague said in her declaration.

Messrs. Sybrandy and Witt, through their own lawyer, declined to
comment. In court filings, they disputed the plaintiffs' claims
about them. Mr. Sybrandy said in one filing he did what was
"necessary to obtain a just and acceptable result for the
defendant" and used "every opportunity to speak with" his clients.

Last December, federal judge Robert Lasnik ruled against the two
towns. His decision said misdemeanor defendants had been
"systematically deprived" of their rights because the cities hired
too few lawyers.  The defense services "amounted to little more
than a 'meet and plead' system" where "actual innocence could
conceivably go unnoticed and unchampioned," he wrote.

The lawsuit, coupled with a new state standard limiting the number
of cases a lawyer doing indigent-defense work can handle, hit
Burlington and Mount Vernon, which didn't appeal the judge's
decision.  The cities' mayors said their indigent defense budgets
have roughly tripled. W. Scott Snyder, a Seattle lawyer
representing those cities and others, said towns around the state
are facing similar cost increases.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces "Arace" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Arace, Barbara Arace, John Battie, Caroline Smith and
Sharon Mack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., Case No. 2:14-
cv-07013-PD (E.D. Pa., December 11, 2014) is a Torts to Land case
brought as a proposed class action.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq.
          KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON
          194 South Broad Street
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (215) 337-4915
          Facsimile: (609) 394-8620


WELLS FARGO: Sued in New York by Investors in Two RMBS Trusts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Park Investments SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09764-UA (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2014) is brought
on behalf of a class of all residential mortgage-backed securities
investors in these two substantially similar RMBS trusts for which
Wells Fargo serves as Trustee:

   (1) ABFC 2006-OPT1 Trust; and
   (2) Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan
       Trust.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff brings the action derivatively in the
right and for the benefit of the Covered Trusts against Wells
Fargo.  The Plaintiff sues Wells Fargo for breach of contract and
for breach of Wells Fargo's common law duty of trust in connection
with the Covered Trusts.

RPI is a limited liability company incorporated in Belgium and
headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.  RPI has acquired RMBS in the
Covered Trusts.

Wells Fargo is a national association with its main office in
South Dakota and its principal place of business in California.
Wells Fargo serves as trustee for hundreds of RMBS trusts formed
under the laws of the state of New York, including the Covered
Trusts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 921 01-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com


WRIGHT NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over FEMA Program Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two victims of Hurricane Sandy
recently filed a class action lawsuit against an insurance company
and several associates, claiming they schemed to manipulate a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program for profit.

The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of Deborah Ramsey and
Robert Kaible, alleges that Florida-based Wright National Flood
Insurance profited by denying claims to the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP), which is managed by FEMA.

The other defendants -- which include Louisiana-based U.S.
Forensic LLC, Florida-based Colonial Claims Corporation and
individual employees and contractors -- are alleged to have gone
along with the scheme to ensure continued work provided by Wright
National Flood Insurance.

Other defendants listed include U.S. Forensic partners Gary L.
Bell and Michael P. Garove, engineer Harry George Hernemar and
individual adjuster David Maxime.

The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Wright National Flood Insurance allegedly profited by increasing
claim handling expenses -- including amounts paid to U.S. Forensic
and Colonial Claims -- and in turn received more money from FEMA
and the NFIP for administering the program.

Ms. Ramsey and Mr. Kaible, owners of a rental property in Long
Beach, N.Y., claim that Mr. Maxime inspected their property on
Nov. 17, 2012, and found it unsafe to live in because of damage
suffered during Hurricane Sandy.  Mr. Maxime allegedly observed
uneven flooring, five-inch differentials in ceiling height and
out-of-line foundation framing in the home during his inspection.

Rather than authorize payment of the full policy benefit
purchased, Mr. Maxime instead requested an engineering analysis in
conjunction with his employer -- Colonial Claims -- to satisfy the
desire of Wright National Flood Insurance to reduce payments on
covered losses, the suit says. Not doing so, the suit claims,
would result in a loss of future claims assignments.

The suit further claims that U.S. Forensic altered those
engineering reports, which are relied on to process insurance
payments under NFIP, and that Colonial Claims and Mr. Maxime
accepted U.S. Forensic's altered reports.  Wright National Flood
Insurance either encouraged the fraud or looked the other way, the
lawsuit alleges.

As a result, the plaintiffs received only $80,000 of their
$250,000 insurance coverage and were unable to continue renting
the property, they claim. With no rental income, the plaintiffs
sold the property for the price of the lot, and the home was
condemned and demolished by the city of Long Beach.

The class action suit is open to individuals insured by Wright
National Flood Insurance whose claims were denied in whole or part
based on an allegedly altered engineering report by U.S. Forensic
after the inspecting engineer's report was submitted to U.S.
Forensic for review.

Attorneys Steve Mostyn, of the Mostyn Law Firm, and Denis G.
Kelly, of Denis G. Kelly & Associates, are representing the
plaintiffs.  Mr. Mostyn's principal offices are in Houston and
Beaumont, Texas.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case
number 2:14-cv-06861.


ZOETIS INC: Nine Actions Over Roxarsone Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Zoetis 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 28, 2014, that the Company dismissed all
nine actions with prejudice related to Roxarsone(R)(3-Nitro).

The Company is a defendant in nine actions involving approximately
140 plaintiffs that allege that the distribution of the medicated
feed additive Roxarsone(R)(3-Nitro) allegedly caused various
diseases in the plaintiffs, including cancers and neurological
diseases. Other defendants, including various poultry companies,
are also named in these lawsuits. Compensatory and punitive
damages are sought in unspecified amounts.

In September 2006, the Circuit Court of Washington County returned
a defense verdict in one of the lawsuits, Mary Green, et al. v.
Alpharma, Inc. et al. In 2008, this verdict was appealed and
affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Certain summary judgments
favoring the poultry company co-defendants in Mary Green, et al.
v. Alpharma, Inc. et al. were reversed by the Arkansas Supreme
Court in 2008. These claims were retried in 2009 and that trial
also resulted in a defense verdict, which was affirmed by the
Arkansas Supreme Court in April 2011. In October 2012, the Company
entered into an agreement to resolve these cases, subject to the
execution of full releases or dismissals with prejudice by all of
the claimants.  The Company received full releases from all
claimants, and as a result, on January 23, 2014, the Court
dismissed all nine actions with prejudice.

"In June 2011, we announced that we would suspend sales in the
United States of Roxarsone (3-Nitro) in response to a request by
the U.S. FDA and subsequently stopped sales in several
international markets," the Company said.

"Following our decision to suspend sales of Roxarsone (3-Nitro) in
June 2011, Zhejiang Rongyao Chemical Co., Ltd., the supplier of
certain materials used in the production of Roxarsone (3-Nitro),
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey alleging that we are liable for damages it suffered as a
result of the decision to suspend sales. In October 2013, the
parties reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the matter, and
the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. In December 2013,
the parties finalized and executed the settlement agreement."


ZOETIS INC: Received 240 Claims in Europe and NZ Over PregSure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoetis 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 28, 2014, that the Company has received in
total approximately 240 claims in Europe and New Zealand seeking
damages related to calves claimed to have died of Bovine Neonatal
Pancytopenia (BNP) on farms where PregSure(R) BVD, a vaccine
against Bovine Virus Diarrhea (BVD) was used.

The Company said, "BNP is a rare syndrome that first emerged in
cattle in Europe in 2006. Studies of BNP suggest a potential
association between the administration of PregSure and the
development of BNP, although no causal connection has been
established. The cause of BNP is not known."

"In 2010, we voluntarily stopped sales of PregSure BVD in Europe,
and recalled the product at wholesalers while investigations into
possible causes of BNP continue. In 2011, after incidences of BNP
were reported in New Zealand, we voluntarily withdrew the
marketing authorization for PregSure throughout the world.
We have settled approximately 128 of these claims for amounts that
are not material individually or in the aggregate. Investigations
into possible causes of BNP continue and these settlements may not
be representative of any future claims resolutions."


* Judges Grant Most Class Action Payouts
----------------------------------------
Darren McKinney, Director of Communications at American Tort
Reform Association, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, says
satisfied and loyal Toyota customer Jonathan Sourbeer rightly sees
the absurdity of the tiny sum he received as a class member, in
largely meritless litigation against the car maker, when it's
compared with the economy-undermining quarter-billion-dollar
wealth transfer from future auto-buyers to plaintiffs lawyers in
the case.

"But he's wrong to assume that "juries . . . are granting [such]
payouts, seemingly thinking that the money will be deducted from a
CEO's paycheck or otherwise conjured without consequences for
anyone outside the corporate suite," Mr. McKinney said.

"In fact, it is only very rarely that a jury plays any role in a
class-action lawsuit.  That's because once plaintiffs lawyers
convince judges to certify their class actions, very few corporate
defendants are willing to risk potentially catastrophic trial
verdicts and instead seek negotiated settlements.

"Occasionally, however, when a courageous defendant decides to
fight a preposterous class action all the way to trial, common-
sense jurors will reward that courage.  For instance, in October
federal jurors in Ohio took less than three hours to return a
defense verdict for Whirlpool in a class action claiming that
poorly maintained front-loader washing machines could develop
musty odors and thus weren't quite worth what millions of happy
consumers had paid for them.  With a Midwestern appreciation for
the importance of a thriving manufacturing sector, perhaps, the
jury laudably refused to make multimillionaires out of the
parasitic lawyers who'd concocted the case.

In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has raised the bar for
certification of class actions, but insurrectionist lower courts
continue to ignore those precedents.  So until the high court more
aggressively and explicitly asserts itself, lower-court judges,
more so than juries, will likely keep letting class-action lawyers
get rich at everyone else's expense."


* Shareholder Class Suit Fears Deter Boards From Profit Guidance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Boreham, writing for The Australian, reports that a fear of
shareholder activism is deterring blue-chip boards from offering
earnings guidance, with only one in five of those that do meeting
or exceeding expectations over the last two years.

According to corporate adviser McGrathNicol's inaugural earnings
guidance report, directors are well aware of the growth in
litigation funding available to aggrieved investors mulling a
class action.

In May this year, Leighton Holdings agreed to settle a class
action that claimed the contractor failed properly to disclose
problems with key projects ahead of a profit downgrade in 2011.

"In our experience, this has led to boards being more cautious in
the guidance they have issued, or deciding against earnings
guidance altogether," the report says.

Based on a sample of 77 blue chips, only 56 per cent of these
entities (43) were willing to provide guidance in 2013-14,
compared with 59 per cent the previous year.

Of the "guiding" companies, 57 per cent met or exceeded their
initial guidance.  Over the two years, however, only 20 per cent
were able to do so in both years.

"Even at the big end of town not many companies are giving
guidance and this proportion is shrinking," said Jason Preston,
who co-authored the report with fellow partner Jason Ireland.

The sample firms were drawn from the construction/engineering,
retail, media/leisure, building products and utility sectors,
which Mr. Ireland described as the "engine room of the economy".

The media and leisure sector was the least willing to paint itself
into a profit corner, with only 31 per cent of companies providing
guidance.  Of these, half reported earnings in line with or above
guidance.  "The pressure on traditional sources of revenue,
coupled with softer consumer confidence, led companies to increase
their focus on managing costs to maintain earnings," the report
says.

"It appears that this change in the underlying business model has
made media organizations less willing to issue earnings guidance."

Skittish consumer sentiment meant that only 44 per cent of the
surveyed retail stocks were willing to give guidance in 2013-14.

Of these, 57 per cent posted results below expectations, compared
with 20 per cent the year before.

"There were only two companies . . . that met or exceeded guidance
in both 2013 and 2014: JB Hi-Fi and Nick Scali," the report says.
"(This) highlights the difficulties involved in both setting and
achieving earnings targets.''

In the construction sector, 52 per cent of companies released
guidance this year, compared with 74 per cent the year before.

However, 33 per cent delivered actual results better than or in
line with guidance. The number of entities revising guidance
during the year also declined.

Transfield Services, Watpac and Mastermyne Group were able to at
least meet expectations over both years.

"Evident in these companies was a reported focus on project
governance and controls and an understanding of how strategic and
restructuring initiatives translated into revenue and earnings.''

In the usually earnings-reliable utility sector, 75 per cent of
companies braved guidance. Despite plunging energy demand and
regulatory changes, 89 per cent met or exceeded forecasts.  AGL,
Duet and Envestra exceeded targets over three successive years.

According to the ASX's continuous disclosure rules, earnings
guidance "must have a reasonable basis in fact or else it will be
deemed to be misleading".


                              *********

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  * * *